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

Syria Defiant In Chemical Probe

Nations consider possibility of intervention

August 30, 2013

DAMASCUS, Syria — President Bashar Assad vowed Thursday that “Syria will defend itself” against Western military strikes over a suspected chemical weapons attack, and the U.N....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(16)

rover1958

Aug-31-13 2:24 PM

The teabaggers here*****the President for 'doing nothing'....yet, when he wants to do something to send 'a message' to a brutal killer..well, shucks...they*****him again.

I think I know the definition of 'traitor, coward and 5th columnist'......it's TEABAGGER!

(I wonder if duhWrat wears lingerie as he sits in a cubicle @ $7.45 an hour to denounce the government elected to lead America. Nah, I don't really wonder....OF COURSE HE DOES!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Aug-31-13 3:50 AM

If Obama does attack Syria without congressional approval, that would be an impeachment offense. If congress would stand by and do nothing, that would send the message that they are impertinent and therefore a dictator can proceed to run the country

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Aug-31-13 3:37 AM

Obama said the use of chemical weapons had violated the international "Norms" in the killing of women and children. So, to be clear. It is not the killings themselves that is the problem. But the manner in which the killings took place? Maybe if we would send Obama, McCain and their buddies to Syria to stay, they would "change" Syria into a nice peaceful place like Detroit. Where people don't get killed by gassing.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Blackrock

Aug-30-13 2:16 PM

Dithering Barry should call up Jimmy Carter for some expert advice.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Aug-30-13 2:04 PM

Heinze-Kerry claims 1,400+ were killed by chemicals in Syria....Send in the 20 year olds, let them die for????

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Blackrock

Aug-30-13 1:49 PM

Our dithering president Obama is known internationally as a weak liberal fool. You get what you voted for folks.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Aug-30-13 1:38 PM

The Syrian rebels are supported by Taliban and the Syrian Government is supported by Hezbollah!!!

Let em all die and let Allah figure it out!!!!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Aug-30-13 1:35 PM

BigMike, yeah, what part of the US Constitution allows the President to send lots of troops in harms way for "punitive measures"???? WTF

Oh and BTW libbies, Syria is well armed and has anti-ship missile of its own.

Unlike LIBYA, they have TEETH and fire BACK against cruise and drones.

OOPS!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Aug-30-13 12:20 PM

From the Washington Post: "U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria"

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Aug-30-13 9:42 AM

if you can't fix your own country why would you think that you can fix some other country?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Aug-30-13 8:56 AM

Funny how we will now be supporting Al-Kida! I have been telling the peeps that this "terrorist" war was great for the military industrial complex! Believe me yet?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Triton

Aug-30-13 8:08 AM

It was not that long ago the same people who support Obama's wars in the Middle East were calling Bush a war criminal because he went into Iraq. Bush discussed the invasion of Iraq for 6 months, there were Congressional committees and discussion before a shot was ever fired. The Congress then controlled by Dems agreed. Obama bombed Libya for eight months and killed 35,000 Libyans protecting them from their government? Who said OK? He has built forces up in the Middle East for over a year trying to find the right baloney to sell Americas as to why he wants to attack another country. Obama only targets secular govs and has spent billion supporting Islamic "rebels" including arming AlQuida. The same people who called Bush a war criminal because Iraq did not pose a direct threat to the US, are quiet as mice today. For people who are convinced they are so much more intelligent than everyone else, liberals are pretty dumb. Please libs, no more Obvama wars. Lets stop killing

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Aug-30-13 7:33 AM

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Thursday, Buchanan says his chief concern about a potential strike is that "the president of the United States is threatening a war and planning a war he has no right to wage. The Congress of the United States alone has the power to authorize war or declare war and it has not done so.

"President Obama is usurping the authority of the Congress first and foremost, and he appears about to launch an unconstitutional and unnecessary war. So the president should be called to account by the Congress and told: no war without our approval. That's the way the Constitution works.

What immediate national security issue does Syria present to the USA?

Chemical weapons MAY be deplorable but unless they are used against USA property or interests directly, that is NOT our problem.

IMPEACH!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Aug-30-13 7:25 AM

Interesting when you see the UN inspectors without protective gear (military grade weapons would still be toxic) in the international news clips!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Aug-30-13 6:02 AM

LONDON—The U.K. vote against military strikes in Syria is a tough blow to Prime Minister David Cameron's domestic political fortunes.

It is also a rare setback for U.S.-U.K. relations that will spur questions about the so-called "special relationship" between the two nations. In recent decades, the U.K. has rarely if ever parted ways with the U.S. on such a significant strategic issue.

But but but BUSH needed and got our allies agreement . . . .

Miss me now??? W.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Aug-30-13 5:57 AM

Rep Ted Poe

What is the legal authority of the president to go to war? According to a former professor of constitutional law: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

I could not have said it better myself. That sentence was uttered by candidate Barack Obama in 2007.

By his own logic, it would be illegal for him to take the United States to war without the approval of Congress because there is no imminent threat to our nation.

President Barack "Flip Flop" Obama.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 16 of 16 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: