Back Obama on Syria Strike, Despite Opposition

Christopher Ruddy's Perspective: Usually I write an article and then, in summation, offer the “bottom line” – the call to action.

So here is that bottom line to start: Congress should back President Obama’s plan to strike Syria.

But I offer one caveat. When the commander in chief speaks to the nation on Tuesday, he needs to offer clear and compelling evidence that the Assad regime, and no one else, used chemical weapons.

Polls show overwhelming opposition to the military strike. I believe a key reason for this is that the administration has not offered a smoking gun for the public, evidence that the Assad regime indeed used such weapons of mass destruction.

The president should follow the example of President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, President Kennedy addressed the nation, showing photographic evidence of Russian missiles just 90 miles from our shores – informing the Soviets they had crossed a red line unacceptable to the United States. The Russians had to remove the missiles and stop delivery of missiles, even if it meant war.

Urgent: Should U.S. Strike Syria? Vote Here

If President Obama can draw a page from President Kennedy in persuading the American people by offering solid evidence, he then deserves the legal authority to strike Syria in a punitive action.

Now that you know the bottom line, I might add some more positives about Obama’s policies.

First, he has established a “red line” that America will not tolerate nations using weapons of mass destruction.

One reason Iran is backing Syria and their use of such weapons, is that they know that if the West, especially the U.S., turns a blind eye to this atrocity in Syria, Iran’s own nuclear weapons program will be that much more accepted.

The Syria vote, in the end, is a vote about our resolve in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Another reason the president deserves praise is that he has sought a Congressional vote on the military authorization. Frankly, I believe a limited military engagement by Obama, in consultation with Congress, would have been completely legal without a formal vote. Still, it is high minded that he has sought Congressional approval.

I realize it is not popular to support President Obama and a strike on Syria.

But when I founded Newsmax back in 1998, I did so on the basis this media enterprise would always support the sovereignty and security of our nation.

Since then, we have had differences with both President Bush’s and President Obama’s policies, but the security of the nation remains paramount.

In the past I have written the U.S. needs to think twice about overthrowing Assad. He is a menace and evil. But what comes after him?

If Assad has used WMDs on his population, then we need to take the lead in condemning and punishing his regime – even if the world won’t stand with us and we do it alone.

We are racing toward a world where the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will become omnipresent. These horrific weapons are often inexpensive and easy to deploy. It is easy to conceive that they will be used against Americans someday on our own soil.

I applaud any president that sets a high bar in opposing the use of such weapons anywhere on the planet.

There have been many mistakes made in the war on terror. But it is not a mistake to vigorously respond to groups and nations that use weapons of mass destruction.

We have become callous to cyber war, as our computers are under siege from hackers in China and in other nations. We never set a red line and every day we pay a price, seeing their dark work on computer systems.

The use of chemical weapons by Syria raises the danger to a new level.

Congress is justified in granting the president limited authority in punishing Syria for using such weapons within a narrow time frame.

Christopher Ruddy is CEO and editor of Newsmax Media Inc. Read more Christopher Ruddy Insider articles — Click Here Now.