What Obama should have done is said he would not bomb Syria. Then, Utah
Republicans would demand Syria be bombed. Our Republican reps are automatically
against whatever stance the President takes.
While I would prefer we not use military action mike and the rest of the GOP
need to move beyond simply being the part of no with a situation this serious.
The folks who were all gung-ho about invading Irag are singing a different tune
Those who are attacking the Republicans who now oppose war on Syria are
conveniently forgetting that their anti-war stance against Iraq and Afghanistan
which is now pro-war for inexplicable reasons, with undefined goals, and
ill-considered unintended consequences. Not going to war in Syria is
just the right, rational and prudent thing to do. Those who want to
go to war are invited to meet at the U.S. Army recruiting station tomorrow at
9:00 AM and put their butts on the line!
Please don't tell us this is not a partisan issue. The president tells us
he wants to pursue diplomacy and they still have nothing encouraging to say. And
not a one of them offers an idea as to how we should deal with chemical weapons.
Every one of our delegation is a cheap politician. Not a true statesman in the
bunch, including the pretend Democrat.
Our members of Congress should feel uncomfortable about the President's
message, especially how he is not straight forward with the citizens of this
country nor with leaders around the world.He minced his words as he
talked around the truth, as normal. He would have us believe he has integrity
and honor after seeing what he has done for our nation's status in 4 1/2
years. His wife may have said in 2009 that she is finally proud of
being an American, but I am not so sure our leadership is doing the best for our
nation in a world of turmoil and strife, at all levels.Moral
character is important and our nation's leaders have stooped to low levels
of integrity and honor. The President used the videos of children dying as to
why we should go to Syria. He barely mentioned the Chemical Weapons Convention
that his ex-Secretary of State Clinton's husband and the Congress approved
and signed in the 1990s to enforce compliance on nations.This
President uses "I" and "My" to ensure his ego is pumped up. He
doesn't talk as if we are a nation with leaders in the
I hope they are doing so for the right reasons...And not just
cow-towing the:Obama = Bad,Bush = Goodmantra.Because as I recall -- Mitt Romney was out saying over and over
again, that if elected President HE would attack Syria AND Iran.
I don't know why everyone is criticizing the president for Putin's
role. It seems obvious that any diplomatic breakthrough was and is going to go
through Moscow. Unless we want to go it alone on everything you have to learn
to work with those who are not your best friends. Kudos to congress members
though, who see the folly of getting involved in every world crisis. From what I
read in the newspapers the US won't come out ahead no matter what it does.
"...Utah's congressional delegation...proposal...".No.No.No.No.No.The
Republican House member from South Carolina did say it's good politics to
oppose the black guy in the White House.
Huh. Wonder where Assad got those chemical weapons. Couldn't have anything
to do with the massive convoys out of Iraq in the weeks leading up to our
invasion, could it? Nah... nothing to see here...As for pro-war
before for Republicans - Afghanistan harbored Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists.
We were heavily involved in keeping the peace in Iraq - and Saddam refused to
abide by the UN agreements. We knew he had had WMD, had used them more than
once, and he sure wanted everybody to still think he did, not to mention
refusing to prove he'd gotten rid of them. And there was the little matter
of Al-Qaeda training camps in his desert. Between all that and the oil, which
is a strategic asset we have an interest in keeping stable in the world, we had
good reasons. You can disagree about whether all that was enough - but there
was an argument in favor of the USA getting involved.What economic
or strategic issues justify our intervention in Syria? Who are the good guys? I
see various bad guys, but I'm struggling to come up with anyone capable of
governing, who would be our ally.
America's decision about Syria's use of chemical weapons has little,
if anything, to do with the President. It is Congress's decision based on
what they think is the will of the American people. If it is right then Congress
gets the credit. If it is wrong put the blame where it belongs. This sick game
of partisan politics and blame has to stop.
Not to mention Demisana that it was been stated US Policy since 1998 ( note this
is not during a republican administration ) to topple Saddam Hussein and affect
regime change in Iraq.