Obama takes big gamble with Congress, Syrians

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mickey Kovars Tampa, FL
    Sept. 5, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    This debate is beneath stupid. Why are we even debating an attack that will serve no military or diplomatic purpose? So that Obama can once again be held not responsible for his own misguided actions?

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    If Obama really wants to punish Assad he should sign him up for Obamacare.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    @ JoeBlow. We finally found something upon which we can agree. Congrats to both of us!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 4, 2013 4:58 a.m.

    I agree that we do not need to get in involved in Syria.

    What's the end game?
    Who would take over?
    How many innocent men women and children?

    Lots of good comments and questions. Sure wish we asked them before going into Iraq.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 10:52 p.m.

    Looks like Obama is still playing the GW Bush deck of cards by attacking the so-called "Axis of Evil".

    Iraq - check
    Afghanistan - check
    Libya - check

    next up:
    North Korea

    And YES - I'm still blaming Bush [or the same $$ "handlers"] for it...

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 8:49 p.m.

    I think it's great that Obamsa is finally consulting Congress and getting approval for something.

    In all the time Obama been in office he has almost never looked for approval from Congress (and especially Republicans in Congress) and this is when he decides to have Republicans over for dinner??

    I've heard some say that he's looking for cover on this one. So if it all goes badly in the long run (which it very possibly could) he can say they were in on it too so they can't criticize him the way Democrats dogged Bush (even though Democrats gave official approval for the military action in Iraq).

    I hope he's just changed his tactics... but somehow I have a hard time believing Obama just overnight totally changed his style of governing. There had to be a focus group telling him to slam on the breaks on this one and do something quick to blame it all on Republicans.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 3, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    What is Obama's "end game". What does he hope to accomplish by shooting some missiles into Syria? How many innocent men, women and children will be killed before he declares that bombing Syria as stopped their civil war?

    Wasn't he awarded a "peace prize"? When did he decide that bombing Syria was "peaceful"?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 3, 2013 7:09 p.m.

    Taking any military action in Syria is a no win scenario for America. If (big if) Obama takes out Assad and helps overthrow the government, who takes over? Al Qaeda, the Muslin Brotherhood, another dictator, whom? Replacing one dictator with another one gets us and the people of Syria and America nowhere. Another scenario is that if Obama sends missiles into Syria and Assad survives, the war goes on, Obama looks foolish and impotent and Assad is now seen as invincible and brags to the world, "Obama can't touch me". There is no winning solution in Syria for the US.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 6:57 p.m.

    The Senate will approve. The House is a different story. There are too many Tea Partiers in the House who will simply not vote with the president on any issue. They'd rather damage the country as long as they can damage the President too.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    It'll be a weird voting coalition but I suspect there's enough votes between the two parties in both chambers to get it passed.