Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah's congressional delegation questions new Syria proposal’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 10 2013 2:35 p.m. MDT

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

What Obama should have done is said he would not bomb Syria. Then, Utah Republicans would demand Syria be bombed. Our Republican reps are automatically against whatever stance the President takes.

Sorry Charlie!
SLC, UT

While I would prefer we not use military action mike and the rest of the GOP need to move beyond simply being the part of no with a situation this serious.

mcclark
Salt Lake City, UT

The folks who were all gung-ho about invading Irag are singing a different tune now. Strange

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

Those who are attacking the Republicans who now oppose war on Syria are conveniently forgetting that their anti-war stance against Iraq and Afghanistan which is now pro-war for inexplicable reasons, with undefined goals, and ill-considered unintended consequences.

Not going to war in Syria is just the right, rational and prudent thing to do.

Those who want to go to war are invited to meet at the U.S. Army recruiting station tomorrow at 9:00 AM and put their butts on the line!

Esquire
Springville, UT

Please don't tell us this is not a partisan issue. The president tells us he wants to pursue diplomacy and they still have nothing encouraging to say. And not a one of them offers an idea as to how we should deal with chemical weapons. Every one of our delegation is a cheap politician. Not a true statesman in the bunch, including the pretend Democrat.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

Our members of Congress should feel uncomfortable about the President's message, especially how he is not straight forward with the citizens of this country nor with leaders around the world.

He minced his words as he talked around the truth, as normal. He would have us believe he has integrity and honor after seeing what he has done for our nation's status in 4 1/2 years.

His wife may have said in 2009 that she is finally proud of being an American, but I am not so sure our leadership is doing the best for our nation in a world of turmoil and strife, at all levels.

Moral character is important and our nation's leaders have stooped to low levels of integrity and honor. The President used the videos of children dying as to why we should go to Syria. He barely mentioned the Chemical Weapons Convention that his ex-Secretary of State Clinton's husband and the Congress approved and signed in the 1990s to enforce compliance on nations.

This President uses "I" and "My" to ensure his ego is pumped up. He doesn't talk as if we are a nation with leaders in the Executive/Legislative/Judicial.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I hope they are doing so for the right reasons...

And not just cow-towing the:

Obama = Bad,
Bush = Good

mantra.

Because as I recall --
Mitt Romney was out saying over and over again,
that if elected President HE would attack Syria AND Iran.

revthomas
Burlinga, CA

I don't know why everyone is criticizing the president for Putin's role. It seems obvious that any diplomatic breakthrough was and is going to go through Moscow. Unless we want to go it alone on everything you have to learn to work with those who are not your best friends. Kudos to congress members though, who see the folly of getting involved in every world crisis. From what I read in the newspapers the US won't come out ahead no matter what it does.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...Utah's congressional delegation...proposal...".

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

The Republican House member from South Carolina did say it's good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House.

Demisana
South Jordan, UT

Huh. Wonder where Assad got those chemical weapons. Couldn't have anything to do with the massive convoys out of Iraq in the weeks leading up to our invasion, could it? Nah... nothing to see here...

As for pro-war before for Republicans - Afghanistan harbored Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists. We were heavily involved in keeping the peace in Iraq - and Saddam refused to abide by the UN agreements. We knew he had had WMD, had used them more than once, and he sure wanted everybody to still think he did, not to mention refusing to prove he'd gotten rid of them. And there was the little matter of Al-Qaeda training camps in his desert. Between all that and the oil, which is a strategic asset we have an interest in keeping stable in the world, we had good reasons. You can disagree about whether all that was enough - but there was an argument in favor of the USA getting involved.

What economic or strategic issues justify our intervention in Syria? Who are the good guys? I see various bad guys, but I'm struggling to come up with anyone capable of governing, who would be our ally.

FDRfan
Sugar City, ID

America's decision about Syria's use of chemical weapons has little, if anything, to do with the President. It is Congress's decision based on what they think is the will of the American people. If it is right then Congress gets the credit. If it is wrong put the blame where it belongs. This sick game of partisan politics and blame has to stop.

Sabrecat
South Jordan, UT

Not to mention Demisana that it was been stated US Policy since 1998 ( note this is not during a republican administration ) to topple Saddam Hussein and affect regime change in Iraq.

to comment

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