Obama can kill hundreds of children with drone strikes, but when someone else
does it they must be punished. To send a message? What message would that be?
Obama can do it, all others will be prosecuted!I agree that the
responsible people should be held to account for these murders. But before
Obama becomes judge and executioner, he should be required to show the
evidence.Al-Queda is supposedly the terrorist threat to the US.
Obama will essentially be aiding the terrorists by bombing Syria. Isn't
aiding the enemy a criminal offense. Isn't that why Pvt. Manning is
serving a prison sentence now?
Thanks Deseret News for giving the impression that this president doesn't
act on his own. That's called deception. The FACT is that
Obama, like in most everything else he does, will act on his own--regardless of
Congress. And in the case of Syria, he stated that he will act on his
own...without Congress's approval.Obama once accused President
Bush (in 2007) of using war as a means of diverting attention away from problems
at home. Given the recent WH scandals, isn't it possible that Obama is
doing the same? And of course the Deseret News, along with other national press,
is happy to oblige in sweeping all scandals under the rug.I'm
trying to figure out why the Deseret News won't call him out on it. What
are you afraid of?
Obama is asking congress because he cannot make the decision himself and needs
congress to share the blame if it does nor bode well. Obama has never cared what
congress thought in the past, just a way to cover his behind.
OK, my liberal 'friends'.....Please tell me this:Why was it wrong for Bush to go to war in Iraq but OK for Obama to go to war
in Syria?And, please, don't use the excuse that our national
interests are at stake in Syria. Yes, Bush, the vast majority or
American intelligence as well as the vast majority of the intelligence agencies
in the civilized world (and, yes, even the majority of Democrat elected-leaders
on the national stage.....go look it up) thought that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction and that justification was used to declare war on Iraq. That later
proved to be incorrect information. And you liberals absolutely hammered Bush
for that. My point in bringing this up was that America's national
interests were N-O-T at stake and liberals screamed bloody murder that the war
was not justified.And now?Our national interests are not
at stake in this conflict, either. So, please, by all means, try to
tell me and other conservatives on here how Obama is justified in this war.I wait with eagerness....
So if congress and the people say no, then what? Another executive
order, I am sure. The king already said he has the authority to do it without
them. Jim and Don - You make great points!
You conservatives are beautiful. Conservatives: Obama can't do
this on his own, he needs to ask congress, who does he think he is? Obama: I am going to ask congress.Conservatives: Obama can't
make a decision, why doesn't he do what needs to be done, he's
covering his back. Obama: the sky is blueConservatives:
who does he think he is, the sky is purple. Obama is a tyrant. You
guys are beautiful. I was watching FOX "news" just after the
announcement that Obama would seek congressional approval. Krauthammer was on
there, you know, the conservative pundit, he was going off on what a terrible
decision this was, all the while saying that he thought the president needed to
seek congressional approval. I kid you not. He was complaining that Obama was
going to ask for congresional approval, and then he said he thinks Obama should
seek congresional approval. Beautiful.
Barack Obama is an empty suit and the ultimate paper tiger. Assad fears Obama
like a newborn puppy dog. Obama has zero leadership skills - all he knows is how
to agitate and divide people. Worst U.S.President ever.
Unless a majority of countries are with us, we need to back off. Under the war
powers act, congress should not give him permission.
If he had said he would not consult with Congress, you anti-Obama folks would
have flipped out.But, true to form, you all flipped out anyway. Most
likely he also consults with the Almighty. But, again, you would find some
problem with that.If nothing else, you are consistent.
markYeah, it's pretty tough defending Obama isn't it?
Making nonsense comments and then mis-understanding Krauthammers point. I
realize you Obama defenders have so little to work with. Why not just abandon
ship and admit that Obama is the biggest mistake ever to be elected President?
I mean I know Bush and Clinton were not great, but Obama is beginning to make
them look like Mt. Rushmore material.
Ok my conservative friend, Guy with a Brain, just who are the liberals on this
thread that are saying we should "go to war" with Syria. If you check
back the liberals, pretty much to a person here have been against the action. I
guess when your blinded with ideology you'll miss that though.
What to do in Syria? But can the right leaning Republican Congressmen be
trusted to make an informed and reasoned decision truly in the best interests of
America? Or will they as usual resort to ideology or whatever makes Obama look
bad to decide?
@MarkBuddy, are you caught up in the FOX, CNN, MSNBC trap? Hours of
your life wasting away. I'm not, just say what I believe based on my
opinion. Nice that I don't have to watch the garbage 'News" waste
my time, and borrow opinions from professional "Newsmakers"
What our liberal friends seem to ignore is that Obama DID. Meet with. congress
and that Congress told him that if he did use the War Powers Act to justify
killing Syrians, that Congress would use its power to close the "purse
strings" and shut off all funding of "Obama's War".Does anyone really think that after all the "saber rattling" that
Obama has been part of, that Obama would not have used the military to kill
Syrians? Drones can't tell whether you're on "our side" or
whether you are on the enemy's side. Does Obama care? Would anyone who
authorized sending drone missiles care?There are about 1,500 dead
because of chemical weapons. How many people was Obama willing to sacrifice to
prove his point? Could he guarantee that no children, no mothers, no innocent
civilians would become"collateral damage"?What do his
actions tell us? Where is his compassion for human life?
I would be more impressed with Mike R.'s comments if there existed some
record somewhere confirming his compassion for Iraqis before or after "Shock
"Nice that I don't have to watch the garbage 'News" waste my
time, and borrow opinions from professional "Newsmakers""You don't waste your time getting your news from professional news
makers, so you get your news from . . . Where? Wait, what? Oh by the
way, Rico, I get my news from a wide variety of sources. You ought to try it.
SCFan: "Yeah, it's pretty tough defending Obama isn't
it?"I wasn't defending Obama (he doesn't need
defending, he has made a great decision). I was making fun of conservatives.
Yeah, I know, that whole reading comprehension thing. . . Oh, by the
way, I didn't misunderstand Krauthammer's point at all.It
is going to be fun watching conservatives and Republicans twisting themselves
into knots trying to blame Obama while at the same time having to make a
decision on Syria. Good luck, House Republicans. Do we let nations get away with
using WMD's or not? The balls in your court. Have fun.
When will we ever learn to distrust smooth talking politicians. Obama is a ship
without a rudder.He continues to reverse himself eventually on every issue. I
warned my children and grand kids about voting for him, now they quietly
realize what they have done as the water rises..
George W. Obama
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, said Obama never.
It seems it's always fashionable in Utah to blast the POTUS, call him the
king, messiah what have you. The fact is there is a LONG standing precedent of
the US Commander in Chief taking military action w/o congressional approval.
I'm not for war but all the rhetoric without a historical grip gets old
too. It's easy enough to find the history of these actions. Most won't
bother to look though. It would be nice though if we could stop wasting
trillions of dollars and priceless lives waging war.We could try feeding people
instead of bombing them; what a concept.
It is obviously difficult to spin this one against the President. There are many
futile desperate attempts above. Is the tea party house going to vote to abandon
the traditional role of the United States to continue or vote to get on the
Now-now-now boys and girls. Let's put you all in the President's seat
and see how you deal with the totally out-of-control Middle East. It's
easy to sit our here in Utah and pretend that we know exactly the right thing to
do with these complex situations. With Washington as dysfunctional as it is (in
general and especially the Congress)what else should we expect? If you think
someone like Mitt Romney would handle things any better, provide some good
evidence for that please. Lets get our Congress functioning better first, then
we can criticize the oval office more prudently.
Elcapitan..as the water rises? One doesn't have to defend the proposed
action to realize that the Armageddon predictions and comparisons to Bush's
wars are ridiculous. It's this foolish pattern of every time Fox news
invents a new scandal the world is coming to an end, or at least we now have
proof positive that Obama is the worst (anything and everything) ever, that
makes the entire right just plain foolish. Benghazi was the worst
political scandal in American history despite it just being one of 13 such
attacks in the last ten years. The IRS scandal, oh my, now we know Obama
cheated and bought people off, until the manager stepped forward and said no it
was me. Now, yes the water is rising.
Funny -- one thing the Obama-haters are refusing to recognize. Unlike with Iraq
in 2003, there actually ARE WMDs being used in Syria right now. President Obama
is dealing with a real world certainty. George and Dick were dealing with an
"I wish there were WMDS so I have an excuse to invade Iraq" in 2003.I don't like, or agree with, things that President Obama has done.
I do for this one -- he is right to get Congressional approval. Well done,
This president never does anything without assessing the political gain. His
base is not any more thrilled with the idea of another war in the middle east
than the conservative right are. He finally figured out that if he goes all
Rambo on Syria, it will cost the Dems seats in Congress in 2014. He accidentally
did something that united both sides. Neither want another useless war. By
seeking Congressional approval, he and the Dems will have someone to blame when
the whole middle east situation worsens. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Nothing can undo what happened and this is the right action. Wish we had taken
this course with Iraq.
Personally I think it's great the Obama has changed course and decided to
consult Congress. I think it shows that the President realizes he does not act
alone when he sends our military into action, and that he realizes that America
is stronger when we stand together.It will be interesting to see how
Congress responds. They could continue the current partisan bickering and
party-line voting... or this could shake them out of their political cocoons and
get them to really consider a real decision that will result in the loss of life
in Syria (and eventually possibly American lives in Syria depending on how the
Assad regime responds long term).Remember... our involvement in Iraq
started with a narrow response to Hussein's atrocities (decades before
Bush/Cheney) leaving Hussein in power. So there's a very good chance that
a limited response in Syria in the coming weeks will NOT be the end, but
actually the beginning of a much larger conflict.We can only pray
that leaders of nations find a better way.
I have to say that I find it disgusting watching John Kerry on TV today making
the case for war, when so recently he was calling the American Military
"Murderers" in Iraq and Vietnam (in his efforts to do ANYTHING to bring
the Bush Presidency down).I WISH the left's base was as vocal
against war today as they are when there's a Republican President. Where
is Sandy Sheehan today? Why is she not camping outside the President's
house protesting war today? I think it shows that most of these protests were
motivated more by politics than they were anti-war protests. Otherwise they
would continue protesting even after the election.We have seen
Congress pull together (when America is being threatened). We will see if
Congress thinks America is under attack today and this military action would
bring more good than it will bad. It COULD make things worse for American
interests in the middle-east and around the world.We also need to
make sure the intel is 100% (if we have learned anything).
@ Uncle Rico, "Buddy, are you caught up in the FOX, CNN, MSNBC trap? Hours
of your life wasting away."You think obsessing over network news
is disruptive and a waste of time. What about our DN opinion comments? Talk
about spitting into the wind and other useless endeavors.
The problem here is the hypocrisy of the republican party. As has become the
norm for the last five years, every world event becomes an opportunity to try
and score political points. This philosophy of governing is destructive to the
country. Could the republicans just one time maybe look at any issue and try to
make a decision based on whats good for America and the world, not what they
think is good for the next election cycle. It would be nice if we could be
Americans first and republicans second.
@ Furry "ARE WMDs being used in Syria right now" "George and Dick
were dealing with an I wish there were WMDS" Lets see another guy named
Hussein used WMDs on the Kurds. The U.S. had sold that same Hussein those same
WMDs when he was at war with Iran. Of course a one sided memory is nice to have
in your case. And just maybe these are the same WMDs that are now being used
that was thought to have been moved to Syria prior to the invasion. Try and be a
little more objective and less hypocritical
@A Guy with a Brain"Why was it wrong for Bush to go to war in Iraq but
OK for Obama to go to war in Syria?"An active slaughter is going
on and there are UN treaties against the use of chemical weapons. Plus we'd
be doing limited airstrikes not a full scale war with ground troops. It's a
completely different situation. Also, only 25% support intervention
and they aren't all liberals. Most liberals oppose intervening in Syria.
Obama may or may not be handling the situation in Syria well.But one
thing's for sure, if we had Romney in the Whitehouse, he would have rushed
in and bombed Syria as soon as any leader in Israel had a case of heartburn!Romney = war monger and Military Industrial Complex puppet.I
thank the American People for Obama in the Executive office.
ScientistYou don't know what Romney would have done any more
than you know the exact temperature it will be in Omaha Nebraska at 3pm on
Valentine's day next year.Talk about a narrow minded
unscientific statement, totally driven by partisan hate.
Scientist - You should watch something other than MSNBC and Bill
Maher for your news and analysis, lies and spin.
@Badgerbadger 1:40 p.m. Aug. 31, 2013So if congress and the people
say no, then what? Another executive order, I am sure. The king
already said he has the authority to do it without them. ---------------What an excellent indictment of President Cheney
and King George! That's exactly what they did.
About Furry 1993First he/she says there were no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, despite the fact that the Kurds were repeated bombed by
Iraq with chemical weapons. (The same weapon of mass destruction used in
Syria)Then he/she insinuates that the Iraq war was waged on
executive order. Not so!Check your history books. Congress passed
the Iraq resolution by a wide margin. The Iraq war was not by executive order.
And the president of that day did NOT claim he had the right to take the country
to war without congressional approval. Obama, on the other hand,
blatantly stated he could send the military in by executive order. So when looking for the truth of the matter, I would suggest you skip the
posts by those so blind to the truth, that they openly lie, and misrepresent
history, to try to save the face of the party that gives them their freebies,
and its leader.It would be so nice if people could be an Americans
first and democrats second.
Hmm?Bomb Syria for bombing Syria.Using videos of people
killed by chemical weapons ten years ago in Iraq.What's Obama
badgerbadger, yes the Kurds were gassed, in 1988 at the end of the Iraq Iran
war, 15 years before GWB invaded. Fifteen years later..all gone. Context is
I'm praying that we don't get involved in this civil war. If genocide
is being committed then I believe morally we have to intervene. We cannot and
should not intervene in every civil war going on in the world. I think it is
appalling if chemical weapons were used and 350 people were killed. I hope the
people rise up and take their country. However, there have been thousands
killed on both sides thus far and we haven't done a thing in this fight or
in many others in Africa where several thousands of people have been butchered.
Policing the world is difficult and should be done only in the most extreme
circumstances. People need to fight for their freedom; we can't come in to
every fight where governments oppress their people. I would not want my son or
daughter to risk their lives for Syria. I don't want any others to lose
their children for the Syrians. They could care less if our country burned to
the ground. This is not the right fight or the right place. Stand down.
@MapleDon:"The FACT is that Obama, like in most everything else he
does, will act on his own--regardless of Congress."Not in this
case. In this case Obama is between an rock and a hard place and would like to
pass the decision to someone else... i.e., the US Congress. But, as
Commander-in-Chief he doesn't need approval from another government branch.
He knows he will get criticized whether he hits Syria or if he decides against
it. The guy made a dumb mistake when he drew the red line in the
sand over Syria's use of chemical weapons.
@A Guy With A Brain:"Bush, the vast majority or American intelligence
as well as the vast majority of the intelligence agencies in the civilized world
(and, yes, even the majority of Democrat elected-leaders on the national
stage.....go look it up) thought that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction..."And Iraq did have WMD's (chemical)... and
Iraq's Hussein shipped them to Syria when UN inspectors showed up. And the
guy in Syria used them on his civilians. Now Barack Hussein Obama wants to bomb
Syria for using Iraq's WMD. Go figure.
The answer to Obama's dilemma is simply simple...Just tell
Assad: "That's once." "Do it again and... and... I won't
let John Kerry, Joe Biden, or Hilary Clinton dine with you ever again."
@ ThornBirds - St.George, Utah - "If he had said he would not consult with
Congress, you anti-Obama folks would have flipped out. But, true to form, you
all flipped out anyway....."ThornBirds -You DO
realize that you did not answer my question, right?Why was it wrong
for Bush to go to war with Iraq when no national interests are at stake but
right for Obama to go to war with Syria when no national interests?Yes, that is THE ultimate question and you and every other liberal on here
have yet to answer it.