Quantcast
U.S. & World

President Obama seeking congressional OK for Syria action

Comments

Return To Article
  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Sept. 3, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    @ ThornBirds - St.George, Utah - "If he had said he would not consult with Congress, you anti-Obama folks would have flipped out. But, true to form, you all flipped out anyway....."

    ThornBirds -

    You DO realize that you did not answer my question, right?

    Why was it wrong for Bush to go to war with Iraq when no national interests are at stake but right for Obama to go to war with Syria when no national interests?

    Yes, that is THE ultimate question and you and every other liberal on here have yet to answer it.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 2, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    The answer to Obama's dilemma is simply simple...

    Just tell Assad: "That's once." "Do it again and... and... I won't let John Kerry, Joe Biden, or Hilary Clinton dine with you ever again."

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 2, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    @A Guy With A Brain:
    "Bush, the vast majority or American intelligence as well as the vast majority of the intelligence agencies in the civilized world (and, yes, even the majority of Democrat elected-leaders on the national stage.....go look it up) thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction..."

    And Iraq did have WMD's (chemical)... and Iraq's Hussein shipped them to Syria when UN inspectors showed up. And the guy in Syria used them on his civilians. Now Barack Hussein Obama wants to bomb Syria for using Iraq's WMD. Go figure.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Sept. 2, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    @MapleDon:
    "The FACT is that Obama, like in most everything else he does, will act on his own--regardless of Congress."

    Not in this case. In this case Obama is between an rock and a hard place and would like to pass the decision to someone else... i.e., the US Congress. But, as Commander-in-Chief he doesn't need approval from another government branch. He knows he will get criticized whether he hits Syria or if he decides against it.

    The guy made a dumb mistake when he drew the red line in the sand over Syria's use of chemical weapons.

  • Cougar11 Highland, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 11:15 p.m.

    I'm praying that we don't get involved in this civil war. If genocide is being committed then I believe morally we have to intervene. We cannot and should not intervene in every civil war going on in the world. I think it is appalling if chemical weapons were used and 350 people were killed. I hope the people rise up and take their country. However, there have been thousands killed on both sides thus far and we haven't done a thing in this fight or in many others in Africa where several thousands of people have been butchered. Policing the world is difficult and should be done only in the most extreme circumstances. People need to fight for their freedom; we can't come in to every fight where governments oppress their people. I would not want my son or daughter to risk their lives for Syria. I don't want any others to lose their children for the Syrians. They could care less if our country burned to the ground. This is not the right fight or the right place. Stand down.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 1, 2013 10:53 p.m.

    badgerbadger, yes the Kurds were gassed, in 1988 at the end of the Iraq Iran war, 15 years before GWB invaded. Fifteen years later..all gone. Context is everything.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 1, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    Hmm?

    Bomb Syria for bombing Syria.

    Using videos of people killed by chemical weapons ten years ago in Iraq.

    What's Obama up to?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 6:57 p.m.

    About Furry 1993

    First he/she says there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, despite the fact that the Kurds were repeated bombed by Iraq with chemical weapons. (The same weapon of mass destruction used in Syria)

    Then he/she insinuates that the Iraq war was waged on executive order. Not so!

    Check your history books. Congress passed the Iraq resolution by a wide margin. The Iraq war was not by executive order. And the president of that day did NOT claim he had the right to take the country to war without congressional approval.

    Obama, on the other hand, blatantly stated he could send the military in by executive order.

    So when looking for the truth of the matter, I would suggest you skip the posts by those so blind to the truth, that they openly lie, and misrepresent history, to try to save the face of the party that gives them their freebies, and its leader.

    It would be so nice if people could be an Americans first and democrats second.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger 1:40 p.m. Aug. 31, 2013

    So if congress and the people say no, then what?

    Another executive order, I am sure. The king already said he has the authority to do it without them.

    ---------------

    What an excellent indictment of President Cheney and King George! That's exactly what they did.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Sept. 1, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    Scientist -

    You should watch something other than MSNBC and Bill Maher for your news and analysis, lies and spin.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    Scientist

    You don't know what Romney would have done any more than you know the exact temperature it will be in Omaha Nebraska at 3pm on Valentine's day next year.

    Talk about a narrow minded unscientific statement, totally driven by partisan hate.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    Obama may or may not be handling the situation in Syria well.

    But one thing's for sure, if we had Romney in the Whitehouse, he would have rushed in and bombed Syria as soon as any leader in Israel had a case of heartburn!

    Romney = war monger and Military Industrial Complex puppet.

    I thank the American People for Obama in the Executive office.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    @A Guy with a Brain
    "Why was it wrong for Bush to go to war in Iraq but OK for Obama to go to war in Syria?"

    An active slaughter is going on and there are UN treaties against the use of chemical weapons. Plus we'd be doing limited airstrikes not a full scale war with ground troops. It's a completely different situation.

    Also, only 25% support intervention and they aren't all liberals. Most liberals oppose intervening in Syria.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    @ Furry "ARE WMDs being used in Syria right now" "George and Dick were dealing with an I wish there were WMDS" Lets see another guy named Hussein used WMDs on the Kurds. The U.S. had sold that same Hussein those same WMDs when he was at war with Iran. Of course a one sided memory is nice to have in your case. And just maybe these are the same WMDs that are now being used that was thought to have been moved to Syria prior to the invasion. Try and be a little more objective and less hypocritical

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 1, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    The problem here is the hypocrisy of the republican party. As has become the norm for the last five years, every world event becomes an opportunity to try and score political points. This philosophy of governing is destructive to the country. Could the republicans just one time maybe look at any issue and try to make a decision based on whats good for America and the world, not what they think is good for the next election cycle. It would be nice if we could be Americans first and republicans second.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    @ Uncle Rico, "Buddy, are you caught up in the FOX, CNN, MSNBC trap? Hours of your life wasting away."

    You think obsessing over network news is disruptive and a waste of time. What about our DN opinion comments? Talk about spitting into the wind and other useless endeavors.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    I have to say that I find it disgusting watching John Kerry on TV today making the case for war, when so recently he was calling the American Military "Murderers" in Iraq and Vietnam (in his efforts to do ANYTHING to bring the Bush Presidency down).

    I WISH the left's base was as vocal against war today as they are when there's a Republican President. Where is Sandy Sheehan today? Why is she not camping outside the President's house protesting war today? I think it shows that most of these protests were motivated more by politics than they were anti-war protests. Otherwise they would continue protesting even after the election.

    We have seen Congress pull together (when America is being threatened). We will see if Congress thinks America is under attack today and this military action would bring more good than it will bad. It COULD make things worse for American interests in the middle-east and around the world.

    We also need to make sure the intel is 100% (if we have learned anything).

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    Personally I think it's great the Obama has changed course and decided to consult Congress. I think it shows that the President realizes he does not act alone when he sends our military into action, and that he realizes that America is stronger when we stand together.

    It will be interesting to see how Congress responds. They could continue the current partisan bickering and party-line voting... or this could shake them out of their political cocoons and get them to really consider a real decision that will result in the loss of life in Syria (and eventually possibly American lives in Syria depending on how the Assad regime responds long term).

    Remember... our involvement in Iraq started with a narrow response to Hussein's atrocities (decades before Bush/Cheney) leaving Hussein in power. So there's a very good chance that a limited response in Syria in the coming weeks will NOT be the end, but actually the beginning of a much larger conflict.

    We can only pray that leaders of nations find a better way.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    Sept. 1, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Nothing can undo what happened and this is the right action. Wish we had taken this course with Iraq.

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    This president never does anything without assessing the political gain. His base is not any more thrilled with the idea of another war in the middle east than the conservative right are. He finally figured out that if he goes all Rambo on Syria, it will cost the Dems seats in Congress in 2014. He accidentally did something that united both sides. Neither want another useless war. By seeking Congressional approval, he and the Dems will have someone to blame when the whole middle east situation worsens. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    Funny -- one thing the Obama-haters are refusing to recognize. Unlike with Iraq in 2003, there actually ARE WMDs being used in Syria right now. President Obama is dealing with a real world certainty. George and Dick were dealing with an "I wish there were WMDS so I have an excuse to invade Iraq" in 2003.

    I don't like, or agree with, things that President Obama has done. I do for this one -- he is right to get Congressional approval. Well done, President Obama.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 1, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    Elcapitan..as the water rises? One doesn't have to defend the proposed action to realize that the Armageddon predictions and comparisons to Bush's wars are ridiculous. It's this foolish pattern of every time Fox news invents a new scandal the world is coming to an end, or at least we now have proof positive that Obama is the worst (anything and everything) ever, that makes the entire right just plain foolish.

    Benghazi was the worst political scandal in American history despite it just being one of 13 such attacks in the last ten years. The IRS scandal, oh my, now we know Obama cheated and bought people off, until the manager stepped forward and said no it was me. Now, yes the water is rising.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    Now-now-now boys and girls. Let's put you all in the President's seat and see how you deal with the totally out-of-control Middle East. It's easy to sit our here in Utah and pretend that we know exactly the right thing to do with these complex situations. With Washington as dysfunctional as it is (in general and especially the Congress)what else should we expect? If you think someone like Mitt Romney would handle things any better, provide some good evidence for that please. Lets get our Congress functioning better first, then we can criticize the oval office more prudently.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 4:55 a.m.

    It is obviously difficult to spin this one against the President. There are many futile desperate attempts above. Is the tea party house going to vote to abandon the traditional role of the United States to continue or vote to get on the Hannity show?

  • LeDoc SLC, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 2:22 a.m.

    It seems it's always fashionable in Utah to blast the POTUS, call him the king, messiah what have you. The fact is there is a LONG standing precedent of the US Commander in Chief taking military action w/o congressional approval. I'm not for war but all the rhetoric without a historical grip gets old too. It's easy enough to find the history of these actions. Most won't bother to look though. It would be nice though if we could stop wasting trillions of dollars and priceless lives waging war.We could try feeding people instead of bombing them; what a concept.

  • Blue Bolshevik Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2013 1:51 a.m.

    We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, said Obama never.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Aug. 31, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    George W. Obama

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    When will we ever learn to distrust smooth talking politicians. Obama is a ship without a rudder.He continues to reverse himself eventually on every issue. I warned my children and grand kids about voting for him, now they quietly realize what they have done as the water rises..

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 7:59 p.m.

    "Nice that I don't have to watch the garbage 'News" waste my time, and borrow opinions from professional "Newsmakers""

    You don't waste your time getting your news from professional news makers, so you get your news from . . . Where? Wait, what?

    Oh by the way, Rico, I get my news from a wide variety of sources. You ought to try it.

    SCFan: "Yeah, it's pretty tough defending Obama isn't it?"

    I wasn't defending Obama (he doesn't need defending, he has made a great decision). I was making fun of conservatives. Yeah, I know, that whole reading comprehension thing. . .

    Oh, by the way, I didn't misunderstand Krauthammer's point at all.

    It is going to be fun watching conservatives and Republicans twisting themselves into knots trying to blame Obama while at the same time having to make a decision on Syria. Good luck, House Republicans. Do we let nations get away with using WMD's or not? The balls in your court. Have fun.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Aug. 31, 2013 7:25 p.m.

    I would be more impressed with Mike R.'s comments if there existed some record somewhere confirming his compassion for Iraqis before or after "Shock and Awe".

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 31, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    What our liberal friends seem to ignore is that Obama DID. Meet with. congress and that Congress told him that if he did use the War Powers Act to justify killing Syrians, that Congress would use its power to close the "purse strings" and shut off all funding of "Obama's War".

    Does anyone really think that after all the "saber rattling" that Obama has been part of, that Obama would not have used the military to kill Syrians? Drones can't tell whether you're on "our side" or whether you are on the enemy's side. Does Obama care? Would anyone who authorized sending drone missiles care?

    There are about 1,500 dead because of chemical weapons. How many people was Obama willing to sacrifice to prove his point? Could he guarantee that no children, no mothers, no innocent civilians would become"collateral damage"?

    What do his actions tell us? Where is his compassion for human life?

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    @Mark

    Buddy, are you caught up in the FOX, CNN, MSNBC trap? Hours of your life wasting away. I'm not, just say what I believe based on my opinion. Nice that I don't have to watch the garbage 'News" waste my time, and borrow opinions from professional "Newsmakers"

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    What to do in Syria? But can the right leaning Republican Congressmen be trusted to make an informed and reasoned decision truly in the best interests of America? Or will they as usual resort to ideology or whatever makes Obama look bad to decide?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 31, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    Ok my conservative friend, Guy with a Brain, just who are the liberals on this thread that are saying we should "go to war" with Syria. If you check back the liberals, pretty much to a person here have been against the action. I guess when your blinded with ideology you'll miss that though.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    mark

    Yeah, it's pretty tough defending Obama isn't it? Making nonsense comments and then mis-understanding Krauthammers point. I realize you Obama defenders have so little to work with. Why not just abandon ship and admit that Obama is the biggest mistake ever to be elected President? I mean I know Bush and Clinton were not great, but Obama is beginning to make them look like Mt. Rushmore material.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    Aug. 31, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    If he had said he would not consult with Congress, you anti-Obama folks would have flipped out.
    But, true to form, you all flipped out anyway.
    Most likely he also consults with the Almighty. But, again, you would find some problem with that.
    If nothing else, you are consistent.

  • prelax Murray, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    Unless a majority of countries are with us, we need to back off. Under the war powers act, congress should not give him permission.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Aug. 31, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    Barack Obama is an empty suit and the ultimate paper tiger. Assad fears Obama like a newborn puppy dog. Obama has zero leadership skills - all he knows is how to agitate and divide people. Worst U.S.President ever.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    You conservatives are beautiful.

    Conservatives: Obama can't do this on his own, he needs to ask congress, who does he think he is?

    Obama: I am going to ask congress.

    Conservatives: Obama can't make a decision, why doesn't he do what needs to be done, he's covering his back.

    Obama: the sky is blue

    Conservatives: who does he think he is, the sky is purple. Obama is a tyrant.

    You guys are beautiful. I was watching FOX "news" just after the announcement that Obama would seek congressional approval. Krauthammer was on there, you know, the conservative pundit, he was going off on what a terrible decision this was, all the while saying that he thought the president needed to seek congressional approval. I kid you not. He was complaining that Obama was going to ask for congresional approval, and then he said he thinks Obama should seek congresional approval. Beautiful.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    So if congress and the people say no, then what?

    Another executive order, I am sure. The king already said he has the authority to do it without them.

    Jim and Don - You make great points!

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Aug. 31, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    OK, my liberal 'friends'.....

    Please tell me this:

    Why was it wrong for Bush to go to war in Iraq but OK for Obama to go to war in Syria?

    And, please, don't use the excuse that our national interests are at stake in Syria.

    Yes, Bush, the vast majority or American intelligence as well as the vast majority of the intelligence agencies in the civilized world (and, yes, even the majority of Democrat elected-leaders on the national stage.....go look it up) thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that justification was used to declare war on Iraq. That later proved to be incorrect information. And you liberals absolutely hammered Bush for that. My point in bringing this up was that America's national interests were N-O-T at stake and liberals screamed bloody murder that the war was not justified.

    And now?

    Our national interests are not at stake in this conflict, either.

    So, please, by all means, try to tell me and other conservatives on here how Obama is justified in this war.

    I wait with eagerness....

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    Obama is asking congress because he cannot make the decision himself and needs congress to share the blame if it does nor bode well. Obama has never cared what congress thought in the past, just a way to cover his behind.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    Thanks Deseret News for giving the impression that this president doesn't act on his own. That's called deception.

    The FACT is that Obama, like in most everything else he does, will act on his own--regardless of Congress. And in the case of Syria, he stated that he will act on his own...without Congress's approval.

    Obama once accused President Bush (in 2007) of using war as a means of diverting attention away from problems at home. Given the recent WH scandals, isn't it possible that Obama is doing the same? And of course the Deseret News, along with other national press, is happy to oblige in sweeping all scandals under the rug.

    I'm trying to figure out why the Deseret News won't call him out on it. What are you afraid of?

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 31, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Obama can kill hundreds of children with drone strikes, but when someone else does it they must be punished. To send a message? What message would that be? Obama can do it, all others will be prosecuted!

    I agree that the responsible people should be held to account for these murders. But before Obama becomes judge and executioner, he should be required to show the evidence.

    Al-Queda is supposedly the terrorist threat to the US. Obama will essentially be aiding the terrorists by bombing Syria. Isn't aiding the enemy a criminal offense. Isn't that why Pvt. Manning is serving a prison sentence now?