It is the people of a country who actually fight and die in wars, not their
leaders who, on the loosing side may take "the drop" on a rope, so to
speak. It is therefore requisite that the people's representatives decided
who is our enemy and if war is the best way to resolve a matter.As
to Syria, we as a people have little if any idea of who is actually fighting who
(or is it whom?). There are ancient rivalries in play, religious philosophies
in play and ancient scores "to be settled". We have no understanding of
this problem, it is basically internal except for refugees, of which the world
has many.We need to stay out of this mess. If NATO, except for the
US, and other nations find the conflict disturbing to their national interests,
let them raise the army, fund the operation and set things aright as to their
needs.The past three or four administrations have been a laughing
stock of leadership on the national and world stage. The Marx brothers could
not equal the gaffes and buffoonery performed by these pretenders of protocol.
re:one voteMike Lee isn't dumb enough to start a war with no
clear objectives - no exit strategy - no friends in the current civil war on
either side and a dry tinder box of terror ready to explode all over the middle
east the second the first US bomb explodes in Syria.
This is complete nonsense. So here we have a president who no one in the world
respects anyway and now suddenly congress is somehow bound to go along with him
just to prop him up in the worlds eyes? It isn't the United States that
will take the hit if congress votes no it is Barack Obama - let's make
certain that is clear. People around the world - especially our enemy's -
are smart enough to understand that Barack does NOT represent the United
States...not like past presidents have and actually what a NO vote from congress
will show to the world is that the people of the US are smarter and stronger
than this little "Jimmy Carter" like man in the White House. Smarter
because there is NO good outcome from starting another war in the middle east
and because there is no such thing as a "little war". When you
attack another country you declare war against that country. Period! Smarter
because the US has NO direct or indirect interests in lobbing bombs into the
middle of a civil war where both sides hate the US.
I have racked my brain trying to figure out what this is really about. The
President didn't seek Congressional approval for Libya. I think what have
is a red herring. This administration has been taking a lot of heat over
Bengauzi, the IRS, and Obamacare. Remember we were told these were phony
scandals. However, this Syria issue is about turning America's attention
to something other than what has troubled this Administration. The Arab Spring
was nothing more than the support to aid the Muslim Brotherhood into Middle East
power. The second issue we are facing is the Muslim Brotherhood advisers to
this President want to see how far America will go to try and stabilize the
"....Obama is inviting members of Congress to share responsibility for a
Syrian policy that has achieved little to justify their confidence....."______________________________Gee, Mr. Gerson. I wonder if the
President might have been feeling pressure from those in Congress who were
demanding that he come to them first for authorization. Ya think?
@red state prideI think he had experience leading the Choom Gang.
@ Roland Kayser- if World War 3 started would you feel more comfortable with a
proven leader who has shown the ability to govern competently like Mitt Romney
as Commander in Chief or in a President like Barack Obama who has shown zero
interest in governing let alone leading and in fact has seemed to relish
dividing the Country rather than uniting it? Obama doesn't even like
meeting with or talking to leaders in his own party let alone Republicans.
He's detached and aloof. Would you seriously rather have Obama/ Valerie
Jarrett leading this Country in a major all-out war? They've already
totally botched Syria so it's gonna get better?
I agree with this op-ed.I hope that we go to war with the entire
middle east. Heck, with the entire world! Why stop at Syria? Lets attack Iran
and our fake ally Saudi Arabia? How hard could it be to topple Egypt's
limping government? Next up, N. Korea and China. And honestly, are we satisfied
with the end of the Cold War? Lets just attack Russia. And if Mexico and Canada
don't mind themselves, we should attack them.After all, this is
all about sending a message to the world that we shouldn't be messed with.
The American people and our treasury? Who cares.
“In this case, an unfulfilled pledge has disillusioned our natural ally
within Syria, the Free Syrian Army, and weakened it in competition with jihadist
groups.”“Obama administration has generally waged a war
of words, and then used them casually and clumsily.”“Obama has actively undermined political support for the legislative
outcome he currently seeks.”BO can use lies and deceit and get
away with it in Chicago, in fact it is expected there.BO can use
lies and deceit and get away with it in the dem party, in fact it is expected
there.BO can use lies and deceit to get re-elected.But
when it comes to foreign policy, especially when belligerents are involved, it
is dangerous. Too bad he never learned how to use the truth. I
guess the DN does not like me quoting their article - why else would they block
Joe,Yes partly at you. Well perceived.Neocons are not an
organized group with defined purpose and mission statement, so basically it is
whatever those calling others that particular name may mean by it. I had not
heard it used to refer to 'war mongers' so much as the
ultra-conservative, but I find a large variety of definitions online.I am an ultra-conservative, but not a war monger. I oppose military
intervention in Syria. I think the name neoconservative is an oxymoron, since
conservatives value individual freedom, and therefore warring to force democracy
on others violates their freedom to choose their form of government.By some definitions of neocon, Obama fits, but that is only those definitions
that don't think neocons are conservatives. I prefer liberal, power
wielding, war monger.
Bomb a country that has never attacked us? Are you kidding? We have no
business in Syria. Let the Syrians handle their own mess. Stay out of Syria!
@ThornBirds – “Has anyone else ever wondered what the planet would
be like if Females were running the planet.”I’m sure
you’re right… as long as they would all agree to take 3-5 days off
Has anyone else ever wondered what the planet would be like if Females were
running the planet.Love, compassion, compromise, understanding, thinking
things through, discussion after discussion, looking for the good, being an
example to others, humility, charity, selflessness, looking for another
answer.....Minus man's obsession with power and war, and without the
male's copious Testosterone.......just think what it could be like!Without women, you guys would have blown up the planet long ago.
Iron Rod, I too was curious, as these kinds of statements are virtually ALWAYS
taken out of context (or are outright false). Unfortunately, it does not matter
to many if it furthers their cause.Let me help you out. Here is the
statement in context from Snopes. "In the wake of 9/11, my
meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have more urgent
quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from
neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been
reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly.
They need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something,
that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during
WW II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an
ugly Direction"Big surprise. When one reads the context, it is
a reasonable statement. Unfortunately, "reasonable" was not
the intent of the poster.
Iron Rod In his own book “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I
will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly
direction.” The quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of
“The Audacity of Hope.
Re Mohokat: Ogden UtCould you please site your source for this
comment in quotations? "I will stand with the Muslims should the poliical
winds shift in an ugly direction." President Obama.Personally I
have never heard this quote attributed to President Obama by reputable news
sources.I would be interested in the source.
Obama and Kerry have stated that we know Assad did it, when he did it and how he
did it.In no way do I impune the U.S. Inteligence apparatus. But Brack
listen to your words on Bengazi. "But make no mistake: we will get to the
bottom of this, we will find out who did this, we’ll find out why they did
this. Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the full
weight of justice.” You knew within days of the Syrian attack all the
particulars but one year later we still do not know the who's and
why's of Bengazi.You are ready to attack Syria over killing of their own
people but nothing in the killing of a U.S. Ambassador? Your credibility was
questioned quite some time ago. No I do not believe you or Kerry. You know Kerry
is the guy who served in Viet Nam.
I have a book titled: "Polish acts of atrocity against the German
minority". It was used to convince the German people that the invasion of
Poland was necessary. In the last hundred years how many times have the people
been tricked into going to war by the politicians and the press?
Mitt Romney supported getting involved in Syria. If he had been elected, all of
the Republicans would be supporting him in his decision to go in. I suspect that
all of the right leaning commenters on this forum would also be supporting him.
I'm opposed to intervention, but I suspect that the main reason
Republicans are opposed is just one more example of their trying to make Obama
fail, no matter what he proposes.
Badger,Maybe directed in part at me?I disagree with
Obama on this. It is easy as I vote both R and D and have no blind allegiance
to either party. And, at the end of the day, the Dems will not provide enough
votes. "Does that mean you think Obama is a neo-con
too?"Of course not. Do you? Neocons typically
favor war. Certainly Gerson is a neocon, as is McCain and Graham.Sometimes I agree with them, does that make me a neocon.Are you
not concerned that Gerson advocates using the military as a "symbolic"
gesture? That thinking is what scares me about Neocons.
@one vote:we are not listening to Putin. We are trying to discern the
truth; whatever the source.Bush took the US into war with Iraq with
deception of WMDs. and later made jokes about it at a ceremonial dinner:
"No, WMD's here, yuk yuk yuk". It appears that the
American people are being deceived again to pull us into a war with Syria; To
help support the side that just might be responsible for killing their own
people to gain favor. Has the Obama administration offered any substantial
evidence that Assad is responsible? No. We just have his word. Given
Obama's track record for telling the truth, I would believe former KGB
agent Putin over him. The US military started making plans to train the Syrian
rebels back in March, months before this gassing. Now isn't it convenient
that there is a reason to give us cause to help? I would not be surprised if
the CIA was involved somehow.Standing firm in doing the right thing
is not being a dove.
Not a convincing article at all. Any action taken would simply kill and wound
innocent people who had nothing to do with the decision to use chemical weapons.
War is not a game, it is a tragedy and it destroys lives - and a life of any
person on this planet is more important than some first world country feeling
solid about their standing and reputation. Unless responding to an outright
attack on our own nation, we have no business attacking another.
What grates on my nerves is Gerson's loose usage of the term
"isolationist." There is a world of difference between the concepts of
isolationism and non-interventionism. Blurring that distinction is
irresponsible. It's entirely possible to be engaged internationally and
still be non-interventionist, and that's how it should be.
Leon Paneta stated on Sept. 28, 2012 the following "The U.S. has lost track
of some of Syria’s chemical weapons, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said
Friday, and does not know if any potentially lethal chemicals have fallen into
the hands of Syrian rebels or Iranian forces inside the country". Hmmm Could
Putin be correct? Read Yossef Bodansky article on this very subject.
So the liberal regulars are calling Gerson a neo-con for defending president
Obama's position on Syria. WOW!Does that mean you
think Obama is a neo-con too?
Send our brave Military into harms way just so a Pretender in Chiefs credibility
will not be harmed. I think not. The great Pretender has stated himself that his
credibility was not at stake. He claims he did not draw a red line, the world
did, Congress did. I am amazed that he did not say that Bush drew the red line.
Or did he inherited the red line. Has anyone ever noticed that he never and I
mean never accepts responsibility for anything Oh I forgot Bin Laden is dead. He
beat that drum loudly. It is a shame that we are trying hard who to believe
Obama, Kerry, or Putin. I hate to admit I am leaning toward Putin.Also notice
that Obama does everything he can to oust these dictators knowing full well that
Muslim extremeists will fill the void. Remember when he said “I will stand
with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. Hmmm. Is
his muslim roots sprouting?
Gerson is correct that the Obama administration has mishandled the Syrian civil
war from the beginning. That said, if we didn't intervene 2 years ago why
should we intervene now? I think the argument that voting against would weaken
the executive branch is over-thinking things and too cute by half. Weaken
the executive branch? Are you kidding me? How many times has Pres Obama said
" if Congress doesn't act I'll do it on my own"? I don't
know why we even have a legislative branch with this crowd in charge. Unelected
bureaucrats at the EPA issuing countless regulations. Unelected bureaucrats at
HSA in conjunction with their lobbyist masters issuing regulation after
regulation regarding how allegedly free citizens receive their healthcare.
Gerson is defending the type of imperial presidency created under George W.
Bush. For some unfathomable reason, he feels it's worth killing innocent
people and spending who knows how much money (which we don't have) just to
make his point. Typically, he shows no concern for the law of unintended
consequences that gets us in over our collective head. This is neoconservatism
at its ugliest.
Is anyone else a little tired of being the world’s (unfunded) police
force? How many countries have signed the Chemical Weapons
Convention and why isn’t the credibility of any of those countries
“on the line” like ours supposedly is?Here’s a
thought – let’s go to the UN and explain that we will no longer take
unilateral action anywhere in the world and our future involvement is contingent
upon passed resolutions and all counties voting in favor footing their share of
the cost (say, based on their percentage of the world’s population)So pay up India and China or deal with the world’s problems on
your own… especially ones in your own backyard (e.g., North Korea).
A vote against attacking Syria would not harm America, it would harm
Obama's credibility after issuing the red line ultimatum. Its impossible to
fake being tough isn't it Mr. Obama.
But all the tea party people are listening to Putin and the doves, like Senator
"A limited military strike may be symbolic. But for Congress to block that
strike would be more than symbolic. It would undermine a tangible element of
American influence: the perception that the commander in chief is fully in
command."Wow,So, Mr Gerson could justify
"symbolic" military engagement to boost our credentials in the world?This is the guy who proposed the use of a "smoking gun/mushroom
cloud" metaphor to drum up support for the Iraq war. A true NeoCon. (and a
senior policy advisor under Bush)What a callous (and dangerous) view
No it wouldn't. We don't need to get involved in another middle east
war. I realize the Dear Leader is claiming that Assad is responsible, but has
anyone read about the Russian report disputing this? Or has anyone read the
alternative media reports that the Syrian rebels admitted responsibility for the
gas attack?Sarah Palin said it best: "Let Allah sort it