In first major test, Obama overrules new team

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 13, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    the ONLY reason Barack went to congress over Syria was to cover his tail and stand behind a new scape goat called congress. The man NEVER goes to congress for anything and then suddenly he sees the light and wants to have the backing of the representative voices in congress? HA!!! I don't think so. Barack saw the polls that he didn't have any support to go it alone in Syria and so he then suddenly says he is now interested in what congress thinks. The man is a coward....but we already knew that. What a disgrace. Had the people gave him the green light to go he couldn't have cared less what congress thought. The LAST thing this little man wants is debate and discussion with congressional leaders. Barack does his discussing out on the campaign trail in front of his chosen low info audiences. If the man is anything he is predictable. Putin is still laughing .....

  • paintandestroy Richmond/Cache, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    I don't want to Bomb Syria either but the last couple of presidents set a certain precedent.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    This is funny. The Obama followers want us to do what Obama asks simply because it is Obama.

    Lets look at who is doing the fighting in Syria.

    You have Assad, a dictator that has killed tens of thousands of his own people, trying to maintain control of his country.

    On the other side you have rebels that are becoming backed and run more and more by Al Qaeda agents.

    So, who do we help, the dictator or the terrorists.

    FYI, we still don't know who gassed the civilians. Reports were out recent where rebels were arrested trying to get into syria carrying small amounts of nerve agents.

    I really would like the liberals to tell us which side we should support.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    Yep, just like Bush. Aside from the active slaughter ongoing in the nation, the chemical weapon usage in that active slaughter, and the fact we'd be doing limited airstrikes rather than a full scale invasion.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:49 a.m.


    No I didn't remember that from Panetta, and more importantly, apparantly Panetta does not remember it either. However, now that you mentioned it, it does ring a bell. Another failure in memory going around is that the difference between this and Saddam H. in Iraq is that he didn't use the chemical weapons, and Assad in Syria did. Even Chris Wallace of FOX News forgot that Saddam used them against the Kurdish population in the 80's. So much for memory in Washington.

  • bw00ds Tucson, AZ
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    @JoeBlow Your last post shows your true colors--and I like it. I agree with it. I do not agree with your previous posts, in that I don't think they are completely correct in their assessments. I do not think one has to research very far to see much of wrong that Obama has done and continues to do. His many blatant violations of the constitution is beyond debate. The fact that our representatives on both sides of the aisle allow him to do that by doing nothing is traitorous and a travesty to this country.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 3, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    Does anyone remember last Summer when Leon Panetta told us the Syrian rebels had overrun a chemical weapons stockpile and have these weapons in their hands? It is highly possible it was not the Syrian government that gassed their own people but the Al Qaeda backed rebels in Syria in order to dupe the US President and others to attack the Syrian government and help the rebels? Shouldn't we be very, very careful, not to fall into that trap, if it is a trap?

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    This article is a wonderful example of how the media fawns over Obama and panders to his administration. It's pathetic. And no wonder that the public has no confidence in the news media. Thanks Deseret News for being a part of it.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    I will also be unhappy if we get involved militarily in Syria. We need to start looking at every option OTHER than war.

    I want the best for our country and could care less about party affiliation when our leaders make good decisions.

    Unfortunately, Washington has become more concerned about party power than what is good for America. And sadly, much of the American electorate seems to feel the same way.

    If you go looking for the worst in someone or something, you will certainly find it (or can manufacture it).

  • BYUtah Fan Herriman, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    We have no dog in this fight. Our national interest is served the longer Syria is racked by civil war. Assad is an enemy to Israel and is supported by China and Russia. The opposition is Muslim extremists. We will gain nothing by bombing Assad. Both sides will still hate us. Time to choose to keep our noses out of other people's war.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    Joe Blow

    I for one will be very happy if Obama does what I want, which is not strike Syria and allows two enemies of America to continue to fight each other. However, if I hear one Administration official say something like WMD in Syria are a threat to the U.S. as a justification for war then I will know insanity runs Washington D.C.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    He only made this decision because of his personal crucifixtion of George W. in 2007 for NOT seeking Congressional approval before bombing.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 3, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    "presume to suggest the "left" is in favor of it. "

    Never meant to suggest or "presume" that the left was in favor of it.

    My point is that some (you perhaps) will find fault regardless of what Obama does.

    Even if he does exactly what you want.

    It is a consistent theme.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Obama is enlisting two of his own arch enemies (congress and the Constitution) to extricate himself from a sticky situation. I'm sure he now regrets all the "red line" talk, but he must be smart enough to know that lobbing a few $1,500,000 cruise missiles randomly into the sand will convince nobody of anything. All it will do is cost us more money, cause more unintended consequences, and convince the world again that we don't have nary a clue when it comes to workable and rational foreign policy.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 3, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    @ Joe Blow. You wildly overstate when you say the "right" is against military action in Syria and presume to suggest the "left" is in favor of it. The truth is most of the left and most of the right are NOT supporting this at all. Polls show only 9% do support it. That means 91% of Americans are tired of investing our blood and treasure trying to stop Muslims from killing other Muslims. And for what? Clearly, Obama's massive narcissism and ego are in play here and that is classic!

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Anybody out there really believe that what Obama is trying to do is not essentially what Bush was trying to do with Iraq? Get rid of WMD and change the leadership of Syria to a more moderate friendly country. Sounds just like Bush all over again. And for those who might say that Iraq did not use chemical weapons, but Syria did, you forget about the Kurds who were gassed by Saddam. The only thing that has changed in this scenario is the names of the players. Otherwise, this is Bush foreign policy. Who of you would have believed it when pulling the lever for Obama twice that this was what you were in for. Hopefully Obama will realize that neither cruise missile attacks nor a full scale boots on the ground attack will change anything except the number of Americans killed on foreign soil. Why does the concept of "history repeating itself" seem to elude every President we get.

  • TMR Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 3, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    The comments from the Obama-haters are priceless. No matter what this president does, they will hate. I personally am opposed to the Syria strike, but appreciate the president's consultation with Congress. He is showing far more forbearance than did his predecessor - hardly the makings of a dictator. But, carry on haters - you do lighten the mood in some ways.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 6:40 a.m.

    Only the AP could write this stuff. The implication is that Obama has to ask permission of his staff to do something. But Dear Leader is so bold that he overrides the decision of his staff.
    Really? Does it really work that way?
    If you had told me that Valerie Jarret resigned her post over it that would be news.
    In a calculated move (that's how Obama rolls) he sent out trial balloons with Kerry and Biden. Based on that reaction, Obama chose to consult with Congress.
    He's going to need all the friends he can get when it comes to the legislative plate in September.
    This ISN'T about Damascus.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 3, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    So, in a nutshell

    The Right is not in favor of going into Syria.
    The Right demands congressional approval
    The advisers wanted to go right away without congressional approval.

    The president goes against his advisers "advice" and does what the Right wanted him to do.

    The right blasts his decision.


  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 10:37 p.m.

    This was the right decision, but for the very worst of reasons. Obama, and his core gang of Chicago political advisers obviously see an opportunity for political advantage by taking this route,

    They can blame any failures on Congress, and better yet, they benefit immensely with a "SQUIRREL!" tactic to divert attention and debate away from the train wreck that is Obamacare, and the fact that we have reached our debt limit (again) and budgets for FY 2014 are not yet done, and Iran is a day closer to having nukes every day.

    Regardless, there is NO U.S. national interest which justifies U.S. intervention in Syria.
    If protecting civilians from thug regimes, why did we do nothing during the "green revolution" in Iran?

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Sept. 2, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    The U.S. is the laughing stalk of the world - thanks to the man in the White House.

    Sept. 2, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    @Mainly you

    you supposed "dictator" over ruled his team because he wants to seek congressional approval before moving forward and they wanted him to act without it.

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    he is absolutely brillant and to think the guy, until a few years ago was commanding community organizers around chicago. and who says you can become anything you want to in the US? .....not obama.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Sept. 2, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    Though not a supporter of Obama, I applaud his decision to both act against Asad, and to consult Congress. Both are the right courses of action. Perhaps he is maturing, albeit slowly, in the office.

    Now if he will stop the class warfare and act to rewrite the tax code, entitlement programs, and government spending, he could be a good president. Work with both the House and Senate to get these things done. Tell Reid to be rational. Voters must tell the same to the conservatives in Congress.

    But back to the point: Asad must go, but there must be a plan to leave Syria strong, rather than in a vacuum where terrorists can rule. It appears Hagel is already thinking along these lines.

    I like the team Obama has assembled here.

  • bw00ds Tucson, AZ
    Sept. 2, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    Regardless of the debate about his governing ethics, this whole debacle showcases how amateurish he is and how unequivocally unqualified he was to assume the Commander-in-Chief role.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Sept. 2, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Why does the Dear Leader have advisors in the first place? I mean, really, doesn't a wannabe dictator just do what he wants?