See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
' "Some highly partisan Americans will" suggest the president is so consumed with raw politics that a good deal of his thinking is colored by what is best for him and his administration in the eyes of voters.'
You can just say "I", it makes the sentence shorter and clearer.
"Reagan served in the Air Force and Bush “43” was in the Texas Air National Guard"
Comedy served up in an editorial, how droll.
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. .........On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress. These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999.
Your reference to "the CIA/Mossad" suggests that you are propounding the untrue theory that there is a secret Jewish conspiracy to destroy the world. I certainly hope that you would not endorse such anti-Semitic nonsense.
Aside from the partisan nonsense in this piece (e.g. "community organizer"), Mr. Simons generally sums up the situation well.
Congress should most definitely be involved in this decision, and I would argue should vote on any resolution that the President puts forth. Unfortunately, the last 30 years have seen a consolidation of presidential power especially with regard to military actions, most evident in the Cheney/Rumsfeld years.
Congress should issue a bipartisan request to vote on any resolution about military action, because we are not immediately threatened by Syria. However, the President has precedence to act alone in this matter. I hope he seeks Congressional advice and approval, but I fear he won't.
In the past 30 years, the job of Commander in Chief has been consolidated away from Congress, and thus presidents are free to (or are forced to) act without Congress.
The president and the administration should argue their case, but at the end of the day, Congress should vote as to whether the President executes his plan.
Community organizer is a major part of a very small resume that is Barack Hussein Obama. Other than that he taught at a college and was a senator at the state and national level. He had no experience in international affairs. He has never run a business or made a payroll. He was never the executive over any other government entity until being elected president. The left could not have elected a man less qualified.
And yet the country is in better shape now than when we elected him. Amazing.
I don't like the gridlock we have been getting from congress lately. But I'll take it in this instance. A retaliation strike is no good and will make matters worse. It will complicate matters. Getting involved in a civil war is not good and the US has failed at intervention repeatedly.
All we should do is aggressively strive for a diplomatic solution and work this one through the UN.
Putin has continually vetoed any intervention in Syria. Unless he agrees with sending UN troops into Syria, and it's doubtful he will since he is an ally of Assad's, the likelihood of UN troops is slim to none.
No, Bush 43 was at a cocktail party in Texas during the Vietnam War, don't confuse him with a true Veteran who served his country during a time of war. His experience did not stop him rushing into war.
Really? Was it the same party that ran the whole war? Did it float around officer housing or something?
Anyone that serves in the military, in any capacity, is part of a larger whole regardless of their respective role. To denigrate any person who has served in uniform is insulting to all who served in uniform for our country. I suggest you try it, it might give you a different perspective on what this country really means.
"To denigrate any person who has served in uniform is insulting to all who served in uniform for our country"...Timothy McVeigh served...and so did I.
It was the same party that ran away from the war. He was floating around in a raft in a swimming pool drinking a beer.
So rtwngr, you condemn those "swift boat" people who denigrated Kerry?
If the U.S. does anything to Syria, we risk opening another can of worms. The whole area is unstable. Did we learn nothing when we took out Sadam Hussein? Iraq did not recover. Hostile groups are stronger. There's no telling what would happen with Syria, its allies, and its enemies. The only possible consideration would be our own bases in that region. Which is better? Attack Syria to protect our defenses or not attack Syria to protect our defenses?
The Syrian conflict is a difficult choice for America and we need to think carefully about getting into another conflict. We may think this is a bomb a few times and our job is done, but in past conflicts America had to spend money to rebuild that country.
Since a majority of the UN chooses not to intervene America should do the same. What sense does it make to get involved in a civil conflict and a few years later the country does not want to be our friend?
America has many problems at home and money spent in this conflict could be spent helping Americans at home.
Unless there is serious risk to Homeland Security - America should sit this one out!
There is no clear cut answer in this scenario. The facts are however our enemies are killing our enemies therefore the Middle East is killing itself off. Let them sort it out.
I agree. It is non of our business and we have enough problems in the USA.
This is a good time to force the UN to require countries to join together and engage in this conflict. If the UN won't do that then the US must stay out of the conflict.
I am opposed to the use of gas on innocent people and agree with the President that this type of activity must be stopped. I am also opposed to America going at it alone. We must have other countries support, financially and physically, in order to show the world's dislike for this behavior.
America can't save the world and in this case it may be best to let the conflict continue to show its ugly hand until the world says this is enough.
Mr. Simon offers nothing in this column. It is the same with the the current Republican Party.
The Middle East is a mess.
I dispute your statement that they are all honorable men. Obama is a liar, and his actions while in office have been far from honorable. So have those of his subordinates. Now we hear talk of arming the rebels, something that should have been done long, long ago. America cannot, and should not, be the world's policeman. In situations such as Syria, we should give the rebels, who are fighting the evil dictator, arms. That should be the extent of our involvement. It is not easy to watch people killed in a most hideous way by an evil dictator. We should not let it draw us into their conflict, beyond arming the rebels fighting the dictator.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·