Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Important questions surrounding a potential U.S. attack on Syria’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Sept. 9 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Just say no to BO!!!

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

For whatever reason, Bailout Bob never paraphrases Sarah Palin accurately.

What she said was, "I say, until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander-in-chief who knows what he's doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren't even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line 'Allah Akbar,' I say, until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say let Allah sort it out."

But I suppose he wanted badly enough to characterize her reaction as "knee-jerk," that he ignores the solid fact in her statement: both sides killing each other in Syria are America's enemies.

Palin says further: "So we're bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I'm the idiot?"

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Obama speaks loudly and carries a twig. What evidence has Obama given anyone that he knows anything about what's going on in Syria? He's calling Putin a liar. He's telling us that "the world" drew a red line, when he drew that line. The chip on his shoulder has gotten so large that he can't walk a straight line. He complains that 1,500 people were killed with chemical weapons in Syria, but he totally ignores the other 98,500 people who were also killed.

Just what is he trying to prove? He will enforce his "mouth" by killing innocent people without ever finding out who used chemical weapons. It's past time to question his fitness for office.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

I have to wonder how many Americans have any degree of confidence that Barack Obama can be trusted to act in the best interest of the US? I think even most Democrat's think the man is incompetent.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

How will it look if the U.S. attacks Syria and afterwards finds out it wasn’t Assad after all who used the chemical weapons? Congress needs to be shown the hard evidence before signing off on the action. I expect some Republicans to vote no while hoping Obama goes ahead on his own. It will be Obama’s war with no risk to them. The UN is hamstrung and Europe has no moral fortitude to do more than say naughty-naughty to Assad. Once again, it will be in the lap of a U.S. President to either do the dirty work or let it go undone which carries its own risks.

I put a large share of blame on Russia and Iran for their steady flow of weapons into Syria over the years. Instead of using this to send them a message, Obama should consider JFK during the Cuban missile crisis when hawks put heavy pressure on him to bomb and invade Cuba. I hope Obama doesn’t give much ear to guys like McCain lest he finds his ‘limited’ action becoming not so limited as he hopes for.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@patriot:
"I think even most Democrat's think the man is incompetent."

Yes, Democrats are starting to wonder why they voted for the guy. Typical of Democrats, they don't apply much brainpower to what they do... probably because they don't have much.

@Craig Clark:
"How will it look if the U.S. attacks Syria and afterwards finds out it wasn't Assad after all who used the chemical weapons?"

In that case Obama's 'red line' will start showing up as a red face.

"Once again, it will be in the lap of a U.S. President to either do the dirty work or let it go undone..."

Shades of the past... Bush went to Iraq after Saddam's WMD and caught hell from the Democrats. Obama is doing the same thing in Syria and many Democrats are cheering him on. We know Iraq had WMD because he used them on the Kurds. Go figure.

"I put a large share of blame on Russia and Iran for their steady flow of weapons into Syria over the years."

What about Saddam who shipped his chemical WMD to Syria when Bush went after them?

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

In that case Obama's 'red line' will start showing up as a red face.
____________________

It would be blessedly wonderful if this whole matter were really that trivial.

pc93
CASSELBERRY, FL

Search:

Sledgehammer Alert: Calling Congress to stop USA Warmongering in Syria!

Is Syria a Trap? Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) say Nerve Gas Points to Rebels

The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told

Syrian rebels (militants) kill Syrian soldiers execution style: Video

US Funded Syrian Rebels Gang Raped, Executed 15-Year Old Christian Girl

Demand a NO vote on US attacks on Syria

Impeach Obama for Aiding al Qaeda in Syria (435 Tweets to Congress Campaign)

JWB
Kaysville, UT

A man who speaks wrongly about our patriots since he was campaigning in 2008 now is touting a stick of sorts with John Kerry at his side is quite a spectacle for the world to see, first hand. Pretty soon Mr. Hagel will have to speak out as his forces will be put into play here and abroad in what they duty calls for when the President speaks through Congress. However, if Congress doesn't support the President and he still goes forward with his "non-war" action without a real plan, wars were started with less than what we will probably do. Honduras and El Salvador went to war over a soccer game using Esso gas station road maps to get to their targets. There are big players in this action with an actual Chemical Weapons Convention treaty from Mr. Hillary Clinton's husband's time when he signed into effect with the Congress backing.

He will go it alone without the United Nations that bought the treaty with 189 nations in agreement, just not Syria and North Korea. They may be bad actors but the international community has an obligation to do something as a group, not just the USA.

thebettertoseeyouwith
SD, CA

The POTUS needs to be forthcoming to people who may not know that the Israeli government SIGNED the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)in 1993, but hasn't
deposited the written instruments for formal confirmation or ratification that establishes, acceptance, approval or accession of the consent of a state to be bound by the treaty.

The site is worth looking up under: UNODA - Chemical Weapons - the United Nations.

Anyone who respects the POTUS's proposals to address the violations must realize the hand various entities had in facilitating the comprehensive toll.

The POTUS needs to be forthcoming to people who may not know that the Israeli government SIGNED the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)in 1993, but hasn't
deposited the written instruments for formal confirmation or ratification that establishes, acceptance, approval or accession of the consent of a state to be bound by the treaty.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

@thebettertoseeyouwith
They also don't have nukes, hahaa.
Israel doesn't have to play by the same rules as the rest of the world, it is a "chosen state"

"paraphrases Sarah Palin" why would anyone even quote her or care what she say's, talk about someones 15 minute being up.

wrz said: "Shades of the past... Bush went to Iraq after Saddam's WMD and caught hell from the Democrats. We know Iraq had WMD because he used them on the Kurds. Go figure."

Here's a figure: that was in 1989, 12 years before bush attacked Sadamm, you know when Reagan gave Iraq those weapons to use on Iran, why did he wait 12 years? Your time machine defense doesn't take much brain power to see it fall apart.

What about Saddam who shipped his chemical WMD to Syria when Bush went after them?
Please provide a shred of evidence.

Iron Rod
Salt Lake City, UT

Is it about Syria and chemical weapons or is abouti Israel and Iran?

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

It's kind of funny in a pathetic kind of way, but 11-12 years ago, you were a traitor if you spoke out against military action. You were castigated as aiding the enemy if you didn't want to rush to war. I remember those days vividly. My friends on the right said nice things like "Daschle's divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country." - Tom Davis (R) Virginia.

That's the kind of rhetoric we lived with. Those of us in uniform went about out business as we were expected to, but the civilians who were not conservative were seen as weak, divisive, and non-supportive of their Commander-in-Chief. I guess that only applies if the President is a Republican, right? It guess it isn't divisive to disagree with a Democratic president.

to comment

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