Quantcast
U.S. & World

How an attack on Syria would be 'Obama's biggest flip-flop'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Foxtrot Mountain View, CA
    Aug. 28, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    So what? That was politics. I am NOT unilaterally an Obama supporter, but his job should be to act to do what is right not worry about being called a "flip flopper". Stop making this about politics. If Syrians are killing each other by the hundreds of thousands I think I would commit troops even if it was the one thing I said I would never do, because it is the right thing to do. Stopping Genocide >>>>>> name calling.

  • Chase Saint George, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa.

    Progressives (or ANY politician for this matter) DO NOT flip-flop.

    They evolve...

  • California Steve Hanford, CA
    Aug. 28, 2013 4:26 p.m.

    What does Obama care? To him there is no constitution. There is no law. There is no congress. There is only the golf course.

  • majCoug Cairo, AE
    Aug. 28, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    @ Foxtrot,

    The point of the article calling Mr. Obama a "flip flopper" is not directed at his willingness to employ US forces in punitive action against the Assad regime, it is directed at the way he purports to do it, by side-stepping congress as required by the War Powers Resolution. This is in direct contradiction to his strong criticism of former President Bush. This is but another in a long list of significant miscues Mr. Obama would be committing with respect to inappropriate use of executive power.

    I agree with you in that if he and congress agree that it needs to be done, so be it. But he needs to do it the way it is constitutionally mandated to be done.

  • NoBoxScot Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 28, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    So how many have been wounded, disabled, or killed? Several thousand? The AMA, FDA, BigPharma and oncologists do that and more day in and day out using the chemical warfare known as Chemotherapy. How many lives have been scarred by this barbaric and failed 'treatment' here at home? Different motives? How about greed and power. I can't say the prescription drug industry has any better track record. But ask your doctor about alternatives - in the 'Land of the Free' he is under a gag order. Go figure.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Aug. 28, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    There are so, so many other things that Obama criticized Bush for, which he is now doing himself. Someone should compile a list of them, or write a book about them.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    This is a no win situation for republicans in congress. If he goes through them first and they agree to allow action against Syria then their base will crucify them for working with Obama and agreeing with him on something. If they do not authorize action then they are siding with Assad and they get to own every action he takes against a civilian populace. The only "win" for republicans is if he doesn't go to congress for authorization, then they an criticize whatever action he does take, either way.

  • Down under Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    And so goes his entire presidency, a big flip flop. He will say ANYTHING to get elected and then do as he pleases.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 28, 2013 4:59 p.m.

    Foxtrot--flip-flop. Biden also. flip-flop.

    Syria has done nothing to us. May be they should bomb us for the killings in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, L.A, etc.

    Attacking Syria would be helping the Muslim Brotherhood gain power.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    Let's see. In Iraq you had a renegade, leader that was destabilizing the middle east who invaded other countries at will, used chemical weapons on his own people and those of surrounding countries and an oil interest. And the liberals say that was wrong to use military force there. In Syria you have no outside threat, no oil interests and a leader trying to control his subjects. Hey, lets march!

    Let's help the rebels so they can bomb our embassy afterwards. No wait, that's not right. Um, lets send the rebels military aid like the Muslim Brotherhood so they can shoot their own people. Oops, maybe that's not right either. How about we just stay the heck out of this?

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 5:13 p.m.

    I too, have wondered if Obama feels the least bit ashamed or embarassed for now doing the same thing he criticized Bush for.

    A good way to take his mind off his "flip-flops", (I thought ONLY Romney did that)would be to go play a round of golf.

  • USA Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    As with President Bush, as with President Obama, as with virtually any president. All evolve, all flip-flop over time, as the demands of the office and dealing with real problems often require a reversal of campaign promises and priorities, to do what must be done during their presidency in fulfilling their responsibilities. We wish them all well and pray on their behalf.

  • regis Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    Obama has repeatedly shown complete disdain for the Constitution's separation of powers provisions. More than any prior President, he has become a law unto himself. His actions and statements evince his belief that Congress and the powers granted that branch by the Constitution are a mere inconvenience as he moves forward to implement whatever edict happens to suit his fancy at the moment.

    I don't know if the Constitution "hangs by a thread" at the moment, but it certainly will at some point unless the Supreme Court or Congress itself steps forward to stop this constant usurpation of authority by the executive.

  • Paco redlands, CA
    Aug. 28, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    When The President made his first comments, he wasn't the President. He knows more now about the situation and how things work.

    Totally understandable.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    This President is supposedly a Constitutional lawyer but maybe doesn't know international law or knows enough to get around the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty that is in-force in the United States of America as a signatory with President William Clinton's signature on it. This treaty was made with certain protocols for situations such as this. He has had 12 months since his red line was drawn in the sand and he has several times he could have done something prior to now. Benghazi was within days of the first communication during the campaign and convention time. He couldn't be bothered by that and didn't need to be as he could have had Ambassador Rice push the situation with the United Nations. However, she was too busy making a defense on all forms of media for Benghazi and that fiasco.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Aug. 28, 2013 7:07 p.m.

    So let me get this straight....

    If Bush invades a foreign country who (by virtually EVERY civilized country (go look it up), deemed Iraq a threat to America and the western world) it was really invaded for oil.

    If Obama invades a foreign country who is NOT deemed a threat to America or the western world, it's a righteous and holy action entirely justified.

    Riiiiight......

    And here I thought only Romney "flip-flopped".

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 28, 2013 7:46 p.m.

    Paco--evil is not understandable. Attacking another country that is not a threat to us is evil.

    Will somebody please get Obama back on a golf course.

  • Jonathan Buttall London, 00
    Aug. 28, 2013 7:47 p.m.

    I voted against Romney because he talked about getting us into more wars. So I voted for Obama and we got the biggest war monger in the history of our country. Reminds me of when we voted for LBJ in 1964 because we were told Goldwater would get us in war, and of course LBJ got us into a disastrous war that we lost.

    So what's the point of voting when both parties have the same failed foreign and war policy? Is there anyone out there opposed to such international aggression and national betrayal? Who do we vote for in the future to stop this insanity? Eisenhower was right about the military industrial complex running the country.

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 8:49 p.m.

    I'm just rolling on the floor laughing at all the Obama supporters lame lame lame excuses for him. He really has them fooled.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    This wasn't already done with Libya? I feel like the writer is a couple years late on thinking this...

  • David Centerville, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    One by one Obama changes his positions and promises. And yet the sheep keep following him.

    I just don't get it.

    Obama's defenders will support him no matter what he does or doesn't do.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 28, 2013 10:31 p.m.

    Wow the bubble around here is tight. Line after line of hate Obama and deriding the Obama supporters..oh wait there aren't any in this thread..man habits are hard to break.

    Oh by the way ya all lost.

  • photografr7 Inwood, NY
    Aug. 29, 2013 5:28 a.m.

    A "flip-flop," really? How is Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people not an "actual or imminent threat"? George Bush never found Iraq's chemical weapons. Barack Obama found Syria's chemical weapons in the lungs of dead children.

  • Red Headed Stranger Billy Bobs, TX
    Aug. 29, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    pragmatistferlife
    salt lake city, utah
    Wow the bubble around here is tight. Line after line of hate Obama and deriding the Obama supporters..oh wait there aren't any in this thread..man habits are hard to break.

    Oh by the way ya all lost.

    Yes, our guys lost but your guy won through deceit. All I hear when you ATL1 and the rest of you speak right now is, "When Bush does something it is a war crime and should be prosecuted. When Obama does the same thing he should be awarded another Nobel Peace Prize and given the presidency for life."

    I really wish an adult were president now.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 29, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    Obama incorrectly stated, an offensive video caused the violence at Benghazi, taxes won't go up, deficit will be cut in half, and he won't sign any legislation which would add a dime to the debt.

    Now Assad says they're not using chemical weapons, and Obama says they are!

    America the great, has a president which spends hundreds of millions of tax payer money on vacations, and can't be trusted to tell the truth.

  • lars Pittsburgh, PA
    Aug. 29, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    @photografr7

    Obama's actual quote says "actual or imminent threat to the nation." To the nation. No one here is condoning the use of chemical weapons, and I think everyone here agrees that the killing needs to stop. The constitutional question is whether the USA is threatened by Syria's civil war, and I don't believe that has been demonstrated.

    More importantly, your second point is made with the benefit of hindsight. At the time that the case was being made for invading Iraq, everyone believed that the WMDs were "a slam dunk." Would you say that the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons is "a slam dunk"? Answer carefully, this is not the same question as "were chemical weapons used by someone?".

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    1. I was against Bush/Cheney starting wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.
    2. I was against Romney wanting to go to war in Syria and Iran.
    3. I'm against Pres. Obama considering another war in Syria for the same reasons.

    WE are not being attacked by Syria.

    I stand by my principles and integrity.

    Any conservatives accusing Pres. Obama of Flip-Flopping is no different than they are accusing him of being [Bush war good, Obama war bad], which makes them the biggest hypocrites.

    BTW - Who was the one who set the precedence? Oh ya- it was Bush and the Republicans.
    Ya - Hypocrites.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    As of today, WHO deployed the chemical weapons remains an open question. Best assessment I've heard is that the rebels have gotten their hands on them and are trying to get the U.S. and others to attack Assad and overthrow him so they will win. THEY by the way are people just as bad as the Assad regime. We have two factions fighting each other, both of whom hate the U.S. and are terriorists. Let them fight it out and we stay out.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    LDS Liberal

    And so now you should be against Obama and any wars he gets us into. I was at least honest about the wrong direction of Bush wars. And any Democrats who support Obama in this will be equal to any Republicans who oppose Obama but supported Bush. So both will be equal as hypocrites.

  • The Solution Las Cruces, NM
    Aug. 29, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    It's great to talk about all the politics involved, who is fighting who, and how we should do nothing about it because "they" are our enemies.

    What about the innocent victims involved? Men, women, and children who did not ask for this but are paying the consequences for others' actions.

    There currently is no good answer to helping these people, but it got a lot more complicated when we stood by watching at the beginning of this conflict before terrorist organizations got involved.

    If you were one of the US revolutionaries, and you received aid from a party, you would want to stay loyal to that party, treating them as an ally. These people have received aid from Al Qaeda, so when the dust settles who will they see as their ally and who will they see as their enemy?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Legality – it means nothing to the BO cabal

    The current build-up of Russian forces in the Mediterranean speaks volumes about the level of respect they have for BO and how much he has improved relations.

    RG,
    There’s not enough paper or ink to meet the requirements for the book you propose

    Pragmatist,
    Yep, and everyday BO remains in office, the country loses even more. But of course, I see no defense from you for his obvious flip-flops. You cannot defend the indefensible, so you go on the attack.

    LDS?lib
    YOU can criticize BO, but we cannot? Who is the hypocrite?

    Who set the precedent? JFK and LBJ – THEY sent you to ‘nam. Ya hypocrites.

    DN moderator, these are the same words and same context LDS?lib used. Your blocking of them while leaving his comment makes no sense whatsoever.

  • Red Headed Stranger Billy Bobs, TX
    Aug. 29, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    LDS Liberal

    1. I was against Bush/Cheney starting wars in . . . Afghanistan.

    When Liberals say that we started in a war in Afghanistan I stop listening to everything else that they say, because clearly they have no sense of history. WE, AMERICANS, were attacked by people headquartered in Afghanistan. The justification for President Bush to go to war in Afghanistan was probably the clearest example to go to war in the history of our nation. Perhaps even more than World War 2 when only our military was attacked. No, civilians by the thousands were killed, with the promise of future actions to be forthcoming. No, whenever Liberals say "George Bush started a war in Afghanistan" they are either being disingenuous or astonishingly misinformed, and therefore can no longer be trusted in whatever conclusions they reach.

    In addition, LDS liberal conveniently misstates the reasons why conservatives called Obama a hypocrite. After coming just short of calling Bush guilty of War Crimes, and saying how different he would be in his campaigns, here he is having attacked Libya and now wanting to proceed on to Syria. THAT is rank hypocrisy.

    (Bush started the war on Afghanistan? Talk about rewriting history. . .)

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    @Red Headed Stranger
    "When Bush does something it is a war crime and should be prosecuted. When Obama does the same thing he should be awarded another Nobel Peace Prize and given the presidency for life."

    Except it's not the same thing. One of the two (Iraq and Syria) is actively slaughtering their people. One of the two is actively using chemical weapons. One of the two (presidents) proposed a ground invasion.

    By the way... Bush's war crime was violating the international laws against torture.

    Oh and one more thing... I oppose intervening in Syria.

    @worf
    "deficit will be cut in half"

    Actually the projected deficit for this year is expected to be around half of what it was in 2009 (don't confuse deficit with the national debt, the deficit is the total for the one year).

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    Flip flopper ? Liar? Arrogance and Stupidity?

    All fit our campaigner n chief. This Jimmy Carter clone is even less than little Jimmy in his grasp of foreign affairs and his unmatched arrogance.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 29, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    LDS Liberal-you're a funny guy. Still blaming Bush.

    If I cheat on my wife,--I can blame Clinton for setting the precedence.

    I can do anything I want, and not be at fault, because someone set the precedence.

    Typical liberal.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    Aug. 30, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    Three of a kind, Obama, Biden, Kerry, all on record that Bush II did not have power to unilaterally go to war in Middle East. BUT that was before they were put into power. Three of a kind beats two of America.