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 .....
I don't want to Bomb Syria either but the last couple of presidents set a
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.
@happy2behereYep, 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.
MountainmanNo 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.
@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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Joe BlowI 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.
He only made this decision because of his personal crucifixtion of George W. in
2007 for NOT seeking Congressional approval before bombing.
"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.
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.
@ 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!
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.
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.
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
So, in a nutshellThe Right is not in favor of going into Syria.The Right demands congressional approvalThe 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.Classic
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?
The U.S. is the laughing stalk of the world - thanks to the man in the White
@Mainly youyou supposed "dictator" over ruled his team
because he wants to seek congressional approval before moving forward and they
wanted him to act without it.
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.
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.
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.
Why does the Dear Leader have advisors in the first place? I mean, really,
doesn't a wannabe dictator just do what he wants?