U.S. lawmakers are calling on the Obama administration to ratchet up pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, with one prominent senator urging the president to put military force on the table as the regime launches an all-out assault on protesters.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said in an interview over the weekend that Assad's actions are now "indistinguishable" from Muammar al-Qaddafi's, the Libyan leader whose threats and attacks against his own people triggered NATO's military campaign against his regime.

Hundreds are now dead in Syria, and brutal new video has emerged purporting to show Syrian soldiers beating protesters. A military campaign in the northern part of the country sent civilians fleeing by the thousands to a refugee camp in Turkey.

"It's wholesale slaughter now," Graham, R-S.C., said. "The reason we went into Libya is to protect the Libyan people from wholesale slaughter. When they protested, Qaddafi started killing them in the streets. He took his army, turned them on his own people. That's exactly what's happening in Syria."

But U.S. officials and analysts have warned, despite the similarities in their brutality, Syria and Libya are very different. Qaddafi was already relatively isolated before he started attacking his own people, whereas Assad's regime is far more entrenched in the region and its politics.


Importantly, an international coalition quickly assembled to enforce the United Nations resolution against Libya. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday implicitly cited the absence of such a coalition as he tried to explain why no nation has stepped forward to stop Assad.

"There are different circumstances," Carney told reporters. "We had a United Nations mandate (with Libya). We had a broad coalition that was eager to participate in a mission that was designed to prevent the immediate carnage that would have taken place in Benghazi, to protect civilians from the grave danger presented by Qaddafi's forces, to enforce an arms embargo and to enforce a no-fly zone."

Still, Carney reiterated that President Obama is calling on Assad to "cease the violence" and condemns Assad's actions "in the strongest possible terms."

"The president has made clear that President Assad needs to engage in political dialogue, that the transition there needs to take place towards more political freedom, and that if President Assad does not lead that transition then he should step aside," he said.

The U.S. and its allies are pursuing other ways to apply pressure to the regime. After pushing sanctions of its own, the U.S. is backing a U.N. Security Council resolution pushed by European nations that condemns the crackdown. The U.S. also successfully urged the International Atomic Energy Agency to report the country to the Security Council over its nuclear program.

Graham -- along with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Bob Casey, D-Pa.; and Marco Rubio, R-Fla. -- applauded the administration over the weekend for the IAEA decision, claiming it puts needed pressure on Assad.

However, given the military response of Assad against the protesters, they said, "the response of the United States and the international community has not been commensurate with the evils taking place in Syria."

They urged Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to publicly call for him to step down, and they said other measures should be considered, like expelling Assad's U.S. ambassador.

Graham, on CBS' "Face the Nation," also recommended an international aid effort for the Syrian people -- and more regional cooperation overall, while keeping military force on the table.

But with the U.S. expected to spend more than $800 million by September on Libya and Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly criticizing NATO partners for not doing enough, there may be little appetite in Washington for opening up another military front for America's stretched forces.

The House of Representatives earlier this month chided Obama for his handling of the Libya operation, and the Senate is considering doing the same.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff for the Army and a Fox News military analyst, said the military option should be on the table but that the U.S. can apply pressure elsewhere to "isolate" the Assad regime.

"They have business interests around the world. There's ... lots of pressure we can bring to bear," he said. "It would not change the immediate behavior of the Assad family in terms of preserving the regime, but it would create fractures and fissures in those that are supporting them."

Keane said authoritarian regimes in the Middle East have drawn a dangerous lesson from the turmoil in the region -- in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak succumbed to protesters' demands and resigned; in Libya, Qaddafi sought to "clear the streets at all costs," he said.

"Obviously, Mubarak fell. They look at that and say to themselves, 'clear the street at all costs.'" Keane said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/13/lawmakers-call-for-increased-pressure-on-syria-as-crackdown-escalates/#ixzz1PDYXZ4eB

I hope so! We can cut the Axis of Evil off at the head. The diplomat should have been expelled the day the massacres started.

We need to line Iran and North Korea up after that and then were set.

Of course you would react like that, until your precious Obama gave the ok.

Yeah cause what we need is more war.......

What you don't realize, is all this is just more manipulation from the elite. They always benefit, politically and financially from war. Follow the money people.....

Oh boy, here we go with conspiracy's again. Next we know you'll be saying Builderburg is behind all of this...........

The Bilderberg group is a topic all to itself. I suggest you educate yourself.

These wars are never gonna stop. So long as they have something to gain from it, they'll find ways to fight them and twist our arms so that we get involved in them.

Just look at how long we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has the "terror" stopped? Nope, not a chance. We are all being played, and have been for a long long time.

I know all about Builderburg and what they actually do, not the conspiracy's everyone tries to put out there.

Nope, but it sure has decreased. Not to mention there hasn't been a major repeat of 9/11 or the Embassy Bombings or the USS Cole Bombing since then.

First of all, learn to spell it's Bilderberg. Secondly, what is it you think they do then? And if it wasn't so sinister, why is it such a big secret meeting for?

Has it decreased? Every so often, you'll hear threats of this or threats of that, or you'll have a case like the shoe bomber, or the underwear bomber. And what happens in every single case? More and more restrictions on our rights to both freedom and privacy. Coincidence? I think not.

All is not what it appears to be....

But hey, we can stimulate our economy selling weapons to both sides!

Spelling police is out in full force tonight. BTW dont make personal attacks in the forums, it just shows you lost the conversation.

Just because it's secret doesn't mean it's a big conspiracy. It is nothing more then a social club for Business Leaders and movers and shakers to converse freely without being scrutinized for every little comment.

BTW a One World Government will never happen or would never work. Anyone who understands history knows that.

Typical war pigs. Can't even finish one illegal "war" (invasion) before itching for another. I wonder if the author of OP is invested in arms suppliers for the government.

We are not involved in any illegal war. No matter how much I hate Obama, Libya actions were not illegal and I fully support his actions there, and hope there is more done to get the terrorist Quaddafi out.

I am sick of all this war is illegal BS. None of the ones we are in or have been are illegal or world leaders would be in prison.

I also have a hunch the lawyers and advisors that people like President Bush and Obama use know the laws a lot better then you or I do.

Not all war is illegal. A legal war must be declared by congress. For example, WWII was legal (though stupid and unnecessary). Open up a copy of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and turn off the propaganda outlets you've been consuming information from-I see you are rusty on your civics.

Sorry I don't have much tolerance for that type of thing sometimes, especially when you can look it up easily.

With all due respect, you are very naive. You have a lot to learn about the way this country and world works, here's a hint, it's not what you think.

As for the one world government, what makes you so sure? What do you base it on? Even if it didn't work, doesn't mean they won't and aren't trying.

Once again, you are being naive. There's a very good reason that these people aren't in prison, and it's very simple, THEY'RE ALL IN ON IT.

One thing you do have right though, they do know the laws more than we do, and more to the point the law enforcers. It's why they can skirt any law they want and get away with it (read: income taxes), but we can't. They're held to an entirely different standard.