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

Should the US and its allies blast Syria for using chemical weapons on its own people?

  1. Yes
  2. No
sort: oldest | newest




Sep-03-13 3:33 PM

We should have seen all of this coming. When Israel told Obama back in April that they had proof Assad had used chemical weapons in early March, the only thing Obama ordered was for the C.I.A. to investigate it. We never did hear anymore on that investigation. It went quiet. Too quiet. But Obama did shoot his mouth off during that time that if Assad used those chemical weapons the US would act. I think what is interesting about that was Obama knew then and acknowledge that there were chemical weapons. I am starting to think, both sides of that civil war had them.

Which leads this following question? Why didn't he go to Congress then?

In my opinion, everything that could be wrong with this...has gone wrong.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 7:05 AM

I believe...

That Obama is preparing in advance to shift the blame if his strike on Syria proves to be unpopular and ineffective. He’s furious about the box he’s placed himself in, he hates the ridicule he’s (rightly) incurring, but he doesn’t see any way out.

What he does see is a political (and geopolitical) disaster in the making. And so what is emerging is what comes most naturally to Obama: Blame shifting and blame sharing. Remember: Obama doesn’t believe he needs congressional authorization to act. He’s ignored it before. He wants it now. For reasons of political survival. To put it another way: He wants the fingerprints of others on the failure in Syria.

Rarely has an American president joined so much cynicism with so much ineptitude.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 6:49 AM

3. Mr. Obama, in his Rose Garden statement on Saturday, still insisted he has the authority to strike Syria without congressional approval. So what happens if Congress votes down a use-of-force resolution? Does the president strike Syria anyway? If so, will it be an evanescent bombing, intended to be limited in scope and duration, while doing nothing to change the war’s balance of power? Or does the president completely back down? Does he even know? Has he thought through in advance anything related to Syria? Or is this a case of Obama simply making it up as he goes along? Is this all political?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 6:46 AM

Answer a few questions:

1. Why didn’t Obama seek congressional authority before the administration began to beat the war drums this past week? Did the idea not occur to him? It’s not as if this is an obscure issue. When you’re the President & preparing to launch military force against a sovereign nation, whether or not to seek the approval of Congress is usually somewhere near the top of the to-do list.

And why has the urgency to act that we saw from Obama during the last week–when Assad’s use of chemical weapons was referred to by Kerry as a “moral obscenity”–given way to an air of casualness, with Obama not even calling Congress back into session to debate his military strike against Syria?

2. Obama didn’t seek congressional approval for his military strike in Libya. Why does he believe he needs it in Syria?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 11:40 PM

Obama has a history of making premature remarks about high profile incidents. Whether or not Congress approves military action in Syria, Obama needs to publicly answer these questions in detail:

1. What is the evidence that indicates a chemical weapons attack occurred in Syria?

2. What is the evidence that indicates which side used it?

3. If evidence indicates Assad's forces used it, then what is the evidence that indicates the attack was sanctioned by the Assad regime and was not an unauthorized act done by a rogue element?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 3:02 PM

The following is pretty much the sentiment hounding facebook from the Syrian People.

The possibility Libyan chemical weapons were part of the gunrunning operation out of Benghazi. Small amount to be used by rebel forces to create favor among American public for a more “robust” military intervention.

I resisted the scenario, but it is plastered all over Syrian websites and facebook. Almost the same story. That Assad had no reason to use those weapons and in such a small amount. For what purpose? He is apparently winning the civil war by a wide margin. Rebel forces were disintegrating. Russia was providing continued support. Why do something that had no logistical benefit but would only give the United States reason to intervene?

Guess where the finger is pointed at? Our infamous President!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 2:45 PM

When Odummer attacks Syria...make room everybody for the 2 million refugees. Get out your checkbooks, this one is going to hurt. Seriously, nobody would mind a few Syrian rebels hanging out in Salem...right? What is the going rate for rebuilding a country we go in destroy? Remember...Obummer lectured us on our responsibilities!!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 1:39 PM

...(contend)...Some expressed doubts that Syria had engaged in chemical warfare. "The searing image of babies lined up dead, that's what I can't get out of my mind right now," Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz said after the closed-door briefing. But, the picture used was of bodies lined up in Iraq when Sad am Hussein gassed the Iraqi people. And, the credibility of the administration's intelligence is really turning out to be a less important issue than the nature and usefulness of the response.

Right or wrong thing to do...using a fake picture even with those who would help is the wrong thing to do!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 1:34 PM

Dozens of democrat lawmakers, in tennis shirts or shirtsleeves, cut short their vacations and streamed into the corridors of the Capitol building for a Sunday intelligence briefing on Syria with Obama's national security team. Mr. Obama was playing golf.

When they emerged nearly 3 hours later, there was no signs that the many skeptics in Congress had changed their minds.

"I am very concerned about taking America into another war against a country that hasn't attacked us," said Representative Janice Hahn, a California Democrat. She said the participants appeared "evenly divided" on whether to give Obama approval...(continued)...

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 12:17 PM

Beaumont Sep-02-13 10:37AM: "Amen, break out the hot dogs!"

Come on down, Bob...always room for you two.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 12:16 PM

A News poll says 82% of us think Congress doesn’t deserve 5 weeks off to finish out summer. The findings are not split along party lines: 82% of Repubs say no holiday, while 80% of Dems concur.

So when Obama shrewdly or cowardly (depending on your perspective) punted the whole Syria decision to Congress, the first reaction of many Americans was, “OK, so when’s the vote? Today? Tomorrow?”

The answer is Sept. 9th. It’s only Week 5 of vacation, besides, we can’t let a little thing like war get in the way of long strolls on the beach & fantasy football drafts.

Obama also isn’t feeling a sense of urgency: 30 minutes after announcing his decision on Syria, Obama went to the golf course. No worries: VP Biden was likely working the phones to gain support for military action,except, Biden was helping fill out the Obama’s foursome.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 11:39 AM

Okay, so after this round we talked and Russia moved it's warships in. We then said we were Really going to do something and Assad said he could take us on, but he moved military stuff into civilian areas so that if we do strike we kill more innocents (so really, how can we do that?) We've handicapped ourselves and given the other team extra time to prepare. Obama should play the game to win or get out(put up or shut up). Just talking like we have been is NOT helping the mid-east.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 10:37 AM

Amen, break out the hot dogs!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 10:18 AM

Enjoy the Holiday...

"Come to me all who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy and my burden light." (Matthew 11:28-30)

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 9:52 AM

Israeli centrist mass-circulation newspaper Yediot Aharonot:

"Senior Israeli officials were stunned last night by Obama's speech... Al-Assad is sitting rubbing his hands gleefully, & the Iranians are laughing all the way to the nuclear bomb, not to mention the fact that they have now given Al-Assad time to set up his defences."

Website of liberal Turkish daily Taraf:

"The huge gap between the envisaged strategy & the targeted outcome should be reason enough to oppose this intervention. This is an inconsistent strategy even with a sound mind."

The question is really whether Obama has a clue & the answer is that he and his advisors have no idea what they're doing. The entire world is in more danger because of him!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 9:44 AM

Editorial in Egypt's state-owned daily Al-Jumhuriyah:

"The USA, which has killed, maimed and displaced millions of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle Eastern wars in order to steal oil and strengthen Israel, has no merciful heart to look at hundreds of Syrians who were allegedly killed with chemical weapons. The USA is not a messenger of God who will take revenge against the killers, as it claims. In actual fact, it uses fake pretexts to play its real role in destroying the Arab countries and their armies so that Israel will enjoy supremacy and security."

Commentary in Egypt's pro-reform liberal daily Al-Shuruq al-Jadid:

"The poor and children will bear the brunt of the new US adventure. Syria will become more divided, and new terrorist groups will spring up after Washington gives them justification to strike here and there. The innocent in the West will also pay the price as was the case on 11 September 2011."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 9:38 AM

by prevaricating or through implication, Obama yesterday announced the start of a historic US retreat."

Commentary in government-owned Syrian newspaper Tishrin:

"The USA is planning to attack a country in which chemical weapons have been used by terrorists, and the pretext of using these weapons will lead to war and aggression... The USA distorts facts & fabricates events to justify its aggression."

Editorial in conservative Iranian newspaper Siyasat-e Ruz:

"Obama is using the red line of chemical weapons as a pretext... to go back on his pledges to American people and the world. Obama will emerge as the loser if he wages a war against Syria even if the USA achieves victory, because the world will become more familiar with his false humanitarian claims."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 9:33 AM

Commentary in pan-Arab, Saudi-owned daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat:

"No matter what Obama decides on the scope and nature of the strike, he will obviously remain a weak president even if he chooses war... Obama seems to be afraid of any consequences such a strike may entail. What he wants is a quick, limited and narrowly focused strike. He does not want to be dragged into a wider regional war."

London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al-Arab al-Alamiyah:

"Will the Obama administration make up its mind and realize that stability in the Middle East requires the removal of the Syrian regime? Otherwise, it will contribute once again to dispelling any hope of restoring some stability in the Middle East."

Commentary in government-owned Syrian newspaper Al-Thawra:

"Regardless of whether the [US] Congress gives the red light or the green light to an aggression, and of whether the prospects for war have been enhanced or reduced, by prevaricating or through implication President

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 9:19 AM

The stage was set. The world waited. Barack Obama was about to order a military strike against Syria for a gas attack that John Kerry called a direct threat to US national security. Said he would, where he would and... There was consensus in the administration.

Then, at the 11th hour, Barack Obama blinked.

After a week of insisting that he had the authority, which of course he didn't, to unilaterally order a retributive attack against the Syrian regime for the use of chemical weapons against its own people, Obama did an abrupt about face and said Saturday he would now seek Congressional authorization for the strike.

Political brilliance – or political suicide? A strengthened president – or a weakened one? Newfound respect on the world stage – or further disrespect and humiliation? A safer world – or a more dangerous one?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 7:36 AM

A senior State Department official said Sunday, the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.

The official said that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord last night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them. However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.

“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told me, adding that that was why the president, in his Rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.

Should this surprise anyone?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 6:57 AM

"I know well that we are weary of war. We've ended one war in Iraq (badly). We're ending another in Afghanistan (badly), and the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military," Obama said from the Rose Garden.

"In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring (a U.S. failure) have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we're not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else's war," Obama said.


1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 6:42 AM

Syria’s government on Sunday mocked Mr. Obama’s decision, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called it “the start of the historic American retreat,” and said Mr. Obama had hesitated because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies,” along with fear...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 6:32 AM

When Obama said he wanted to ask Congress for a vote, some of his advisers dissented. Officials wouldn’t say which participants argued against Obama’s proposal.

After a two-hour debate, Obama’s team agreed. So Obama called the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to inform them of his about-face. He also notified French President Francois Hollande.

By mid-afternoon, Obama emerged in the Rose Garden, surprising lawmakers, reporters and the public with news of his plan.

“I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage,” Obama said. “Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.”

Then Obama and Biden left the White House by motorcade to play a round of golf.

Well, there you go...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 3:12 AM

Perspectives.... A doctor from France says:"In France , the medicine is so advanced that we cut off a man's testicles; we put them into another man, and in 6 weeks he is looking for work."

A German doctor comments quietly : "That's nothing, in Germany we take part of the brain out of a person; we put it into another person head, and in 4 weeks he is looking for work."

A Russian doctor says boasting :"That's nothing either. In Russia we take out half of the heart from a person; we put it into another person's chest, and in 2 weeks he is looking for work."

The U.S. doctor laughs and answers loudly immediately: "That's nothing my colleagues, you are way behind the USA , about 5 years ago, we grabbed a person from Kenya with no brains, no heart, and no balls....we made him President of the United States, and now....... the whole*****country is looking for work.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 10:24 PM

51.1% of voters do

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 173 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web