Obama trying to pull Colin Powell scheme
President Barack Obama is trying to pull a Colin Powell scheme, starting with inflating of the number of casualties to more than three times above any other report.
The chemical agents could've been provided by the United States or Israel to the rebels, whom they've been arming, to stage an attack that would provide a strong argument for a regime change, something the United States has been pursuing.
Lying is Obama's strong suit; that's why he's not interested in the U.N. inspectors' report: It's the "what we say goes" line. In this case, there's not even an excuse of a retaliation for a real or imminent attack on the United States, just a repugnant attempt to establish itself as the world's police.
Obama's administration lies are parroted by most of the media; there was no such outrage when Israel used phosphorous bombs on the Palestinians in Gaza or the uranium depleted bombs used by the U.S. in Iraq. The daily murderous attacks by U.S. drones are reported without any outrage either. Hypocrites.
Leo T. West
It is an incompetent, disorganized bunch
The Obama administration is incompetent and disorganized; it's embarrassing and laughable to watch them in action, except that this is a very serious situation and isn't one bit funny.
Of course, the gassing of the Syrian people is horrible, but this action happened several months ago, and we only promised weapons to the rebels, and no weapons were sent by the U.S.
So, now we have this crisis -- with the latest gassing event -- and the Obama administration is anxious to drop bombs on Syria, which will probably kill even more civilians.
Has any thought been given to the consequences to what we are doing? What will the effect be on our ally, Israel? The Syrian president might just lob more bombs and use more gas on his people after we're done with our small "war" and have gone home. What then?
President Barack Obama stated that he hadn't set a red line if gas was used in Syria. It seems I heard him say that many times in the past few months. Now, he says it's the world that has set the red line. Oh, right, it's the world's fault.
We shouldn't be involved in Syria's civil war, especially if we have people in charge who don't know what they're doing.
Dorothy K. Baker
Obama has mishandled situation in Syria
I don't approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the Syria situation.
First, he has no leadership qualities whatsoever.
Second, checkout his advisers: John Kerry, Hanoi Jane's buddy -- read the book "Swiftboat" for more details; Chuck Hagel, the "Ugh. I don't know" expert; Gen. Martin Dempsey, a "Yes, man" and "I don't know" type like I've never seen in his position of chief of staff.
These people, with an inexperienced president, are attempting to handle this explosive situation? No, no, no.
Government lying to get us into war again
Just say no to more acts of internal civil war. The bankster cabal wants to start their lusted-after World War III. Foster Gamble, producer of the free YouTube "THRIVE -- The Movie" suggests emailing or calling your congressional representative right now. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of our Joint Chiefs, puts it best: Stay out of Syria, the USA is tired of war.
Didn't you hear? Our government lies to everyone, especially in war. The cabal-controlled mainstream media is suppressing a 10-minute video on YouTube, "Shocking Story That Could Derail Attack on Syria," outlining evidence that the rebels themselves ignorantly used Saudi-supplied, mislabeled chemical weapons that backfired. The rebels ignorantly fired a barrage of what they thought were high-explosive rounds into the wind instead of downwind.
U.S. should stay out of Syria's civil war
Please do not bomb Syria. Stay out of their civil war, unless it's to bring people together to negotiate and heal.
These U.S. wars are like a never-ending nightmare. There's always a humanitarian reason, and the results are always a humanitarian, political and environmental disaster.
Mass confusion in the administration
There is mass confusion and chaos in Obama's administration. President Barack Obama now says he did not draw the red line that he drew.
Doctors Without Borders says to Obama and his administration to not use the doctors' report on victims because DWB cannot say what the Syrians were exposed to, and the Obama administration is claiming sarin gas was used. Also, Obama is claiming there were more than 1,000 victims and the DWB has reported only 355 victims.
Obama and the U.S. have no right or authority to attack a country that did not attack the U.S.
Obama has been clueless on Syria
How could any American with any smarts at all think that Barack Obama would be anything but clueless about making foreign policy decisions?
He had zero experience but an overabundance of Saul Alinsky theories, and now because of his policies we are a laughingstock in the whole world. We couldn't have done any worse if we had tagged someone off the street to be our president.
Connie Clark Benson
Were we made the executioner?
I must have been asleep! I somehow missed the fact the United States was appointed policeman, judge, jury and executioner of the world.
Yes, someone should do something about the mess in Syria, but that someone has to be a reformed and strengthened United Nations -- without the Security Council veto that has largely prevented the body from taking effective action.
The U.N. charter called for a charter review after 10 years. The veto-wielding big five (United States, Russia, China, Great Britain and France) have prevented that from happening.
Only a democratized United Nations or similar world body will be able to legitimately deal with situations such as present day Syria.
Robert F. Hanson
We have no right to attack Syria
President Barack Obama is about to pre-emptively attack Syria. Syria has not attacked us.
Syria, along with the United States, is a founding U.N. member. Syria could justifiably ask the United Nations to condemn the United States for charter violations. Article 2(4) specifically forbids member nations from "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity ... of any state." Obama may find that frustrating, but we signed on and a deal's a deal.
If launching missiles isn't an act of war, what is it? Obama talks of "no boots on the ground" as if troops must actually step on Syrian soil to call it a war?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt said to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941, "a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire." Japan, up to that moment, had "no boots on U.S. ground" and yet FDR said we were at war. Do words now mean only what a leader says they mean?
Our noisy anti-war marchers of yore are extraordinarily noiseless.
Say no to military involvement in Syria
Syria has never threatened, let alone attacked the United States.
The United States must not engage in any military involvement in Syria. We must cease, rather than proliferate, our military campaigns in the Middle East.
Sean K. Lehman