Should the U.S. Use Military Force in Syria?

Syria 2Yes, it’s a lot easier being a community organizer than it is commander-in-chief.  By now even Barack Obama has figured that out.

By now we know there are no easy answers on Syria.  We know there will be consequences no matter what we do.  If we attack, Syria and its partners in crime will almost certainly retaliate.  If they hit Israel, and Israel hits back, that would lead to a wider war in a neighborhood already on fire.  If they blow up something here in America, we would have to respond.  But how do we do that?  It won’t be the Syrian army that attacks the United States.  It will be the same kind of terrorists who killed four Americans in Benghazi a year ago — and we still haven’t brought any of them to justice.

On the other hand, if we do what a majority of Americans say they want and stay out of “their civil war,” what nation anywhere in the world would have confidence in our words and promises?  Red lines will have no meaning and brutal dictators will suffer no punishment for using chemical weapons to kill their own people, even their own children.  We told the Israelis not to pre-emptively attack Iran in order to knock out its nuclear project; we said the United States would never allow the mullahs to possess a nuclear weapon.  How do you say “Really?” in Hebrew?

And President Obama has done his share to take a bad situation and make it worse.  After he drew the red line, he did nothing to enforce his threat, even though we believe the Syrians used poison gas not once or twice but 9 or 10 times.  One day after he sent John Kerry out to make a forceful case for a limited attack, he backed down and threw the hot potato to Congress without knowing how the vote would come out.  If Congress votes no, that leaves the president weakened at home and abroad.  How is that good for the United States?

And then there are the political hit squads here at home.  Turn on your television and you’ll see plenty of Syria hawks who wanted no part of Iraq and plenty of doves who couldn’t wait to attack Baghdad, who wanted our military to stay there even longer and attacked the president for not sending even more troops into Afghanistan.  I detest these unprincipled hacks, left and right.

But there are also legitimate, honestly held reasons for going to quasi war, and good reasons for not getting involved.  Can the United States really allow the use of poison gas and do nothing?  Is that who we are as a people?  But should we get involved in still another Middle East mess when the United States is not under anything even resembling a direct threat?  Aren’t we war weary enough?

I’ve gone back and forth a hundred times on what we should or shouldn’t do and I’m still not sure.  So now, I’m turning this column over to you.  Here’s the question:  Should the United States use military force against Syria.  Keep your answers tight.


Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Donald Brockhaus

    It may be somewhat of a moot point now but if poison chemicals dropped on civilians is the issue, then the U.S. is as guilty as anyone. Just over 40 years ago our government poisoned friend and foe alike with Agent Orange. And to go a step further, the U.S. is still the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons in an armed conflict. So, what puts us on the moral high ground ?

  • keith hart

    Mr. Goldberg, as per your instructions, I kept an earlier post brief. Now, that your commentary has ripened somewhat with time, I should like to elaborate. If I may.
    So long as the low grade quality of our nation’s leaders is drain sucking as much as it is, my advice to the nation’s youth is, do not volunteer for duty in the armed services. I’ll get to my reasons in a moment. A little profiling first. George W. is living proof, a moron can obtain an advanced degree from Harvard. Not that I’m surprised — just amazed. A sad commentary on the state of higher education in this country. Where memorization is the keystone and Socratic Method has no more substance than a holiday speech. Someone once said, ‘democracy is the worst form of government in the world with the exception of all the others’. Spreading democracy as our nation’s goal? Straighten out our own first. Who cares what others choose for themselves? Live and let live. Trade with us in peace, do us no harm — you have nothing to fear from us. I can live with that. If some other country is abusing their own people, that is that people’s job to fix it. We did it for ourselves. Stop demanding we do it for you, then hate us for doing it. Folks have got to know rights only exist when you are strong enough to take them and hold them. No such thing as rights guaranteed — that’s privledges. Can be rescinded at any time, on a whim. I don’t buy the ‘spread democracy’ pitch. That’s just spread the manure. Going into a place that has been threatening us. Rolling them up. Yes, that’s what our guys are good at. But, leave when the job is done. Once the bad guys are out, leave the rest of them to figure out what’s next for themselves. If they continue to threaten us, just go back in. Like I said, that’s what our guys are good at — trained for. Keep doing that til the knuckleheads figure it out — it’s less expensive that way in blood and treasure. Scr3w this ‘nation building’ mud squatters. Leaving our guys as occupiers — draining our blood and treasure — our guys are not trained for that. Who is? What kind of leadership is that? Expending the lives of our young on fantasy and wishful thinking. Oh, that’s right, leaders don’t fight — anymore. They pontificate and send messages. Once there was a time in human history when leaders forfeited their lives for serious failure to their people. There’s more profiling coming. Donald Rumsfeld, the moron’s chief hatchet man. Leaves our guys in place to traffic cop chaos, knowing their humvees are incredibly vulnerable to IEDs and their body armor so deficient, individual families had to buy and send their guys body armor that actually worked — at their own expense. Sending our guys back into tours of combat duty, over and over again, til something really bad happens. Rumsfeld, all the while insisting that our guys ‘leave a light bootprint on the ground’. This goes on for years til he resigns in disgrace. Disgrace? Disgrace! This a-h3le should be made to sit over an IED, that can go off at anytime, for a couple of years, at least. ‘Yeah, Don, I see you’re reporting to work this morning. Just go sit over there for the rest of the day. Try not to move too much — keep a light 3ssprint. Yeah, just 729 more days to go.’ This whole ‘nation building mud squatters’ is taken up by the moron’s successor with even more fervent mental disorder. A belief — no, a need — in making evil people like us. If only we apologize enough. Insist our guys’ rules of engagement are suicidal enough to our own people to show our enemy how much we really care. Find a way and see to it, solid tacticians like McChrystal and Petraeus are taken out of play. Obama, you are disgraceful as a president, you are dishonorable as a commander-in-chief. He does not deserve a salute from anyone in an American uniform — just stroke the side of your neck. And squirrely John McCain. Substandard naval cadet, substandard naval officer, substandard naval aviator, outstanding prisoner-of-war. That in itself should speak volumes. Has dementia really set in? He seems to want to pick a fight with anyone and everyone, convinced we must fight FOR our enemy — for democracy[?] — the Muslim brotherhood, islamist kind of democracy [sic]. Consequences be d3mned. Ask yourself this question, if our leaders are so concerned with the welfare of our troops as their empty speeches imply, then why does it take so much private contributions from public donations to get our guys the rehab they need? So long as we have such despicable leaders, suffering such deep mental disorder — borrowing vast sums from the Chinese, just to bleed it away into the sands of Sh3tholeistan — my advice to the youth of our nation is, do not volunteer for duty in the armed services — resist the impulse. Wait til the American people finally get the leaders we deserve. Driving on Baghdad in armored echelon like quicksilver, under fire, returning fire — yes, absolutely. Getting blown up in tin can Humvees while policing mud squatters? Not on your life. A Saudi fighter jock once said to my face, “we hire Americans to do our fighting for us”. He was on his ass, dazed, in less than two seconds. And he liked Americans. Standing over him, I coulda’ crippled him. But, I didn’t. He was right. Looking back over it all, I have to say I had the privledge of having the best d3mn job in the world. Captain, United States Army, CO, commanding officer of a fighting combat unit. For those who know, I say, savor it, it’s all too brief. General? No, too much time 3sskissing, politicking, time wasted with staff. Colonel? No, too far removed from the troops. Major? Definitely not! Running after superiors reminding them of staff meetings with sheaths of paper in your arms. Maybe others know this. I didn’t read it anywhere. No one told it to me. So, I figured it out for myself. You are Captain. You wanna be Captain? Spend a lot of time with your sergeants. Every d3mn one of them, whether you like them or not. Squatting in the shade, sharing a canteen, talking about almost anything. Pull a tour yourself, Obama. Back yourself into a corner over Syria, did you? Well, now, hubris will do that, won’t it? Not a single American should be standing with you — except maybe squirrely McCain. My advice to you Obama. How about another middle eastern “So Sorry” tour? Oh, and watch out, ‘time wounds all heels’.

  • keith hart

    Let us stop doing Muslim fighting for them. No one kills Muslims more readily, more generously, than other Muslims. Do you suppose they hate each other? We stay out — more than willing to give them all a decent burial, regardless of sect or faction.

    Syrians killing Syrians. It’s Old Milwaukee time.

  • Bill

    We should covertly cut off the head of the snake. Where Mitch Rape when you need him?

  • MAC

    No, Bernie, we should not get involved. It would just make a terrible situation that much worse.

  • ibraney

    Yes – but only if Assad uses Obamacare on his own people.

  • potvin

    If the U.S. isn’t going to wage war against the Assad regime AND the militant jihadist rebels that are cutting off Christian heads then it should do nothing.

  • justanoppinion

    It really doesn’t matter what we do…This “war” (as well as other mid-east wars) is a centuries old religious disagreement that may never be resolved. it’s all about who should rightly succeed the prophet Mohammed. Therefore, we should stay out of it.

  • Fish and bones

    It is a civil war between two factions: Sunni and Shiite. Just how does that involve the United States?

  • Tuffy Butler

    Without a doubt the Syrian situation is an extremely unfortunate human crisis but not uncommon in this part of the world. However with that said, I fail to understand how it threatens the U. S. Considering the state of our country and the potential of economic collapse, the citizens of this nation need to take care of our own backyard. 1st rule of survival is that one is no good to anyone, if they do not or are unable to take care of themselves. The Middle East is and has been and most likely will be at war to the end of time. War seems to be inbred in this region. They are either fighting amongst themselves or with this neighbor or that one. The United States is not going change that fact. Considering Iraq, what did we accomplish – an ally for Iran? From all that I tell it is rapidly falling apart. Afghanistan- well all I can say there is – most likely the U. S. reputation will be similar to that of the Soviets once we withdraw completely. I fail to understand how we can reasonably continue risk and lose one of our most precious resources – our Youth and Military. Only to be shot in the back or blown up by an IED or shot down by an RPG. The time is now for this country to take care of our own (Hint: not through handouts – we need fiscal responsibly, term limits, government employee pay comparable to the private sector and a downsized government with accountability) and let other nations become self reliant or perish.

  • Berkeley Bob

    Let us not make another Iraq out of Syria
    What business do we have in risking American lives for this pathetic country

  • Col Retired William W Higgins

    Do not strike Syria UNDER ANY CONDITIONS. The status quo is totally
    deplorable but not a threat to our National Security. Let those who want
    to assist the innocent victims donate their personal (not the taxpayers wealth)
    through the International Red Cross for Food and Medicine.

  • Bob Olden

    The U.S. should not attack Syria yet, but leave enough naval forces in place to present a credible threat. Obama may not make anybody quake in their boots, but a bunch of cruise missiles close enough to make hamburger out of millions of dollars worth of military installations certainly do have a deterrent effect. Assad has not used any more of the weapons but if he does so with impunity, we should let the missiles fly without hesitation.

  • Wheels55

    After he has waffled on his Red Line stance and Kerry has said our strike would be unbelievably small, there is only one way for Obama to gain respect out of this and actually do something: Obama should just bomb the crap out of Syria, Assad’s troops and facilities as well as the rebel troops and facilities. Not what I would do, but Obama would at least actually be the tough guy he wants everyone to think he is. Right now, Putin and Assad are laughing their butts off.

  • fitzsimmons Photography

    Obama’s true nature has finally been exposed. Not by Americans, certainly not by the American media(which is a joke) not by a second election, but by a former KGB head. Putin has ripped off the Emperors clothes and presented him naked to the world!!

  • fitzsimmons Photography

    I would like to take this opportunity to pose a question that I the top experts on narcissism have been asking for years? Why hasn’t anyone taken seriously the idea that our present President is a classical narcissist? If anyone took the experts seriously, their information would explain Barack Obama’s obssessive need for attention and his lack of leadership,focus and direction for five or more years.
    A narcissist has to be the center of attention. He or she needs a supply(attention) wherever he can get it. If one person or group that he relies on and is addicted to doesn’t offer that supply or stops providing that supply, the narcissist then moves on to find a new supply. Every move that this President makes can be explained by the psychological community on narcissism. I challenge you all to do some research on this very dangerous personality disorder.

  • ibraney

    No – Syria did not attack us when Obama dropped Obamacare on us.

  • Mike

    Just remember, once you attack, you can’t un-attack. There are no easers or white-out or delete button for this one……

  • Fuzz Meister

    The president is already viewed internationally as being weak and indecisive. I’m not sure one more misstep would make him look any weaker and more indecisive. As for not striking Syria, the assumption that such action would embolden radical Muslim groups is somewhat asinine. Those hotheads don’t need any provocation to practice terrorism. That’s what they do, provocation or no provocation. If we don’t plan to make glass out of the entire region, we just need to keep hands off in this “contrived crisis.” Does anybody remember that Obamacare kicks in fully on 1 October?

  • Bruskie

    The policy or the United States should be to get out of this part of the world completely. The only interest we really should have is Israel and we should continue to support Israel 100%. We should have a strong energy plan that would allow the USA to be energy independent, we need to set goals on how we do this and how long it needs to take. Take back our energy wealth and let the people in this part of the world figure out their own solutions!

  • David W. Hunter

    I think the United States needs a break from the Middle East. Since it’s clear (to me) that both choices will cause the U.S. to lose credibility within the region, we should make the choice that does not cost us blood and treasure. I never thought I’d see the day when Vladimir Putin was the Elder Statesman compared to a sitting U.S. President. I think we should follow his lead and allow Syria to turn over his chemical weapons to the international community. It will be another political victory for Putin, but I think it is the choice that will result fewest lives lost.

  • lemonfemale

    Here’s a thought. How about a cyber attack or an EMP (electromagnetic pulse)? Fry their electronic control systems. I honestly don’t know what I think about Syria. The blood of those babies cries out from the ground. But what precisely to do? And I do not trust Obama to be able to prosecute a war.

  • First GreyWolf

    No. This is not a Syrian civil war, but rather, a Muslim Civil war that began with Muhammad’s death. Look at the sides lining up to tell America to use force. the Shiites (Assad is a minor Shia sect) consistently say no. the Sunni (includes Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaida) consistently say yes. a few Americans, Israelis, and others around the world weigh in but I believe few actually see the clear divide that exsists in this and other wars between muslims and their logic is generally emotional. Don’t send our troops into an emotion based war few have digested.

  • A loyal U.S.citizen

    The NO’s have it for all the reasons stated & then some. Our president is incapable, to say the least, not the citizens of our United States. We are a
    great nation, in spite of those dominating our White House.

  • Chris Matthewson

    Bernie and most of his conservative following on this website don’t have a clue as to what to do. Yet, I have no doubt that, whatever the President ultimately decides to do, the vast majority of you will decide that he made the wrong choice.

    As for what Obama should do: He should use Russia and others to divest Assad of all his chemical weapons. If Assad complies, we should not attack. If Assad refuses, then we should inflict a painful attack on Assad’s military that significantly weakens but does not destroy Assad. In other words, a measured response. Also, we will need to prepare to take stronger, additional measures depending on how Syria (and others) respond to our initial intervention.

    • Drew Page

      Obama made the wrong choice when he decided to run for president.
      Very few of us who have actually fought in a shooting war are anxious to get into another one. Take a tour of some of our V.A. hospitals. Get involved with Wounded Warriors. And if you are eligible for military service I suggest you enlist in the Army. Maybe after you do these things I might take your advice more seriously.

    • fitzsimmons Photography

      This is typical liberal ideology!! You obviously don’t remember Putin’s history, the Russian way of detracting and putting things off is part of their DNA. Let’s ignore Isreal and the citizens of the United States but believe Putin and his KGB tactics. Now there’s a plan that Obama can live with.

  • Sgt Murray USAR Retired

    It doesn’t really matter what the rest of the World thinks at this point. If America and its citizens are not endangered, then let the Syrians figure it our by themselves. How would Americans feel if Russia or China, or a group of other countries tried to come in and interfere in our political matters. Now if the Syrians were to threaten or actually endanger any of our allies, that’s the “Red Line” that should not be crossed without military action from America!

  • David Gorton

    Syria, Smyria, it’s all the same war, only the faces & places are different. Win some, lose some, this one,[and Benghazi], goes in the loss column. Our leaders must stop giving away advantages gained in battle,a.k.a.Iraq,,Afghanistan, [“and to be determined”]; play better chess, and get a move ahead instead of reacting after something dreadful happens.

    • Drew Page

      Most of the Syrian rebels are as vicious as Assad. American intervention in Syria will bring us as much praise and gratitude from the Syrians as we got from the Iraqis, the Libyans and, the Afghanis.and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Unless and until we abandon the middle east in general and Israel in particular, America will be despised by most Muslims. Even then, they would still consider us infidels deserving of death. Remember if you can the joyous street celebrations throughout the middle east when the Twin Towers were brought crashing down on 9/11/01. Cheers, burning American flags and chants of death to America were the order of the day. America has no Muslin friends in the middle east. the sooner we accept that, the better.

  • Ivals

    Only if we are prepared to go to war (WW III) with the recognition that Islamization is the real threat to the USA. If the answer to the first question is yes, then we have enter it with an objective to win (bring on the groups in all the countries to their knees) recognizing there will be many causalities including innocent civilians. The hands of the military must be freed like they were in WWII.

  • hihoze

    Not until we know what happened in Benghazi and what the president did or didn’t do. Frankly, I’m sick of the DC’vers & DonkeyPhants and all the lies they feed us with phony sincerity to do the opposite.

  • hihoze

    Only if Obama sends in the dope smoking, purple haired, dancing prancing hippies from Seattle, Boulder and all the Urban Bigots that supported him and his party of redistribution freeloaders. We’re tired of seeing decent flyover kids dying in the DC’vers wars and we’ve come to realize that we’re no longer fighting for our freedom and neither the totalitarian society or those doped up liberals are worth dying for. Hate to say that Bernie but it’s the way I see it. The Great Decline & Fall of America continues, unabated, aided and abetted by the most distracted and ignorant generation ever.

    • fightingirish47

      I totally agree with you I just mentioned those exact words today in conversation.

  • Gloria

    Oh and another p.s. – Next will be the Nobel Peace Prize shared between those two great statesmen – Putin & Obama – or Obama & Putin – gag me with a spoon. Arghhhh!

  • Chuck

    Obama is so concerned about Syrian children dying in gas attacks, but has no problem with millions of American infants dying in abortion mills. The answer then is clear: Don’t attack. Offer Assad a way out with a golden parachute: U.S. citizenship and he gets to keep the sarin gas. In return, he gets a lifetime position with Planned Parenthood, spearheading the use of gas to better fulfill Roe v. Wade.

  • WhiteHunter

    Bernie–Remember the Tonkin Gulf Incident in 1964? Lyndon Johnson thought a limited, punitive air strike against the Communist torpedo boat bases would ‘send a message’ and ‘teach the North Vietnamese a lesson.’ Of course, it did no such thing; instead of cowing the enemy, it was the opening event in the Vietnam War.
    What reason is there to believe that Assad will respond any differently to what Obama proposes to do to him? Does any serious person believe that he’ll ‘get the message’ and tone down his savagery? Assad is evil, but not a fool. He knows what happens to Middle Eastern strongmen and dictators who abdicate.
    Obama doesn’t understand that he can’t intimidate and humble the Syrian dictator the way he does American citizens. Assad isn’t worried about an IRS audit, and can’t be blackmailed with NSA taps on his phone and emails. Any ‘jogger’ who threatened his family, children, or cat would be immediately tortured and shot.
    Like every nearly every member of his administration, Obama is a congenital, sociopathic liar. I don’t believe anything he says about Syria (including the results he claims for a missile strike) any more than I would if he said the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese. Or that he ‘inherited this mess.’
    The immense damage he’s already done to our country–both domestically and abroad–will take years to repair. If it can be repaired at all.

    • Vivian


    • fitzsimmons Photography


  • Gloria

    Oh and ps, that magnificent body known as the UN can also rest easy. Oh, never mind, that’s what they always do.

  • Gloria

    Bernie! It’s all been resolved! No more dilemma, Vladimir Putin has come to the rescue. He rode in on his White Russian and came up with a better idea to bail out the hapless American pres. And both our esteemed current and former secretaries of state are on board with it! Yea….. we can call off the vote in Congress and they don’t have to get their hands dirty with a yes or no. It has become a win-win situation now. All the Syrian leadership has to do now is give up, sign a peace agreement, promise never to do it again, and we are off the hook! No military intervention, no more chemical weapons. Now why didn’t we think of that?

  • Carlos

    By the way, Obama’s actions regarding Syria are contrary to the 36 rules of strategy. You don’t threaten your enemy by saying that you are going to hurt him a little and then vacillate for nearly two weeks. He who hesitates is lost and in this case, the outcome has been decided. Community organizer, maybe, Commander in Chief he’s definitely not! He should learn from Israel, of course, knowledge he may gain but what the Israelis have to put that knowledge into action, he sorely lacks. Let’s leave it at that.

  • Carlos

    Pride goes before a fall. The predicament we find ourselves in is, in no small way, a result of Obama’s arrogance and irresponsible remarks. Now that he’s put himself and our Country in a no-win situation, he’s desperately trying to do what he does best “transfer” responsibility. If this is a crime against humanity, and no one doubts that it is, then let the UN deal with this issue. Thus far we are the only nation on a war path against Syria. In short, my answer is no, we neither want a war nor can we afford it! Enough is enough.

  • Gary in SoCal

    No. Shouldn’t the question you posed be “Can the United Nations really allow the use of poison gas and do nothing?” Shouldn’t the UN put 70,000 blue helmets in Syria before 1 American boot is placed in Syria? Shouldn’t we use the Dept. of State FY2013 Executive Budget Summary (Function 150 & Other International Programs) to zero out the millions of US tax dollars that are supporting Syria, the PIJ and PFLP-GC, Hamas ($351M through the Palestinians), and Hizbullah? Would the UN become more focused on this issue if we stopped funding their political impotence? How long will the UN and US remain “Blind to Terror” (re: Patrick Poole, 4 June 2013 essay, MERIA Journal), as Mr. Poole describes in his essay? If we can’t deal with the ‘dead baby’ strategy (A. Dershowitz) being used by Assad and Hamas, we must avoid this civil war.

  • Mike

    Obama is already seen as weak and ineffective. Not bombing will not change that. Supporting the rebels, who also want to destroy us it seems, doesn’t seem to serve any useful purpose. The US tried to bring democratic rule to the Middle East by ousting brutal dictators. What response do we get? They still hate us. Let’s stay out of this one.

  • D Parri

    Bernie, your dilemma is the nation’s dilemma–we share in the difficulty in making a decision which would allow us to maintain the high ground from number of perspectives. Morally, strategically, and politically–both domestic and international, we have been presented with a basketful of issues which tend to weigh-in on both arguments. Compounding the problem of deciding to take an action which could have far-reaching implications that have probably not even been recognized, we are having to rely on information given to us from one of the least-trusted administration–including Congress–in modern history.

    I have always felt that one of the most important roles carried out by the POTUS is to help the people to understand more clearly the difficult issues, and he is always responsible for making a decision which is in the best interest of the nation. President Obama has done the opposite in this role by making the pendulum sway to and fro and never stopping with a clear picture to be presented to the world of the nation’s position and perspective on vital issues.

    Therefore, because of his desire to obfuscate the issues, I will continue to simply use Pres O–President Obfuscation–as his chosen moniker.

  • Ksp48

    The truth of the matter is that no one has any confidence in Obama getting this right.

    • D Parri

      Succinct and on-point!

  • poptoy1949

    It does not matter who launched what… is none of our business. Enough of the wars in the middle East. I am a staunch conservative and no dove like person but this is a battle that does not need our Nose poked into it.

  • Guest from CA

    Bernie! Sorry I spelled your name wrong!. Please forgive my error!

  • 633

    Sidebar observation: the Benghazi attack was far more likely to have been conducted by an organized state asset (Syrian commandos?) with technical guidance and support (Russian?) than “terrorists”. First question: Does the current situation justify American intervention assuming our intervention will lead to a broader war? If the answer is no (mine as it happens) than the issue should be closed. As an aside, Bernie deserves some credit for avoiding a simplistic response and demonstrating personal social courage: he certainly will have acquaintances/friends in the Kristol crowd and AIPAC who would prefer a different answer.

  • Guest from CA

    Hi Betnie

    We need to stop saving the world with American lives and American money.
    The return for all of this is hatred and jeers. But we are numbskulls who are
    committed to saving the entire planet. We neither have the money,,and
    drone drops are a sissified way to fight. Also, ineffective! Obama must be
    really off his rocket to state that WE will end all chemical weapons on earth.
    To top it off, Bernie, we have no legal reason to attack Syria. Come, now! If we
    did not care about Benghazi with dead Americans, what is the concern with
    other nations people as somehow more dear and precious than our own
    Americans,? We had every reason to strike Libya but nobody knows where
    Obama was during the time Americans were slain? So who would believe any word he or the Secretary of Stupidity says. Who, still, by the way, thinks Benghazi was a joke, like his predecessor Hillary!
    I wish the earth would swallow all the goofs who support an attack..and I
    would never vote GOP again, as I can no longet distinguish one party from
    another. What a sorry state of affairs

    • Vickie Roberts

      It’s not about saving the world. It’s about manipulating and controlling the world through deceptively peaceful means.

  • Vivian

    We are all still suffering war fatigue. We have given our blood and treasure and there is still a vacuum in the Middle East. We never should have invaded Iraq the second time…Big mistake… Please, no, no, no…not again in Syria…
    Good Bless America…

  • Rascasse

    Not just no……. but Hell no! We have had enough of the ‘children’ in this part of the world. Every time I hear the term “middle east peace process” I have to laugh. I spent some time throughout the region a number of years ago and my assessment is not one person really wants peace. They have been fighting and arguing for thousands of years. If by some act of dumb luck there was actually some level of peace, I am convinced they would go out of their minds and figure out something else to fight about. If they didn’t have oil, they would all still be living in tents and throwing sticks and rocks at each other and nobody would care. However, they have money and more than just rocks and sticks.

    So, what to do? We went into Iraq on the weapons of mass destruction call, and couldn’t find any, even though we all know full well that he had them… just ask the Kurds whether or not Saadam had WMDs, and we took massive grief from the left and the world for going in. While the Iraquis were playing ‘hide and seek’ with the UN weapons inspectors, I wonder where their WMDs went? Possibly Syria?

    Do we really know if the Syrian government or the rebells are using the gas? The answer is no we don’t. Neither side in this conflict has any love for us. The Syrian government hates us and the rebells are made up of Muslim extremists. Why on earth would we go be the air force for the Muslim extremists? We made that mistake in Bosnia. It’s time to learn.

    Humanitarian aid…… yes!
    Military air strikes….. no!
    Boots on the ground……. are we crazy?

  • warren

    NO. No. and No again. No vital national interest exists to attack a country that has not attacked us, does not want to attack us.

  • Gloria

    Hi Bernie,
    I read your stuff and see you on tv and am always amazed at how in sync I am with your opinions. Probably 90% of the time and that is pretty surprising….and here again I am with you totally. Have absolutely no idea what is the right thing to do! Feel torn about it, and that is not who I usually am. It is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation if I ever saw one. Part of me says yeah we have to back up our threats, and do the right thing for these Syrians under attack by their own people. And then, the other part of me says – what, get involved over there again and risk the conflagration that could result both here and abroad? Nah, stay out of it. So, no help here. Dunno….but I do know that we have a president who will not take responsibility or blame for any of it. He only takes credit for the good stuff. You know the type.

  • D Parri

    I believe it is time for the American public to begin distancing itself from this administration in the same fashion that Pres O has done some many times before by refusing to take responsibility for actions he has taken that ultimately went south. It has always been a command performance tactic to throw some other party under the bus when his leadership has failed. President Bush, the republicans, the Tea Party, conservatives, proponents of a free market capitalist society, to name a few, have all suffered under his executive leadership of the ‘name & blame’ tactic.

    Concerning U.S. intervention in Syrian, Pres O should be forced to take ownership of any decision to act by Congress’ refusal to hand over a green light–a green light which would eventually become a spotlight on Congress.

  • Larry

    No! How is it in our interest? What happens if we shoot off all of our Cruise Missiles and the whole Middle East Attacks Israel?

  • Shane

    No, I am a a conservative who was against the Iraq war and I see no reason for the USA to attack Syria. If the UN or NATO agreed to punish Assad, then I would be for it, but the USA should not act alone when we have no dog in this fight. Both Assad and the rebels are not friends of America.

  • voters25

    When does this administration start taking care of the US all u all seem to be worried about is Syria has got problems but when is someone going to take care of the US I along with a lot of people do not trust this administration but they never solved anything in Bengazi when does the US start taking care of us
    I believe Obuma has a adgenda
    People are dying on the street every day why don’t you care about them

  • Drew Page

    Bernie: Was it ok that Assad and the Syrian army killed a hundred thousand people or more with bombs and bullets? Are the 1,400 killed with gas “more dead” than the others? Is our moral outraged based on the method of killing as opposed to the number killed?
    Where was the threat to invade China when they killed hundreds of thousands of their ‘political prisoners’? Where was the U.S. threat to Russia when they did the same to Chechnyan rebels? Are we only morally outraged to the point of attacking another country when that other country is a rather small, impotent one? If a group of American anti-government rebels armed themselves and rioted in the streets and U.S. troops were called out to quell the riots, resulting in the deaths of American rebels, would another country be within their rights to bomb America for killing its own citizens?
    Our amateur president has gone about this all wrong. The time to look for international support to attack another country is not after you tell the world you are going to do it, with or without the support of Congress or the American people. Mr. Obama’s “plan” to attack Syria is being presented in much the same fashion as Obamacare.; in order to find out what it is, we are first going to have to approve it.

  • D Parri

    No. The red line rhetoric is no more compelling than a 2-year history of civil brutality and genocide. Pres O has painted the current canvas he appears to the world against, and it is not one with which the majority of Americans agree. Pres O has already demonstrated how quickly he will distance himself from taking responsibility by personally disowning the ‘red lines’…set by who? Russia’s ploy to ‘take control of the chemical weapons’ is a political death trap which Obama does not seem to recognize.

    So, since Pres O is not faring well in this situation and he is unable to stand and make his own decisions, then I believe that the American people should be heard. NO!

    • Vivian

      Barry should stick to golfing or goofing…I will gladly pay the greens fee…

  • lakestevens

    No to a strike on Syria! It will end up like Egypt and Libya where deposing Mubarak and Khadafi (sp) was going to bring democracy to both of those countries and it is now much worse for their citizens. And, again, we are to trust Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton? Yet, still no truth on Benghazi. Enough!

  • Octave

    William Kristol–“The worst outcome would be for Obama not to call Congress back, or not to act at all, but to falter and retreat. For his retreat would be America’s retreat, and his humiliation America’s humiliation.”

    • Shane

      No, it would let the world know that Obama is a gutless jerk who cannot be depended on. Oh wait, the world already knows that.

    • Drew Page

      His humiliation has been America’s humiliation since 2008. This will continue until he leaves office. We don’t need to compound one mistake with another. When you find yourself in a hole, it’s time to quit digging. Mr. Obama has done nothing to solve America’s problems; he has only made them worse. For better or for worse we are stuck with this guy for 3 more years. During that time he should be held in check as much as possible.

      I truly wish we had a man like Benjamin Netanyahu running this country.

  • Brad Kozak

    If you really want regime change (which Obama CLAIMED he wanted), why not send in the black ops guys and take Assad out? Why? Because that does nothing but plunge yet again another Middle Eastern country into chaos. I say, send in Obama himself. He can bore both sides to death.

  • Judy

    We can’t undo what has been poorly handled. I change my position daily, when listening to each side’s case being made by highly competent military
    minds–that surely means that there are no good answers. Today, the issue is further complicated by Putin trying to get Assad to turn over Syria’s chemical weapons to the UN!!!!! In my opinion that would be about the worst outcome.

  • Wil

    I think things have been played very well by our President Obama. We’ll work something out with Russia and Syria, then move on to some sort of peace with Iran. In the meantime, AIPAC has been cut off at the knees and will likely never pull us into another idiotic war.

    • John Daly

      … and then unicorns will float through the sky to the inspiring background music of John Denver. We’ll all hold hands underneath a triple rainbow of love and profess our gratitude for the chosen one, President Barack Obama, who saved the world… once and for all… from itself.

      • Wil

        The only Browning about you is your nose!

    • Drew Page

      Do you know how foolish you sound?

  • Larry Small

    NO. Time to turn over a ‘new leaf’, and stay out of the problems in the middle east.

    • Vivian

      Great Rhyme!!!

  • Nicholas344

    First of all, remember that this humanitarian argument is sheer hypocrisy. If America was concerned with chemical warfare, it would go to war with the Mexican drug cartels waging chemical warfare on American citizens by supplying drugs. Having ones body and mind gradually destroyed by drugs isn’t a pretty picture. Why not seal the border and bomb the drug cartels? It wouldn’t happen because we wouldn’t invade Mexico. America’s apparent open border policy cannot stop Mexico from invading the U.S.

    So chemical warfare isn’t the real issue. The real issue is politics. Should we invade Syria for political reasons? I say no. We have enough political problems over here to worry about.

    • monkdiz

      Nicholas344 makes good sense to me. The UN should be disbanded. Its a total waste! John Daly & D Parri also make excellent arguments.

  • Neal from PA

    How do you say “Really?” in Hebrew? Be’e’met

  • Kevin

    The problem is really Iran but to “knock out” Iran one must first deal with its surrogates,i.e., Syria and Hezbollah, and if you’re going to “send a message” to Syria it must be forceful and designed to at least aid in the removal of the current regime. Failing that it makes no sense to do anything on a limited basis. Save the cruise missiles for when we’ll really need them.

  • TRexLex

    Like you, I have gone back and forth. I think we should keep our eye on the ball, which Iran and nuclear weapons. I would rather spend the money to upgrade our bunker busters and attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. I think the better solution in Syria at this point is to supply the Free Syrian Army. I recognize the distinction with regard to chemical weapons, but from a humanitarian perspective, we need to realize that the Middle East will be in turmoil for the rest of our lives and more. We just have to sit back and let them fight one another. Support the more secular, Western oriented, moderates where we can (e.g., Egyptian army, Jordan), but we cannot get involved in the internecine battles in the Islamic World. We must let them exhaust themselves as a general policy; when they fight one another, they’re not fighting us or Israel. We cannot use our power or resources to intervene most of the time for humaniarian reasons or we will bankrupt and exhaust ourselves.

    • Drew Page

      Bad idea. There are no good guys fighting in Syria. The rebels hate America as much as the Syrian government hates America. Kerry’s plan to “vet” the rebels and only support the “moderate” terrorists will work out as well as our support of the “moderates” in the Muslim Brotherhood. You have to wonder if these people in the administration are on dope.

  • Ed

    There is no way we should get involved. If we do, then the Mullahs have an excuse to attack us, and Obama doesn’t have the guts, or the will, to retaliate against them, or those who harm us. Sounds very cold, but let Allah sort them out.

  • Andy

    Bernie: While I get what you’re saying about the “hypocrites” on both sides, can’t someone who was for going to war in Iraq see that it might have been a mistake and change their minds? That said, you’re right. Good reasons for taking action and good points for staying out. I’m just thankful that I don’t have to make that decision and anyone who would even want the job of President has to be nuts. The truth of the matter is Obama, with his red line comment, tried to act like a tough guy while trying to get reelected and now he’s stuck and is looking for an excuse (Congress) to stay out.

    • Judy

      Good point!

  • UncleDrey

    No, No, NO!! Bring our middle east battle fatigued brave warriors home where they belong. Use our troops to secure and defend our borders. We can’t bomb and invade every country that does something we don’t like. Let the U.N. put sanctions on them, and let us heal from the last decade of fighting two ridiculous wars.

  • Diane Thompson

    “If” the USA were stronger economically, it might be the thing to do; however, our resources, including our good young men and women, are all stretched way too thin, and a new war (possibly another long, drawn-out one) would stagger our economy in a whole new way that we cannot afford, neither militarily or morally!

    • Drew Page

      Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? It was their civil war. Can anyone tell me why we sacrificed 58,000 American’s KIA? What did we “win”? Did we stop Ho Chi Minh? Did we defeat Communism in southeast Asia? Did we save the South Vietnamese from the North Vietnamese? Did we save the Cambodians from the Kymer Rouge? Did we do it to prove a point? What was the point? Did we prove it?
      If we want to fight communism, we can do it right here at home, because that’s the direction we are heading.

  • Diane Thompson

    HELL, “NO…!”

  • Wil

    NO! Send the sons and daughters of the politicians over if they think it is such a noble idea.

  • Hugh Petersen

    No way! It’s THEIR civil war, not ours and our use of military force could well ignite the powder keg over there.

  • LAPhil

    Absolutely not. Nothing good can possibly come from a strike against Syria, but there can certainly be a lot of unintended consequences, many of which could be deeply regrettable. After all this time have we learned nothing from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya?

  • Neal from PA

    “If the United States does not act to punish Assad it will send the wrong message to every rouge regime in the world.”

    That message was already been sent three times: (1) Obama’s election in 2008 (2) during Obama’s “Apology Tour”; and again in 2012 upon Obama’s re-election to a second term.

    America is now weaker than it has ever been, an Obama is the proof.

    Actually, Obama is hoping the Congress will say NO WAY; because he really doesn’t want to take any action at all…unless that action can indirectly help his Muslim friends through some consequence of the action taken.

    I say indirectly, because Obama knows he could never directly show support for the Muslim Brotherhood or Al-Qaeda; but that is exactly what he desires most. Just look at what has transpired in the Middle-east since Obama was elected in 2008.

    Obama is not a leader, he is a follower; else he would not make statements that he has no intention of acting upon. He “talks the talk”, but fails to “walk the walk”; and exhibits all the symptoms of ADHD. Pay no attention to what he says, only what he does. And what he has done has hurt America every time he acts.

    That said…under the present circumstances either way it’s a no win situation for Obama. So why should he take military action, is there not another way?

  • nickshaw

    Nope, stay out.
    Skeeter lost the opportunity by not doing something within a day of getting the report.
    What he has done here is voted “present”.

    A true leader with principles would have fired off 10 or 20 cruise missiles within hours of the spy satellites spotting the delivery systems (you know they did!) and weathered the consequences from Americans.
    ‘Cause that would be the only consequences. Political ones within America.
    Syria or it’s allies would do nothing except wag fingers and tsk-tsk.
    Oh sure, there might be attacks on embassies or stray American targets but, that’s a given anyway, without further provocation. We’re prepared for that, right? (yes, that was a snide crack given Benghazi)
    The Israelis manage to strike without warning, multiple times, and they don’t suffer any undue consequences. Why is that, do you think?
    ‘Cause they will hit back twice as hard. The muslim world knows this.
    And they guard their assets properly, not with the same people they were fighting against last week!
    Even with Russian ships on the scene and Chinese ones on the way, only an errant American missile striking one of them would elicit a response from that quarter.
    I don’t even think there would be response if Skeeter were to order a strike today but, the problem now is that the targets are gone.
    That’s the problem with a community organizer as president. He never had to worry about consequences for his actions. What would a company he picketed or brought to court or even the US government do to him that was so dangerous? Now he has to worry about them all the time.
    Nope, he lost the opportunity to be a hero. Now it’s too late.

  • sgtstriker

    I am not at all convinced that the photos and videos we are being fed are not manipulated and I do not believe that this administration is above attempting to manipulate public opinion. Syria, like Iraq and Afghanistan, is likely to be quick-sand to our military personnel, and our funding. Syria may also cause hostilities involving Israel that would be the spark needed for an all out conflagration in the middle east. Lastly, this is again a sunni/shiite and radical islamist fight. Helping ANY of them is helping them take actions against us in the future. STAY OUT! (And Mr. President, choose your words more wisely!).

  • pasovenado

    Sadly, the word of America has already been turned into a joke by our shameless president. The outside world is not oblivious to the lies told for years to the American public regarding his campaign promises, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS and NSA scandals (not as phony as Barack Obama wishes they were), and the rest. The idea of jumping into yet another war we can’t pay for, to become Al Qaeda’s air force and to save people who hate us, all in order to try to salvage some sliver of credibility for this egomaniacal imposter in the White House is beyond insanity.

  • Lance Combs

    Both sides are hostile to America. I don’t see how any involvement can benefit the United States. In most cases I am a hawk. I even advocated for involvement in Syria, myself, back in 2011, before Al Qaeda infected the rebel cause. Back then, they were begging for our help. If we’d have helped them then, we might have been left with a pro-western regime. Now, we could spend money and lives to defeat one anti-American team to empower another anti-American team. Or we could sit back and watch our enemies die by their own hands. This does not sound hard to me.

  • rbblum

    I’m confused – if Syria violated international law as has been indicated then why isn’t the FBI being sent in to make appropriate arrests :) ?

    • cmacrider

      rbblum: That’s pretty funny

  • lark2

    We are being “led” by the incompetent Barack Obama and the incompetent John Kerry. Does anyone wonder where the incompetent Hillary and her Husband are hiding? I think we should send out an A.P.B. or a BOLO … something should be done, they could have been abducted.

    • nickshaw

      Pantsuit is supposed to speak from the White House today.
      I can’t imagine this sits well with BiteMe Biden.
      Remember, he was hired in the first place ’cause of his vast wealth of foreign affairs knowledge.

  • vcousins

    Until the middle east separates religion form their government they will always, as they have been for hundreds of years, be in some sort of war with each other!!!! Yes chemical weapons use is beneath human decency but what about the other 100 thousand people that have been killed in this war? Do they get less recognition because they weren’t killed with a chemical weapon? We not only shouldn’t get involved in Syria but Americans should stay the hell out of there so we are not providing a target for the terrorists to start something with us which I firmly believe they want to do. Remember we are the infidels and according to their perception of their Quran, their Jihad is not complete until they have exterminated the infidel!!! So let’s just keep giving them money shall we?

  • pasovenado

    If there were a switch we could pull that would eliminate Assad from the planet, no problem. But isn’t it painfully obvious that 200 other countries, and most of the people in the United States, believe that attacking Syria has even greater consequences than not?

  • Paul Vasek

    No as this is all Obama’s blunder about “red lines” and to cover for him.

  • lark2

    NO! The Syria situation features … our enemies on one side and our enemies on the other side. We need to allow them to kill each other while we keep our powder dry. This is NOT any of our business.

  • gold7406

    Why haven’t all the mullahs and emams across the world condemned his action? Why aren’t there muslim protests around the world calling for the ouster of assad? If this is such a horrific event, why hasn’t the rest of the world been outspoken about this? Are they afraid of retaliation?

  • eric90230

    Since our president drew a line in the sand, we should send some missiles, knock out some part of Assad’s military, then we should depart the field.

    There is absolutely no practical way to establish a free Syria. I wish there were.

    • nickshaw

      Nope, too late.
      He had his chance to be a principled hero and he blew it.
      Doing something now would be useless.

  • Pasovenado

    John Kerry asked Rand Paul, “Can you be sure Syria won’t use chemical weapons again if we don’t attack?” But no one can be certain – not Paul, not Kerry, no one. And we don’t take this country into another war simply because we have no clue what will happen if we don’t.

  • Stimpy

    No. The best outcome would be to somehow get Assad to surrender his chemical weapons stockpile. Maybe to the Russians, who would for once appear as good guys, or to the UN, or the US. Maybe that’s naïve.

    • Jim Pell

      Excellent suggestion!

    • debdash

      Very naive.

    • nickshaw

      I think that’s a bit naive too, Stimpy, however, as Assad maintains he did not use chemical weapons we could take his refusal to turn them over to the Russians or some other third party as a sign that he is probably lying.
      Wouldn’t hurt to ask.

    • nickshaw

      Wonder of wonders, Stimpy!

      Here’s the headline over at Ace’s site:

      John Kerry: We Wouldn’t Have to Bomb if Syria Put Its Chemical Weapons Under International Inspectors
      Syria: Okay
      Russia: Okay
      John Kerry: I Meant That Hypothetically

  • websquaw

    We have budgets to prepare, a debt ceiling to content with, a healthcare system (ObamaCare) that is imploding with miscalculations and misrepresentations, we still have many unanswered questions and zero accountability on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS targeting, the NSA spying on Americans, a depleted military because of Barack’s cuts and sequester, Social Security and Medicare on the verge of bankruptcy; is it not yet clear that we should NOT be involved in a war with or against those who wish us harm?

    • Lance Combs

      Well, if it was only against those who wish us harm, I would say we SHOULD be involved. But, since this one includes us also being on the side of those who wish us harm, I agree with your conclusion.

  • No way guy!

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to water board Assad until he discloses who supplied him with the gas and chemically lethal material originally? It would not surprise me to find out that Iran, Russia & even Iraq(before we invaded Iraq) had a dirty set of hands in suppling this stuff. Killing the current users or degrading their capability doesn’t eliminate the source for such future warfare. Everything Obama has done since taking office both times has been politically motivated. Don’t you think we should water board him 1st to find out his real motives??

  • Bobby Calvery

    We have a natioinal debt racing towards 17 trillion and we should spend billions on a war that we can’t win for people who don’t like us to save face for a President who is clueless? Don’t think so!!!

  • Alice

    No. That area of the world will always fight and nothing we do will prevent that, as tragic as it is. Our boys shouldn’t be put in harms way for a lose/lose situation.

    • Lance Combs

      Unless there’s a national interest involved in it, like there might have been had we gotten involved back in 2011.

  • Polka Dot

    Plain and simple: NO

  • John P.

    No way ! From what I gather, all our military leaders say NO, that should say something ! Just because Obama shoots off his big mouth, with the Red Line and then deny’s saying that and it’s not his Red Line but the Worlds !! Well, let the World take care of the problem. By bombing Syria we will open up a Hornets nest. Don’t we have enough problems. Obama and his people didn’t give a Rat’s hair about Benghazi, now all of a sudden he has a conscious ??? I don’t think so.
    Like our future President said ( God Forbid ) “What difference does it make” They hate us, let them fight their own war.

  • Chica

    No. There is no hard proof that it was assad’s forces that used the weapons. Could have been the rebels trying to force USA hand to get involved.

  • Skip in VA

    I, too, say NO! This reminds me of President Johnson (LBJ) and the Gulf of Tonkin incident which opened the door to our involvement in Vietnam. There is still doubt that the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy ever engaged North Vietnamese war ships. But LBJ took the “opportunity” to engage Congress and get their approval to retaliate. I believe that Obama has similar aspirations and by deploying our cruise missile destroyers off the coast of Syria he is asking for Iran to “start” something. They (Iran) already have swift boats deployed to the Mediterranean. This man, Obama, is not to be trusted. He is incompetent, a liar, and a Socialist. As the sixties song (about Vietnam) says; “when will we ever learn?”

    • Lance Combs

      I don’t think this is the same, since I actually approve of our involvement in Vietnam, since the intention was to halt the spread of communism.

  • Craig1748

    No U.S. involvement in Syria. The so-called moderates running the FSA are not certain at all to be moderates. A video the other day on Fox News shows members of the FSA or one of its affiliates executing Syrian army troops with shots to the back of the head hands tied behind their backs and kneeling with their faces shoved in the dirt. Or the video with a leader of the FSA with an Islamist battle flag on the wall behind him. People die in wars and in civil wars……horrible as it may be our enemies are killing each other. Stay out of Syria!

  • LEE

    Simply said , NO. Obama has put the United States in a no win situation. His red line comment and his subsequent inaction has already made us a laughing stock of the world. Everyone knows he’s in over his head and that his assistants have no idea of how the world works
    Again, NO to Syrian involvement. The proof still is murky, at best, and saving face is NO reason to get involved as many pundits have suggested we do. AND, can you imagine the horrible images of the dead and wounded that will automatically appear if Obama goes ahead with an attack. We are in a no win situation that we must stay out of, period.

  • jcofla

    I agree with MOST of what is written here but there is one huge
    exception. I totally disagree with the statement, “By now even Barack Obama has figured that out.” Unfortunately for our country, I believe he has not. He has
    an ego the size of the grand canyon and he believes he is in the right place
    and the right time despite what might be going on in our county or anywhere in
    the world. I’m often reminded of what the character “Stinger” said in the movie
    “Top Gun”, “…your ego is writing checks your body can’t cash” and that is very
    typical of the current Commander in Chief in more than just financial ways.

  • BenDoubleCrossed

    How much better off would America be today if we had not spent a decade and 2 trillion dollars fighting in the Middle East? What if we had spent that on developing domestic energy and infrastructure?

    And what have we gotten for our 2 trillion and lost decade: wounded warriors, worn out equipment and resentment from the citizens of the lands we assisted!

  • seenitallbefore

    Saddam gassed the Iranians and the Kurds; we did nothing. When we
    finally went in we botched it. Proportionate response and moral
    equivalency means dead Americans without resolution of the problem
    (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Korea); we haven’t won a military
    conflict since WWII. If we don’t have the will to win, then we
    shouldn’t engage. Truism: Anytime a Government fails to use the requisite force available to destroy the enemy with minium or no casualties to its own people, it betrays them; Truman understood that it was better to kill millions of Japanese civilians than 300,000 US military. (we should have bombed Iraq and Afganistan until there were no people left to threaten us; it makes no difference that the Islamic extremists are a minority (if they are); the remaining population is irrelevant (if they can’t stand up to extremists and dictators) and deserves nothing more then to end up as collateral damage under our bombs; until we understand that, we can’t win and should stay away.

  • Reeve Swainston

    No – simply because it is not necessary that we do so.

    • Lance Combs

      I would amend that by saying that it is because it is not USEFUL that we do so.

  • Clarence De Barrows

    Of course not. Our Constitution is clear on the poiint. This debacle poses no threat to the United States and that is the controlling criteria for instituting action.

  • expatVet

    absolutely NO. The US had an opportunity to exert some influence when the civil war started two years ago.
    There is no military objective and nothing will help the US image in the region.
    Fund the Israeli defense and get some new politicians who read the early tea leaves and do something quietly effective to eliminate these tyrants.

  • Srewop

    What disturbs me is the apparent fact that slaughtering civilians with means other than chemical weapons is disregarded. Hundreds of thousands, even millions, are wasted, yet we do not go to war. Why is gassing any worse than machine gunning, bombing or throat slitting? We cannot police the world, nor can we impose civilized culture upon anyone. We are under no direct threat; stay out of the mess.

  • Joseph Papalia

    Are we going to be the 911 of the world? Why must we always shed our blood and treasure while other countries say go for it and don’t contribute. Is the Arab League preparing to aid or send troops? Our president with his big mouth got us into this. This gutless wonder should spend less time playing golf and practice on how to choose his words more carefully.

  • map291

    No, we should take the handcuffs off Israel and let them police their backyard.

  • Sonny

    Maybe with a different, more competent and trusted administration I would say yes but given this record of ineptness and lack of openness and executive orders the answer is NO!

  • docww

    I think you are asking the wrong question. To me it is clear
    that we will lose no matter which option we pick. The reason? The man in the
    oval office. If we do launch a strike there certainly may be consequences, but
    I don’t have any faith that this President will know how to deal with them.

    If we don’t launch a strike there will also be consequences
    and again I don’t have any faith that President Obama will know how to deal
    with them. He may be a nice guy and all that, but I don’t see him as a
    trustworthy, capable man who can deal with this type of complex situation. In
    other words, we’re screwed!

  • SkyCitizen

    No if you mean a shot across the bow. A mess like this will take bold and an unconventional action. Iranian leadership is the prime enabler of ALL middle east problems. TARGET with Israli assistance Iranian nuke production, Iranian leadership top down, shut down Iranian oil production. Let the Saudis and remaining middle eastern countries fund and arm the Syrian resistance.

  • Dave

    The United States should only respond as part of an United Nations response to the Syrian civil war

  • savage24

    Wait for the lies that will fly when this predestined failure takes place. With Nancy Pelosi involved, we will have to bomb Syria so we can find out why we bombed Syria in the first place. Liberals never change, politics rules their every thought.

  • Tom

    No, no, and no! The US should not assist in any way. We need to keep our resources and brawn at home until we are under an actual imminent threat. We need to re-build our nation with those funds wasted abroad to the once strong nation we were in the past. This is why we have a zillion taxes on everything and why those taxes are so high. We used to prosper with 1/8 of the taxes we have now and we were happier then. If another country wants to eradicate its own people, then those responsible have their own God to deal with in the end. We, as a nation, need to focus on ourselves for once, so that once again we can become a prosperous country and in that dissolve our nations’ suffering before those outside of our own family.

  • Richard

    Is this tight enough for you – No.

  • ipatom

    No. Too many unintended consequences.

  • James

    Too late. Half measures may have worked for the very first occurrence; now its all in or all out. I say out. Let the next president repair the damage he has done. Do you suppose this ruins his chance to be Emperor of the United Nations?

  • gbandy

    It is rather ridiculous to consider attacking Syria when we Americans lost 4 brave men which this President and Hillary allowed to die in Benghazi. No attempt at rescue, no retaliation, and all covered up by lies. This President even has the audacity to declare Benghazi a “Phony Scandal”. What a pathetic attempt to hide the truth. Now Obama wants to attack Syria without real truth on even who the good guys in this conflict are. Is it the Al Qaeda backed rebels who commit atrocities or is it the Assad forces. I say the US should stay out. We do not have a leader and who amongst you wants to fight under a President who would leave you behind or a war hating anti war Secretary of State? If we bomb today this conflict will escalate and there will be boots on the ground contrary to whatever these people say.

  • Kevin Hubble

    The US & Israel should surround Syria and make sure no one leaves-or enters-the country. We kill any Syrian who tries to escape. We then stand guard until all of the Syrians willing to kill one another have done so. These Barbarians have been killing each other for thousands of years. As long as they’re killing each other, they are leaving Israel and the US alone.

  • sjangers

    Sadly, this is what happens when you have a hyper-partisan President who only sporadically makes any effort to work with Congress. Had President Obama been in regular communication with Congressional leaders, making an effort to cooperate with them and understand their concerns, he would have some idea of how far he could go in staking out positions to support our national interest, as well as a Congress that would be willing to go a little outside their political comfort zone in order to support our Commander-in-Chief.

  • jeff

    I feel the same way – I can be convinced by whoever is giving the argument at the moment. BUT … I think I have to lean to NOT engaging. The reasons:
    1) Although chemical weapons are aborrhent, I don’t know that it’s our place to police the world. If we were to go in as part of the “world” (UN, NATO, etc), that would be one thing. But I’m not convinced that we should take it on ourselves if we’re not under immediate threat.

    2) The posturing is annoying. I mean, the administration is trying to say that we’re not starting a war. Well, I have a hunch if some country lobbed some missles into Manhattan or Washington, DC, we would view it as a war.
    3) And finally – and this is obviously partisan – I’ve come to the point that I don’t trust a thing Obama says. He made grand promises about Obamacare, yet my rates are going up. He promised to catch the killers in Benghazi, yet so far only reporters have been able catch up to one of them. So if he lies about all of that, how can he be trusted with something as important as this?
    – Oh, and should we really be starting a war to defend HIS credibility?
    So I guess I am partisan, but my NO vote is really captured in my comment #1 above.

  • Perry Green

    Yes but not under this POTUS and certainly not under his current advisory

  • Meddlesome

    No, we have no critical interests i n Syria. This situation is perfect for the Unites Nations. let everyone go on the record about what is the appropriate course. But no matter what, we should not be involved militarily.

  • paperpushermj

    The credibility of the United States is not in question. The Credibility of this President is…. at least for the next 3 years.

  • ivannavi

    How about [for once] the Arabs sort a Civil War in one of their countries.

    • JanelleHumbert


  • Eric Scottsdale

    Caveat: Beware – the law of unintended consequences. (If I were in Congress, I’d vote no.)

  • JohnHD


  • OreRain365

    If Iran dropped a Nuc on Israel what would be our response then? When the world says no more gas ever should it stand by that or do we not mean it? ” The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them and do nothing” Albert Einstein “All it takes is for a few good men to do nothing.”

  • Wheels55

    NO. The U.N., perhaps.
    Why fight assorted terrorist groups, Iran, Russia and China?

  • Bob from Pennsylvania

    No war. An attack, however limited, would invite retaliation against us or our allies in the region. I understand that, but i have no confidence in this president as a war time leader. I might be in favor of putting our thumb on the scale of this civil war, but not if President Obama is the C in C. I wouldn’t do that to our men and women under arms.

  • Deborah Carroll McCall

    Not just no but Hell No!

  • #SoCalConcerned

    No – whatever “moral authority” the USA had (past tense, on purpose) has been exposed via Eric Snowden. Bottom line – many in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) don’t have confidence in Obama as Commander in Chief. 5 years of ineffective leadership has an impact.

  • ted

    When two small boys get into a tussle there are some rules,
    Playground Rule #1, no hitting in the face.

    Apparently in Syria there are similar rules. For years Assad can
    shoot and bomb citizens that kill over 100,000 residents – and that’s OK; but no
    gas attacks.

    Obama is rattling his destroyers at Syria in hopes that Assad will
    offer to stop hitting in the face. Being skilled at the playground level of
    everything, Obama will accept the deal.

    Obama will soon give a speech declaring that he has won a no
    gassing deal with Syria. Markets will recover and Obama will be hailed as a
    peacemaker and world leader.

  • D.Carr

    I think that we may now have a face saver if the Russian support for the Kerry suggestion that the Syrians turn over all of their chemical weapons to the international community is legitimate. If they comply we stand back. If they don’t comply we take action to destroy their chemical weapons capability, hopefully with some support from others. Absent the above, I’m afraid that the community organizer has dithered us and himself into a no win position where unfortunately the least worst response is to find a reason to do nothing.

  • grumptamas

    BHO makes clear the definition of the word incompetent. If we were going to get involved we should have helped the rebels long before Al Qaeda jumped in All I see is a lose-lose no matter what we do or don’t do. Using the word credibility where BHO & his administration is involved is a bad joke. Maybe we should have the Egyptian Military come to the USA to deal with all the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists that have infiltrated our government.This way we may not find ourselves ‘behind the 8’ ball next time..How is it possible that none of our current lunatics in Congress have move for the removal of BHO & Eric Holder?.

  • ted


  • jazzdrums

    1.5 million dollar missile to destroy a $10 hut..which we would want to be empty of women and children.

  • sniper2535

    Until we the people understand what it takes to win any war, and more importantly, recognize when we’re winning or have won, we should stay home.

  • Bob

    We would be swatting a gnat who just happens to be swatting other gnats in the same nest. What if Russia used gas against, say, Georgia? Would be intervene? The answer should be “no” in that case and Syria.


    ABSOLUTLY NO INTERVENTION IN SYRIA’S CIVIL WAR, these people in the middle east hate us and no matter what we spend or how much blood we spill they will still hate us.”forget about it” spend the money at home putting out forest fires, feeding children, helping the truly afflicted. NOT ON RESCUING OBAMA’S EGO!!!

  • Brhurdle

    The responsibility for the US to enforce morality requires that the US determine right and wrong. How can you determine it is moral to kill 100K people with metal projectiles and immoral to kill 1.5K people with poison gas – isn’t the atrocity the death of innocent people and not how they died? During WW II, we killed men, women and children during carpet bombing raids in the name of defeating the Nazis. War is inhumane and this is a false argument.

  • RoscoeBonifitucci

    Obama and his Drones just don’t get it: American enemies in Syria are killing each other; Assad, as bad as he is, is better than Al Qaeda; American Blood and Treasure should not be used to support either of these groups; Obama will ignite WW III and millions will be killed because the Incompetent Marxist Moron in the White House is nothing more than a Community Organizer who is NOT prepared to run a country.

    …and we all know that Communities that have been “organized” are living hells on Earth where the Taxpayer (Producers) leave the Welfare Recipients (Looters) to the living hell they supported in creating. Let us Impeach Obama NOW before he harms America and her People More! Impeach the Enemy in the White House.
    More so, anyone who thinks militant Islamists are our friends and should be accepted, loved and embraced into our society are fools. These “useful idiots” should be the first to live and die under the Sharia Law that they permit by their Liberal mindset.

    No more Muslim Immigration. No American Blood or Treasure to prop up the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamic Supremacists.

    Let these inbred, 7th century, bloodthirsty maniacs hack and wipeout as many of each other as possible. Then, let us help the rest of these religious homicidal jihadist meet their devil god Allah.

    They have been stuck inbreeding with their first cousins, sisters and worst since the 7th century…it is time to rid the human gene pool of these barely-human throwbacks.

  • Joe

    The risks of harm far outweigh the possible benefits. Obama is already a laughing stock around the world. The best outcome is that he is weakened further at home, and has less chance of causing additional harm to our economy and way of life.



  • Shay Cohen

    A few Tomahawk missiles over military targets in Syria will not deter anyone. Unfortunately, only a ground attack will put an end to the massacre.

  • Johnny Deadline

    No. Its hard to sell a strategy when you don’t have one. Delay, obfuscation and leading from behind aren’t strategies, they are pathetic props for a presidential poser without scruples and the sensibility to get out of the Arab Spring showers. I don’t think any American has enough confidence in Obama’s leadership to think we can make a meaningful difference by attacking Syria. Would that the president would spend as much time working against Iran getting a nuke as he is playing ‘What’s My Line’ with Syria.

  • Keith “Lucky” Luxton

    Bernie seems to be following the Obama trail. War in Syria is not a forgone conclusion. There is considerable doubt as to whether anything actually happened with gas or anything else. We know Al Quaida is killing people in Syria. We know Al Quaida is killing people all over the Middle east even a 3,000 in USA. We do not know if there is gas being used. In fact those walking round the bodies would have been dead if Sarin had been used. They looked very much like a stage play for Obama’s lets fool the Americans one more time and enrich our armament manufacturer friends. Back off from Syria, Americans have had enough war. Give Peace a chance. I know Obama will not approve of that

  • Benzona

    I have the answer ……….
    You say “Really” in Hebrew : – ” B’TACH ?”
    I know it is not the complete answer, but I am keeping it short and tight as you have asked.

  • Buzg

    Syria is not a threat to the U.S. It may have violated International Law if it did indeed use chemical weapons on its own people, but that is not news as Saddam did the same thing to the Kurds and got away with it. The Syrian conflict is a civil war between two Muslim factions. Muslims killing Muslims. Sounds like a win win for the civilized world.

    • gbandy

      Ironically Saddam killed tens of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons and the Left wing still swears Saddam did not have chemical weapons and Bush lied. Seems rather odd these same people want to attack Syria over 1500.

  • Acu-Vue

    NO. This has been going on for over a year in Syria and other countries as well. Why now? To divert our attention away from 9/11 week perhaps! And what took place a year ago in Benghazi. Maybe the IRS scandal, or the NSA, or Fast and Furious. Let’s take care of business at home first and not let Freddo (Godfather reference) make decisions on ANYTHING.

  • Tim in California

    Best line by Bernie, where I’m in total agreement…”I detest these unprincipled hacks, left and right”…. That said, here’s a laymens suggestion…. go into Syria ONLY if the resolve is to KILL Assad and any one who protects or backs him. Let Syria then sort out who will govern next, but let them know, the moment they use gas, or in some way create more havoc for the world, they TOO will be taken out by another wave of USA military force. Put Syria on double secret probation…

  • Mollywashington

    How horrendous, poison gas killing children, but would an anemic strike against Syria really help? I say no.

  • Maureen Hyland King

    No – having a hard time with two years of iffy (or ignored evidence and TOTAL surety it’s Assad’s forces ALONE) and Assad’s civil war kill (with bullets) of 100,000 of his people so far – now we claim we have to stick with Obama’s red line immaturity of leadership – NO {whole idea of giving him weeks to prepare for our limited strike is absurd}.

  • Joseph Augello

    No we should not intervene in Syria. First of all two of our enemies are killing each other. It is wise to sit back & let it play out. Second, Assad is not a good guy, however he is better then a Radical Islamic Muslim Brotherhood run Syria. Third, Assad is Russia’s boy & The Russian Navy operates out of a Syrian port & we do not want to ignite a unnecessary confrontation with Russia. We should encourage Russia to use it’s influence in Syria. Fourth we hold no moral high ground for intervention in Syria. We kill terrorists & their families almost every day with drone strikes & bombs around the world & in Afghanistan in the name of National Security & self defense. Surely Assad has the right to fight & kill the same bad guys who are invading his country by the thousands by any means at his disposal. Fifth we have no real National security threat by what is taking place in Syria & nothing good can come out of U.S. Military intervention. Sixth we risk dragging Israel into a regional conflict that could engulf the entire region. Seven America is broke & can not afford military conflict & Americans are tired of war. Eight I can not think of one good reason to stick our noses into the Syrian conflict except to deflect the American publics attention away from the economic mess & scandal laden administration that Obama has presided over.

  • rudebutcool

    We have no clear cut objective, but we know the masters who push us into War..and that is Saudi Arabia. The US has continually since Kuwait, come out on the Sunni side of the ongoing deadly battle between the two main sects of murderous(my opinion) religion…they have fought each other since Islamism was forced upon mankind…of course energy control (money) is the reason for us to get involved…arms sales, and banking go together with oil and natural gas to in this case to Europe…Russia has a monopoly now, Israel and Kuwait/Qatar/Saudi Arabia need the markets…and Syria…the pipeline conduit to Turkey and Europe…NO WAR FOR OIL AND GAS…if Europe wants it..let them spill their blood..not American Blood..we have donated enough of our children to the ROTHSCHILDS!!!!

  • worker1950


    To stop Assad and his financial backers the US needs to build the Keystone pipeline, becoming energy independent. Just think how much safer the world would be if Arab oil was no longer needed.

  • joepotato

    Soetorobama is a pathetic community organizer… We have no immediate security threats from Syria … How about a war crimes tribunal to figure out “who dunnit?” What is the real motive of all these gas bags to drag our broke butt into a war? There’s something very wrong with this picture. O’Soebama has no credibility to save so the motive is what? I could go on… but you get the idea…

  • Brian Fr Langley

    I posted this on your other story:
    Shock and awe went President Bush,
    Obama preferred sitting on tush,
    Until tomahawks shot, with face saving bought,
    now policy foreign is mush.
    The mainstream media has you flummoxed. (Photo’s of dying babies can do that to you). But what about the tens of thousands of babies dying every year from malaria? Easily prevented and easily treated. (Just a little money and a little political will, probably cheaper than tomahawks) And how would betraying our natural allies (Syrian Christians) while assisting our mortal enemies (Al-Quaida) help our face saving. AND WHAT ABOUT Assads weapons? Do we really assist Al-Quadai in possibly gaining Assad’s WMD’s? Last but not least, the idea that spitting in Assad’s face, (all an air strike would amount too) sends a stern warning to Iran is laughable. A strike not designed to topple, looks more impotent than no strike at all.

  • Richard Euson

    The US should NOT get involved at this time. How can the President tell us with a straight face that he has confidence in the evidence showing that Assad is responsible for the use of sarin gas A SCANT FEW WEEKS AGO when as you note in your column, we still haven’t captured or killed any of the terrorists responsible for the attack on Benghazi which was MONTHS AGO? To me it is unbelievable. Further, what is the strategic objective? It’s not regime change, according to the President. If not, then what is the point of a “limited strike”? What will such a limited strike with no end game accomplish? There are too many unknowns, including what the President would do next, to justify a military strike now.

  • beniyyar

    NO, and a resounding NO to American military force in Syria. Let the Assad regime wipe out the Islamic terrorist rebels and let the Islamic terrorist rebels exterminate the Assad regime. The longer the Syrian civil war goes on, the better for the Middle East and the better for the world. If the US intervenes it could set the entire region on fire, just say NO!

  • Jerry

    This is all about Obama saving face. I just don’t see how getting involved with two enemies that both hate America enhances our security.

  • rickypaul

    We’re only having this conversation because we’ve deemed ourselves policeman of the world. Its time to hunker down, protect ourselves, help protect our real friends and leave the armpits of the world to their own devices.

  • JWS

    Only if the attack is significant enough to force changes. The proposed Kerry “unbelievably small” plan would be a waste. We can’t count on these guys to get anything right.

  • zooey28

    Wrong time, wrong place, wrong plan, wrong man. (Peggy Noonan)

    • worker1950


    • legal eagle

      Peggy Noonan? Is she still alive?

      • John Daly

        Yes, and she’s YOUR age, legal eagle.

  • Bruce A.

    Only get involved for a total victory, Assad is out.

    • Keith “Lucky” Luxton

      Do not get further involved.

    • ivannavi

      There will never be a total victory in this [tribal run] area of the world.

  • John Davidson

    We no longer can trust Obama. He left Egypt in a mess which ultimately, their own people had to act to save themselves.

    • apl

      U forgot Libya and the US….

    • Keith “Lucky” Luxton

      He sure did. He went to the Middle East, He went from country to country rabble rousing the populations. That is his original job, activist. He made all the rebels believe USA was with them in action. Then went back to USA and watched it from the sidelines. He helped some, smuggled arms from Libya to Syria, made the Iranian rebels think there was hope. But then stepped back as the entire Miiddle East erupted. Obama and his gang of crooks are the only ones who should be indicted, it was probably Obama’s friends in Al Quaida who used gas, if it ever was used.

      • John Davidson

        That is too obviously a true statement for the press to share.

  • Cruz

    No, not Syria but we should attack the source of the problem, Iran.

  • David

    Not just no, but, HELL NO.

  • Seattle Sam

    How can you answer that question when you can’t even articulate the objective you are are trying to accomplish?

  • Bama

    Just because BHO made a mistake in threatening action if they crossed the red line, doesn’t mean we should compound the mistake with a strike. Worrying about “world confidence” in the US’s word is the LEAST important reason I can think of to take military action.

  • DSul47

    Yes – but only if we could go back in time. The time to act was the day
    after the use of gas was confirmed. Obama should have ordered the
    attack and endured whatever consequences followed. IMO, attacking a
    dictator who used the “most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people”
    is an easily defensible position. We had the moral high-ground and let
    it disappear into a sinkhole of politics and indecision.

  • Karen in FL

    No, Obama is incompetent to handle just about everything and this is too important to let him screw up again. Republicans who go along with this will live to regret their decision at election time. How about we cut off the money for Iran and Syria by lowering oil prices, and get the United States back on track? Let the terrorists kill themselves.

  • Dan Farfan

    1) We must force a U.N. vote. Let those opposed explain to the world their reasons for looking the other way at crimes against humanity.
    2) No military force w/o U.N. approval.

    Many ways to punish. Punishment delayed is still punishment delivered.

    • Seattle Sam

      The United Nations? This would be the same organization that has the Congo on its “Human Rights” council?

  • JC Opinion

    No: If Congressional leaders want us to do something, that’s a pretty clear signal we should run the other direction.

    • Brhurdle

      Excellent point! With Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, TV McCain and TV Lindsey on the side of intervention, there’s a good chance that it’s inwise.

  • Melvin_Udall

    This President’s credibility is already a world joke. Credibility is a lousy reason to go to war, but if that’s a concern elect a good man next time and recover it. You can’t get it back with this man no matter how many bombs are dropped.

    How many bad decisions does he get before we must keep him away from sharp objects for everyone’s own good.

    • larryl212

      NO ATTACK!!! Let a resounding NO against this Syrian “mini-war” be our Constitutional Republic’s Battle of Thermopylae. These ChiThugs lied about Benghazi. They’ve unleashed their IRS goons in a reign of god-awful harassment against citizens who dared to disagree with their Collectivist agenda. Their policies have proven time and again they are graven groupies of the Muslim Brotherhood. NOPE! It’s time to begin winding down this season of chaos this regime has dumped on America. Say NO! Move onto the 2014 mid-terms. And in 2016… go street ruthless… ferocious… savage… vicious… and vindictive… get down to the barbarism these Marxists have played against our borders… language… customs/culture since the ’20s. Win the Presidency… Win the Senate… Win the House… and then rule ruthless with no compromise until our treasury is in order… all the bizarre social engineering has stopped… the public education cartel is broken… and the public service unions are RICOed out of existence. ONE MORE TIME… let a resounding NO against this Syrian “mini-war” be our Constitutional Republic’s Battle of Thermopylae.

  • ron


    • Jen

      If the US is going to right the wrongs of all the dictators in this world we would be at war permanently. How can we justify retaliation in Syria when we haven’t even taken care of Bengazi ? Not to mention the economic crisis in our country.


      • Keith “Lucky” Luxton

        If we right all wrongs in the world. lets start at home, Remove Obama and charge him and his cohorts with high treason.

        • alegalcitizen

          And DEPORT the illegal aliens, that would help 20 Million Legal citizens find a decent job, IF we then need help, they can then apply.