Quantcast

Comments about ‘President Obama lobbying lawmakers on Syria from overseas’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Sept. 5 2013 12:12 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JimInSLC
Salt Lake City, UT

According to Putin, russian investigations have determined that the gas attack was carried out by the rebels. This claim may, or may not, be true. But Obama administration has not presented any evidence that Assad is the guilty party, only that there was a gas attack and the assumption that the rebels did not have the know-how to do it. Now John Kerry tells us that Arab States are willing to pay for the monetary costs of the strike. This is looking very bad. Congress needs to put their foot down and educate Obama on just what authority the president is granted in the constitution. Sen. Lee and all other senators that will not vote to approve this strike should be commended for representing the people of the US. The vast majority of Americans want the US to stay out of this Syria mess. I fear that this is going to end very badly.

This gassing is an atrocity, but the World/UN must judge and punish those responsible, not the US.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

President Obama has a dubious history of saying one thing and then doing another. Based on that history, it's understandable why so many in Congress and in the general population no longer trust him.

It's a legitimate concern that once he gets the door open with congressional approval, this could very much escalate into something much more than anyone wants. It's easy to rationalize a deeper involvement each time atrocious pictures of victims are seen.

At some point, we have to acknowledge that the USA is only 5% of the world's population and that we can't always be responsible for policing and maintaining our principles on the other 95%. Other parts of the world also need to step up when needed instead of always acquiescing to the United States, which we've allowed thus far.

Though not the primary concern, it's still a fact that the involvement Obama is asking for is very expensive. And our country is already technically bankrupt... owing much more than we're currently able to pay back.

Also, as mentioned, involvement now will make it much more difficult for public support to deal with a nuclear Iran when genuinely needed.

scott
Alpine, UT

Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to articulate a clear objective for launching a military strike against Syria.

With the military budget already stretched paper thin, why should we waste hundreds of millions lobbing missiles into Syria just to "send a message"?

How will "sending a message" prevent further chemical weapons attacks?

What's the plan if Syria or Iran decides to retaliate by attacking Israel?

What's the end objective? Removal of Assad? To be replaced by whom, Al Quaida terrorists?

David
Centerville, UT

What has Obama done in the past that would cause Congress, or citizens, to believe what he is telling us? Obamacare will decrease premiums, no increased taxes on the middle class, there has been no spying on American citizens, the IRS targeting of conservative groups was done by a rogue branch...to name just a few of his statement that were later proven false, or he simply did the opposite. There are many more examples!

So why should anyone believe him now? Who really believes that US military action in Syria will be limited to 90 days, with no US boots on the ground? And does Obama really care about the chemical weapons anyway? Or is this simply a red herring? Why wasn't he worried about Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his own people?

David
Centerville, UT

But, if the US is going to intervene in Syria, why are we showing our hand to the enemy? Why are we restricting our military? Didn't we learn our lesson from Vietnam?

Obama seems so incapable of the presidency. It seems that incompetence is exhibited on every level.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

There are a lot of doves making comments and supporting atrocities by dictators. Is the next step, who needs a Military if we are afraid to use it?

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Its impossible to fake being tough Mr. President!

JWB
Kaysville, UT

The KGB gives us credible evidence that the Boston Marathon bomber is a bad guy six months prior to the attack and we do nothing from any of the agencies that got that information. This President goes around the world after his first election bad-mouthing our country and leaders that served us diligently from the President and Congress on down. The First Lady says she is proud for the first time in her life about being an American after he is elected.

Then they are now going to the international scene trying to use John Kerry, the protester of all protester against our military, almost ever, and have him called a liar by the KGB and President of Russia. The President never mentions the International Agency responsible for the Chemical Weapons Convention and our extremely high funding of that organization and treaty that would back up what was found in Syria.

He says "I, I, I" in everything. We are a country and he is supposed to be speaking about us, us, and us. He could even use US, US, and US as in USA but he keeps on touting, I except when it comes to Benghazi.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

The military is for protecting our country and our citizens who are citizens of the best country in the world.

It is not for being used. Our Constitution of the United States of America doesn't discuss "using" the military for purposes other than protecting our nation and citizens. We tried to avoid going into WWI and WWII militarily. The direct attack at Pearl Harbor was pointed at the military there after we had done almost everything we could to avoid the war.

The military has been used and the terrorists and threats from countries is still there. Our country's leaders from the President, Secretary of State and our Secretary of Defense are dividing our country while trying to get support from leaders who don't believe as we do. They don't have a country that was established for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our civil war came down to keeping our country a nation with all states part of that decree. The Constitution was at risk not the public poll for President Lincoln. He understood the big picture of what that strife meant to our country.

He used his political rivals to keep our Constitution.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Yes - Mr Obama gives inspirational speech rallying the rest of the world to join him with his red line commitment and looks who is lining up...

France
.
.

Ok so all there is is France and even France is wobbly as to their actual commitment but ... you know when Barack speaks the world listens ...right?? Isn't that how it was always supposed to work? No one respects Barack Obama internationally and even less trust the man's judgement. After 5 years of mis-steps and mis-speaks and leading from way way behind Barack is nothing but a little insignificant man that has less respect than the UN.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

I think too this Syrian issue has finally separated the Republican party for good. You have purple progressives like McCain and Karl Rove and others who want to start yet another war in the middle east ...and then you have the newly elected conservatives (Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul) who came in during 2010 and have followed through on their pledge to be true conservatives that actually represent their states and not the Washington good ole boys establishment. These conservatives have all stood their ground - listened to the people who elected them - and said NO to another war...especially a war where there are no US interests at all. I suspect the GOP will continue to split apart and perhaps a new party - the Conservative party - is born. America needs BOLD colors and not pale pastels. Hmmm - who said that anyway? Reagan would be ashamed of the GOP today who have become progressives in every sense of the word.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

How is it that the Obama administration has "All the Facts" about Assad and his use of chemical weapons, but is still investigating, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, NSA, ect.
Even conservative pundits are believing that there is no doubt about Assad using the WMD. I might remind them and all others that we knew for sure that Saddam in Iraq had them too. And what about the possiblity that some chemical weapons have fallen into the hands of the dozens of insurgent forces fighting Assad. So many questions to be answered. Will Obama make a "believable" case to the country? Since I don't trust him with the truth about the aformentioned things like Benghazi, I won't trust him on this one. Sorry, Mr. President, but you have no credibility to take this country to war. Blame it on Bush if you want. That's your usual way out. That and your fawning media to cover for you.

to comment

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