Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Singing a different tune

September 5, 2013

As President Obama prepares to press ahead with an attack on Syria, one can't help being reminded of then-Senator Obama's criticism of then-President Bush 's threat to do the same to Iran....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(85)

Tgrammiex4

Sep-05-13 4:46 AM

I don't get it either Francine. Maybe they rationalize it like this: A bomb can be dropped to target just a few. The rest are considered "collateral damage"( as if thier deaths are not as important?)and a bomb is not always 100% lethal.( like thats better?) Gassing people is 100% lethal to all . I may not be correct, but that is my guess.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Sep-05-13 5:07 AM

Sometimes the act of actually "Governing" is much different than it looks to be from the outside.

See: Obama Then and Now

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-05-13 5:29 AM

To be fair it appears many on the right have flip flopped also. However, I'm praying that the House does block this Resolution. The only resolution to this crisis is for the Syrian people to remove the current administration. Sending in cruise missiles at predetermined targets will not remove current government and it will not eliminate their capability to deliver chemical weapons. And even if it were to degrade their capability, conventional weapons have killed many more over there and it's not going to eliminate that capability. Nothing can be gained from this initiative except for the U.S. being able to say they did something, even though it accomplished nothing.

13 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Sep-05-13 5:55 AM

I am so glad to hear the President deny that he ever said that HE [or the USA] has a red line!

You know how good that line between Mexico and the USA is at stopping people.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Sep-05-13 6:12 AM

"They both say the chief executive has the power to take such action without congress' O.K. if there is an imminent threat to our national security." Both national parties claim that. There is no national security risk with Syria, just as there was none with Iraq, although there did exist that risk with Afghanistan. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the transfer of constitutional powers among the branches of the federal government is an unconstitutional transfer of power. The only way to change this is by amendment to the Constitution. Constitutionally only the Congress can authorize an offensive use of the military, the Pres. could take defensive action without Congressional approval to protect the American borders against invasion, that is the extent of it. Congress cannot abdicate its powers to any other branch of government, neither can the Pres abdicate his or the Constitution has no meaning or force of law, which, apparently is exactly what we have today in

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Sep-05-13 6:35 AM

The problem with the rebel groups is that we do not know their alliances of thinking well.

So, even if a strike on Assad weakens him enough to be toppled, the group rising to the top may not be a friend.

Or, the group that rises to the top in Syria needs to build coalitions with enemies to hold power.

This is not good versus bad, but 50 shades of grey.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Sep-05-13 6:39 AM

"I recall 10 years ago Hans Blix and his U.N. inspectors were scouring the Iraqi countryside for such weapons as these, and surveillance teams observed large trucks carrying something across the Syrian border." - Ken Robertson

*

No...what you're "recalling" is T-Baggers' SUGGESTING those phantom WMDs were PROBABLY smuggled to Syria...to help Lil' Dumbya "save face".

Throwing-in Hans Blix's name might have lent an air of credibility to your "memory", but...those, who've BEEN paying-attention, know that Hans Blix never made any-such-suggestions...after spending 11 WEEKS, in Iraq...CERTAINLY enough time to mention those "convoys".

*

See:

Hans Blix's Briefing To The Security Council

3 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-05-13 6:51 AM

Carl, you're correct. Presidents have been skirting around the War Powers Resolution since it's adoption. All in the name of "national security".

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-05-13 7:56 AM

Yep!

You are da mned if you do and da mned if you don't. It is easy to be an arm chair critic, we all do it.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-05-13 8:13 AM

Chuck, you're right and that is one of the responsibilities of the President and Congress, to look at all the options and decide the best course of action. I think the problem here is the President feels he is backed in a corner and he HAS to take action. That line of thinking often clouds the real issues. And let's hope he isn't listening to McCain and others who would just as rather start an all out war. It's just too bad that we have a UN that is so inept. That is where this situation should be handled. But of course that would require other nations to take action too and right now, besides the French, we are pretty much on our own. That fact alone has me weary because if anything goes wrong, where does it leave our standing in this region?

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-05-13 8:25 AM

Unfortunately those actions take way too long, the debates drag in the legislative. Too many people being chief and ultimately only one person will be held responsible not all of them.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Sep-05-13 8:28 AM

I agree with the letter writer. 2 years ago the Syrian opposition was more clearly defined and more pro-Western. A No-Fly Zone at that point would have had better results than what we're seeing now.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Sep-05-13 8:46 AM

The force of our military ought to be used only for defense of the country. It’s now being used for political purposes at a very high cost in lives and our wealth.

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-05-13 8:48 AM

Unfortunately those actions take way too long, the debates drag in the legislative. Too many people being chief and ultimately only one person will be held responsible not all of them. -Reeder

Actually Chuck, that is exactly why the President has passed the ball to Congress. To help shield himself from ultimate responsibility. He realizes the risks involved and the fact that the American people aren't behind this and he wants to insulate himself if this action provides no results, or makes the situation worse. My fear is, if Congress does not give approval, will he take action anyway?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Sep-05-13 8:54 AM

Excellent insight.....

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Sep-05-13 9:02 AM

Cap,

Your 5:29 post is spot on.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Sep-05-13 9:15 AM

This is all about the Liar-In-Chief saving face. If you are worried about how the country is viewed, you're about 4 years too late. Go back to the "reset" button to Russia or returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits; how did he (we) look then? Sorry Mr.President, it's the PEOPLE'S house, not yours to un-decorate.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Sep-05-13 9:39 AM

Who said there is no bi-partisanship in Congress? The support for action as well as the opposition to it are both bi-partisan or more accurately nonpartisan. Both sides stand on principle. The supporters believe that the U.S. is the world's policeman and we need to act. The opposition believes that war is only justified when a vital national interest is at stake. There is no support in the Constitution or any law or doctrine for the first idea. An attack on Syria would violate both U.S. and international law. Now I'm not that big on international law and wouldn't mind ignoring it if we had a good reason, but I just don't see it. We have nothing to gain and everything to lose. McCain, Graham and Obama need to be reigned in on this one, and I hope the rest of Congress has the decency and the guts to do it.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Sep-05-13 10:19 AM

The problem is to many people believed Obama's lofty rhetoric when he was a Senator and campaigning in 2008. Things are a whole lot different when the rubber actually hits the road.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Sep-05-13 10:21 AM

The problem is that the sides change depending upon who is President at the time. Those presently justifying action against Syria were and are loudly opposed to action against Iraq when Iraq committed far worse crimes against it’s and neighboring people than Syria is accused of. It’s all about politics.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Sep-05-13 10:22 AM

I'm not convinced that the Syrian regime gassed the rebels. According to the Turkish Weekly, Syrian rebels were stopped at the Turkish border on (see article dated June 6 - Russia Asks Turkey for Info on Sarin Terrorists) and found to have a canister of Sarin nerve gas.

How do we know the rebels didn't do this to their own people, in hopes we'd strike Assad?

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Sep-05-13 11:28 AM

I never understood the rational of dropping bombs on innocent people in another country to punish a ruler for killing those same innocent people. Seems to me, you want to punish Syria's ruler effectively, invite him over to an Italian wedding in New Jersey and let Guido take him for a ride on the Hudson in his row boat. No innocent people get hurt and our children's children won't be picking up the tab for some politician's ego trip! Assad isn't going anywhere. Investigate the deaths until we have positive proof and give it to the UN to cope with. If the UN wants war, let them stand in front.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Sep-05-13 12:14 PM

"If the UN wants war, let them stand in front."

That doesn't help. Guess who makes up nearly all of the UN forces and finances? That would be us as in the US. That would just be letting someone else telling us to do it rather than doing it ourselves. As for you other idea; Inviting him to the UN might work, and the UN is only about a block from the East River.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Sep-05-13 12:21 PM

Gavin- there is no rubber to meet the road. They bought a pack of lies and voted like "American Idol" and got their hip, cool, cutie and now still believe everything their "messiah" says. Yep, it's still George Bush's fault.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-05-13 12:47 PM

Capricorn1 He would be criticized for not going to Congress, that is why I said da mned if he does, da mned if he doesn't.

Just love how only left was enchanted with lofty rhetoric. All politicians have rhetoric some are just loftier than others.

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 85 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