Comments about ‘Michael Gerson: Does Obama have what it takes to push best scenario in Syria?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 28 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Agreed.

I still think Assad did not use chemical weapons.
What would he gain from it, other than the wrath of the world?

On the other hand,
What would the rebels gain?
The support of the United States and it's military AGAINST Assad?

BTW - What ever happened to Saddam Hussein's WMDs?

Imagine Syrian rebels using chemical WMDs - produced by the United States, sold to Iraq, and smuggled into Damascus before the U.S. invasion? The perfect black-mail.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

It must be very confusing to be a Democrat. Only a few years ago when Saddam Hussein gassed his own people (Kurds) and President Bush stopped him, Democrats were hyperventilating about "Bush's unjust war". and missing WMDs. And now we have Democrats hyperventilating again only this time about yet another dictator gassing his own people again and now we must stop him on moral grounds? Do you Democrats realize that its Al Qaeda fighting against the Syrian government that you want to help and protect? Do you remember 9/11 and do you remember Benghazi? Do you know it was Al Qaeda who did those and many other attacks on America? You Democrats are so very confused!

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

does BO have what it takes?

no

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Yes, I think so. But he also knows he must be cautious. This is a quagmire which is very easy to get drawn too far into.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Mountanman said:
"It must be very confusing to be a Democrat. Only a few years ago when Saddam Hussein gassed his own people (Kurds) and President Bush stopped him, Democrats were hyperventilating about "Bush's unjust war". and missing WMDs. "

Talk about confused. A few years? It was 1988, How did President Bush Stop an event that took place 12 years before he even claimed WMD were in Iraq (which he thought were their because Reagan/Bush sold them to Sadamm).
Saying it was Al Qaeda doesn't make it so, anymore than when the Cheney Admin. claimed Al Qaeda was in Iraq before bush started that war.

He's got what it takes!
He got Osama when Bush stopped looking for him in favor of his Iraq private bid contracts.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

HA!!! Does Barack have what it takes? What do you think? The man has a spine made of cream cheese. Enough said.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
Except in this situation there's an active slaughter, active use of WMDs, we're looking at a Libya type attack, not a full scale ground invasion. Oh and you really can't put the flip label (flip-flop involves going back and forth, one change in position isn't a flip-flop) on Democrats when all you Republicans are suddenly averse to something that is less extreme than you previously supported.

"Do you Democrats realize that its Al Qaeda fighting against the Syrian government that you want to help and protect? "

The Al-Qaida affiliated Al-Nusra front is a portion of the rebel forces, not the entirety or majority of it.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
And by the way... there's 9% support nationwide... most liberals oppose this intervention too.

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA

If the US does decide to go into Syria, the cannot go in to help the rebels. Nor can they go in to help the Syrian government. Both sides are evil. If the US goes in, the only just thing to do will be to fight both the Syrian government and the rebels.

To "Happy Valley Heretic" Obama was only able to get Bin Laden because of waterboarding, which he promised to end.

You also forget that Obama has a history of backing the wrong people. He backed the Al Qaeda supported rebels in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and domestically he has consistantly backed the wrong people.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

REdshirt said: Obama was only able to get Bin Laden because of waterboarding,

"Senator John McCain, citing CIA Director Leon Panetta, said that the assertion that waterboarding produced information that found Osama Bin Laden is false; all the useful leads were "obtained through standard, noncoercive means."

The CIA later provided the Washington Post a letter from CIA Director Panetta to Senator McCain that confirms that enhanced interrogation techniques did not help and may have hindered the search for Bin Laden by producing false information during interrogations. In the letter, Panetta wrote Senator McCain that we first learned about the facilitator/courier's nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier's role were alerting. In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier's full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.

Sorry Redshirt but your radio has misled you yet again.

Mr. Bean
Pheonix, AZ

The solution for Obama is simple... he can't aid either side in Syria. Not Assad and not the Al Qaeda rebels. So, Obama, just admit the mistake in threatening Assad, put his missiles away, and proceed back into the Oval office.

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA

To "Happy Valley Heretic" How do you know that Panetta wasn't lying to McCain. In a May 3, 2011 interview on the Today show Panetta said that it was waterbording that lead the US to Bin Laden. Panetta again reasserted his claim that waterbording helped get needed information on an interview on Meet the Press on February 3, 2013.

Representative Peter King (House Homeland Security Committee) said "The road to bin Laden began with waterboarding..."

So, who is right? Which politician do you believe, and which day was Panetta telling the truth?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Bush = 100,000 dead Iraqis, 5,000 dead Americans, 75,000 wounded, $Trillions - No Osama Bin Laden

Obama = 1 helicopter, No U.S. causalities, and Osama Bin Laden is dead, period.

I like Obama and his handling of being Commander-in-Chief better than Bush/Cheney.

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA

To "LDS Liberal" Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq.

How about this one.

Bush took out 2 governments who were oppressing their people. In the case of Sadam, he was killing them. In both countries Bush was fighting against Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization with the explicit goal of taking down Western civilization.

Obama has now helped Al Qaeda in Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, both are terrorist organizations. He is proposing going into Syria and helping Al Qaeda again.

How is supporting terrorist organizations better than attacking them?

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

LDS Liberal

Yeah, Obama got Osama. Killed him.

Notice any difference in the world?

I don't.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

LDS Liberal,
I hope you realize that there have already been more US Troop deaths during the Obama Administration than there were in the full 2 terms Bush served. Look it up.

You have such a one-track mind, and such a hate for Bush/Cheney that it seems to blind you to anything that goes on during the Obama Administration.

Neanderthal
Pheonix, AZ

@LDS Liberal:
"I like Obama and his handling of being Commander-in-Chief better than Bush/Cheney."

Bush/Cheney were after Hussein* in Iraq, not Osama. Keep that in mind.

LDS Liberal, you should convert to conservatism to improve your analytical capacities.

*(Very popular name among Muslims.)

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

LDS Liberal,
Some things to think about to temper your rampant partisanship...

1. Osama BinLaden isn't in Syria. Syria hasn't attacked the USA. Syria has no WMDs (other than chemical and bio-weapons which Hussein also had AND used on his people). So are you going to be as hard on Obama IF he attacks Syria as you were on Bush/Cheney?

You criticized Bush for "unilateral" action, and yet... Bush had an International Coalition each time he took military action (Obama said he's willing to go it alone) Hint, that's the definition of "UNI-lateral". Bush got approval from Congress BEFORE any military action (Obama said he doesn't intend to make his case to Congress). Bush had 17 authorizations from the UN BEFORE taking action in Iraq (Obama doesn't even intend to present his case to the UN).

Same thing storhy other counties that never attacked the US that Obama has militarily attacked which we weren't at war with when he took office.. (Pakistan, Libya, Sudan, etc). You seem blind to those today, but you were all over Bush.

Bush doesn't look so bad today (when compared with Obama). Does he?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments