Comments about ‘Sen. Mike Lee warns missile strikes against Syria could be dangerous’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 4 2013 6:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Whatever
Springville, UT

Oh, c'mon, Lee doesn't have a clue what to do, he's just waiting for the President to decide on a course of action so he can oppose it. He knows he won't get any face time on fox news Sunday mornings if he agrees with the White House.

Oh well, at least he got out of making those pesky house payments...

TRUTH
Salt Lake City, UT

@ LDSLIBERAL.....Yes I see it!

so what you are saying is:

Bush/Romney and a dead Saddam Hussein= Bad

Obama Hussein/Clinton and 4 dead Americans in Benghazi= Good

Gotcha!

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"So... does the DNC being silent when their leadership does the same thing they complained bitterly about Bush doing NOT "unseemly" and NOT "cheap partisanship"??"

I dont see a huge consensus among the Dems about the need/desire to go to war. Even on this board, so, the comment is misplaced.

In 2002, 60% of dems voted against the Iraq war. 3% of the GOP did.

While I expect that many dems will support the president (cause, unfortunately thats what parties do) I predict that there will be significant democratic opposition.

At least I hope so...

Fishback
Salt Lake City, Ut

It is so painful to listen to rightwing knuckleheads hypocrisy on foreign intervention. The US still lacks any credibility regarding foreign intervention and will probably take another decade or two to completely undue the damage done by the Bush Administration.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Dangerous? What could possibly go wrong?

*Dropping bombs in the middle of a civil war where both sides hate you is always a safe bet
*Not having a clear objective is the best way to go ...keeps them guessing as to what you are up to
*Not having an exit strategy if things go south means the less you have to plan for and you can always blame members of congress since they authorized it
*Iran has rational leaders who we can trust will keep level heads regardless of what we do
*It is easy to fight a limited war. Wars always go as planned and rarely spread.
*The US has clear national interests involved here such as...um...give me a minute... ok I'm sure we have some because our president said we did.
*It is better to not have any other nations helping you because there is less to coordinate

"What - me worry?" (Alfred E Newman) "Stupid is as stupid does" (Forest Gump) "Fools go where angels fear to tread" (unknown)

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

@Elcapitan - let me summerize, No, I am not alarmed, no I am not watching the wrong channel because I am not watching any of them... not Fox... not MSNBC. No, the America I live in hasn't fundementally changed. Yes, my 401K and IRA's have doubled since 2008, and yes, my home value is up 27 percent. I am fully employed in the energy business, and no, no one has prevented me from practicing my religion, and my collection of guns is just fine - though 22 shells are still hard to find.

So no... I am not worried about Obama, and I am was not worried about Bush. My freedoms are in tact, and so am i.

Your mileage may vary.

durwood kirby
South Jordan, UT

For me, Lee surrendered his credibility long ago.

David
Centerville, UT

There seems to be hypocrites on both sides of this board. Obama supporters are on board for US military action in Syria for the same reasons that Bush led us to war in Iraq. And yet Obama supporters were generally opposed to Bush and the Iraq War.

On the other side, Republicans generally supported the Iraq war & Bush but are opposed to intervention in Syria for the same reasons spelled out by Democrats in 2003.

I supported the Iraq War, as did nearly all world leaders, as did nearly all intelligence groups, as did a majority of Congress (including Democrats). However, I feel now that the Iraq War was a mistake. We should learn our lessons from it: That our intelligence is inadequate; that supporting someone in that region ends up hurting us years or decades later; that getting directly involved in a civil ward can be catastrophic; that we are already bankrupt as a country; that lobbing a few shells won't change anything and could only embolden Assad...Everything seems to point against military intervention.

Looking back I would not have supported war in Iraq. It was a mistake. Looking forward, I don't support military action in Syria.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Good comment David.

I too supported the Iraq war. But, I had not been given all of the information at the time.

I was told that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD.
I was told that he was trying to obtain uranium for nuclear capabilities.
I was told that the smoking gun may turn into a mushroom cloud if we did not go.
I was told that the war would be paid for by Iraqi Oil.

I was NOT told that there WAS great doubt about WMD.
Or that the uranium claim was in dispute.

The information given to the American people was designed to garner support for war while the Administration knew the questionable nature if some of the info.

That war was engineered by the war hungry neocons. They created urgency when none existed.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The tea party has become the peace party. Why are so many people quoting and listening to Putin? Do we need a military if we adopt the Senator's position?

to comment

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