Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Home RSS
 
 
 

Choice falls to Congress

September 4, 2013

President Barack Obama finally has decided to submit the decision on war with Syria to Congress....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(37)

Ron1960

Sep-04-13 12:02 PM

The members of congress have more or less demanded that they have the right to vote on this issue. But why did they not get off the dime and return to DC so they could have taken what ever action they saw a needed, but now we have waited so long that Syia has had the time to prepare for any possible attack, in my opinion what Syria did deserved immediate action. But when you see on the TV news A senator playing video poker on one of his toys rather than paying attention to what was being discussed. Bow we are giving Syria much more time to plan for what ever attack the US may take.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaveGibson

Sep-04-13 12:05 PM

Wow. Another boneheaded editorial from the guy in the corporate office.

"In doing so, he painted the nation into something of a corner."

Obama did no such thing. Congress passed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act ten years ago that drew that "red line", which (among other things) forbids Syria from developing and using WMDs.

Congress passed the law. Obama positioned our military. Now its up to Congress to decide how to enforce SALSRA, the bill they passed.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Howland

Sep-04-13 12:13 PM

Send a cruise missile to Syria's Presidents House like we did to Kadaffy years ago. If he doesn't get the message, take it from there. Kadaffy was quiet for many years after we did that !

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Sep-04-13 1:51 PM

An attack on Syria is almost 3 years late. The drag it out technique Obama has used on everything but healthcare didn't work. If in fact we are going to use the Peace Prize winners war plan we might better stay home. Cut and run didn't work in Iraq it is going to fail in Afghanistan and most assuredly will not help Syria. This already is in the "list" of failures for the Obama administration and no matter what this decision is it is wrong. This latest step is merely another way to place blame on somebody else... the Obama backbone is very weak and will not carry any responsibility for anything, ever!

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Sep-04-13 1:54 PM

Ron the people that demanded a say are the same ones that had a say in the Iraq invasion then as usual they cut and ran from their decision. They are now in charge calling for the use of force... hypocrites for sure! Cut and run liberal DEMOCRATS have weakened international support and crippled our effectiveness. And it continues with this mess.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Sep-04-13 2:13 PM

It is really simple -- WE GOT NO SKIN IN THIS GAME -- let the Muslims work it out, when the dust settles there will be less of them as long as they are warring with each other. -- This is not our problem BUT the political wizards are making it our problem

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Sep-04-13 6:06 PM

I remember the PRESIDENTS red line game changer speech. It was not written by congress, there was no one on that stage... he said that the use of chemical weapons was a definite game changer that Assad would have to pay a heavy price for such actions... now if he was Bush then you would have a lot to say, of that I am sure!

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Sep-04-13 9:39 PM

Can you imagine the deals being struck right now in congress to ensure an Obama victory? I bet they are throwing around taxpayer money like pie at a food fight! I'll give you this but I want your vote on that... America loses in these deals... every single dime... I mean time!

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Taxedtoomuch

Sep-04-13 9:50 PM

The same congress people and advisors are deciding this as they did with Bush or even Clinton. Any president we have is either the "hero" or the "patsy" for the decisions of congress whose members still remain in office no matter what the outcomes. We always feel that our guy(congress person) is doing a good job and not the other guy who we have no vote against. Hence none get voted out of office and it is business as usual with a different "frontman"(president) in place. Vote them all out of office and demand TERM LIMITS. We the People do not need nor want to start a third world war.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Sep-04-13 10:06 PM

Charles Rangel D NY, "I Love Obama. But Red Line on Syria Is Embarrassing". And he should know what embarrassing is all about!

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Sep-04-13 11:24 PM

Chas. Wrangle - another dinosaur crook that the sheeple re-elected

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dumpman

Sep-05-13 7:09 AM

Forget obama's credibilty' who cares, does syria have the cabibility to BOMB our shores.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Sep-05-13 7:31 AM

This is not about Syria anymore. It's about our megalomaniac president and his ego.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pards13

Sep-05-13 8:08 AM

Until we can properly take care of our veterans coming home from these wars we have no business going into another. If you want to send him a message then send him a letter with one word in it, ...... BOOM!!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Sep-05-13 10:43 AM

Obama did not need Congressional approval for limited intervention in Syria. He had the same intervention time-limit as Bush had before Iraq but obama decided Congress can be the fall guy for his stupidity. Congress will most likely give it to him because with or without their approval he's going to do it anyway. By giving him approval he then 'owns' any backlash just as libs insisted Bush 'owned' Iraq. He's already trying to crawl out his 'red line' statement by blaming Congress, the UN and the World instead of his own stupid arrogance. Sorry barry, you own this entire Syria fiasco lock, stock and barrel whether you and your followers like it or not. Now, after pizzing of the UN, they now insist that America get rid of 'stand your ground' laws because they don't like them and that the US HAS to obey UN mandates. So who is our clueless dope smoking racist-in-chief going to blame this one on since he and the UN clearly do not understand and therefore hate and ignore our Constitution??

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

adkkev

Sep-05-13 12:24 PM

Hey Bob! Who says we HAVE to obey UN mandates? Please be specific, none of your usual generalities about liberals/progressives.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorkingFool

Sep-05-13 1:30 PM

I read a article that said that there is a very large natural gas reserve in Syria that Russia, China and the Eastern Europe Countries are looking to tap into. I didn't think it was the truth, but now I see Russia and China both using subdued threats to stop any attack. After ten years of our war on terror, I am weary of what this will all cost, plus the prices for oil might go high enough that people will not be able to drive for work or pleasure. People don't have much disposable income now and it probably is only going to get worst with any action. I am all for NOT attacking Syria. Most of the long-term Senators and Congressmen in Washington are so disconnected that they cannot make a sound dicision anyway.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Sep-05-13 2:03 PM

Obama said that he will leave open the option to attack Syria even if congress does not give him their permission. So why is he asking? Is this part of his new post election flexibility? We need the next 3+ years to go by without his further harming our country then WE WILL have the flexibility that the USA needs!

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Sep-05-13 8:40 PM

As far as obeying UN resolutions, Iraq didn't Iran isn't Korea won't why should anyone? It is like the President of the USA, giving a red line speech then saying he didn't... what now does it matter? Who cares if the USA stands for freedom and known for humanitarianism, who cares if anyone respects or even admires the USA ever again. Lets just say we do not care... lets follow a leaderless president right to the end. Who can predict the actions of a nation that cuts and runs refuses to follow through and says one thing today and then lies to avoid the loss that he expects... LOSER!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Sep-06-13 7:13 AM

Having your usual comprehension problem adkkev??? I WAS specific, you missed it so this time I'll type slower for you. As I said, the UN says we have to obey their mandates, not me, not the guy down the street or anybody else, just the UN. Not that I care but you should read the opinion, not just the author and a few cherry picked words you glance at then fire off questions that already have been answered. Good grief, another victim of the Sharpton 'resist we much' speed reading and speaking course.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

usedtolivethere

Sep-06-13 8:26 AM

Bobbo and TOT have a corner on the disagree market. Boy you two are angry

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

adkkev

Sep-06-13 12:44 PM

MrBob: actually you weren't specific. You just said that the UN says that the United States must obey their mandates. I was asking for specifics - who exactly at the UN? Name(s)? I'm just wondering. As far as the stand your ground laws, the UN didn't demand that the laws be nullified, it asked that the US finalize its review of the law with regards to discrimination/civil rights. That's not a mandate, not even a resolution.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

adkkev

Sep-06-13 1:32 PM

MrBob: I am not exactly sure why you choose to throw insults at me. I asked a question for clarity. It appears (to me at least) that if you feel that someone does not agree with your position/statement, or questions your position/statement, then you choose to call them names and/or throw some insults their way.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Sep-06-13 1:33 PM

Now THAT was REAL compelling useto. Besides, all that flak means I'm hitting the target!!!! Thanks for the confirmation. BWAAHAHAHAHA!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Sep-06-13 2:00 PM

Adkkeve, your opinion is noted, was there a question in there?? If you're too lazy to do research on your own and understand the UN that's your problem, not mine. If calling you a lib is an insult that's a problem YOU can solve, not me. If you believe a character attack is the same as a personal attack then YOU have a problem. If I'm adept at issuing fine insults and you or anyone else doesn't like it, well that's just too effin bad. When lib tries insults, they only reveal more of their misguided, perverted character. All I get is personal attacks but NEVER an attack on my character as a Constitutional Individualist but you don't read about me complaining about it do you?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 37 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web