Posted on 09/03/2013 12:21:10 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama has failed so far to convince most Americans that the United States should launch a limited military strike against Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.
Some 56 percent of those surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria, while only 19 percent supported action, the online poll found.
The findings are essentially unchanged from last week and indicated that Obama changed few minds on Saturday when he argued that Washington has the obligation to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for what the United States says was a sarin gas attack that killed more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children, near Damascus on August 21.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Yep!, And Bammy is claiming to take the high road to Armageddon.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 224-3121
TTY: (202)-225-1904
That was my point.
US Democrats act like a a cheaters and Republicans act like a cuckolds in denial.
It’s ~NOT~ over yet, friend, call your Reps and Senators and tell them: “HELL NO”, and then if possible get involved in an anti-war protest! (If everyone does this then Congress will respond).
Please keep posting those photos.
We must remember.
Islam is DEATH.
Republicans bluster, retreat and then surrender. Same old process for every issue. It’s who they are; it’s what they do; it’s how they roll.
The only thing they are good at is losing.
It is too late. For decades too late. You know in communism you could also phone your representative in parlament. But what was the point?
Osambo has racist undertones due to the cartoon Little Black Sambo. There are a million reasons to demean Obama, but skin color isn't one of them.
Well said.
I am absolutely opposed for the same reason some opposed Bush; to wit, NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
no blood for OIL (Obama's Insufferable Lapses)!
no blood for OIL (Obama's Incompetent Leadership)!
no blood for OIL (Obama's Insidious Liaisons)!
no blood for OIL (Obama the Islamist Lackey)! . . . .
Yes, for the obvious reason that the term needlessly invokes racial stereotypes which directly help advance the propaganda goals of those who claim that any opposition to 0bama is racially motivated. In reality, of course, it is anything but that.
How about Odumbo, Hussein, Osama, Obummer, and a dozen other loving nicknames for your beloved POTUS?
No problem with any of those. See how that works? And, by the way, 0bama is no more MY beloved POTUS than he is YOURS...
Defeatist attitudes will get us nowhere, it would have gotten the Poles nowhere (with the Berlin Wall) as well it would have gotten us nowhere with the election of Ronald Reagan, it would ALSO have gotten us NOWHERE if we hadn’t supported the election of Senators Cruz, Paul, Lee (and others)!
Sorry, I don’t buy it, there is still time to act (will God do His sovereign will either way, yes), but WE need to ACT as well!!
The Saudi Government, who has co-opted Democrats and Republicans alike, simply do not care what the American public thinks.
That led, I think, to a high degree of unreasonable expectations, certainly on the part of certain less erudite followers who stated that he would "rule" and certain others who consider the office too august even to question - oh, they get to, the opposition does not - and that even to do so is ascribable to racism. That doesn't set a great table for compromise.
This is not a case of the United States being embarrassed in any sense. It is not a case of the U.S. military being embarrassed. It is solely a case of a narcissistic, messianic adolescent convinced that the entire country revolves around him being brought up short when he overstepped his bounds. The current media mantra is that U.S. credibility is on the line. Not the case. And 0bama never had all that much to begin with.
I'm personally found of Obongo... But watch out, you've might incure the wrath of political correctness gestapo which seems to have infiltrated Free Republic as of late.
The few reasons cited by the RINOs are almost reasons enough to oppose this conflict.
McCain said that it diminishes the credibility of the US and the POTUS. As far as the US, I don’t think anyone doubts our national ability, *if* we have a national will. If we don’t, the US is *not* represented by its representatives. They are just things floating in our national toilet.
As far as the credibility of the POTUS, it *desperately needs* to be diminished. The office of the president has become an “imperial presidency”, and the president’s powers need to be substantially reduced. In this case, the War Powers Act needs to be considerably strengthened, taking power away from the POTUS and giving it to congress. But there are many, many other things that need to be done to restore order to the office.
They seem to want a king, not a president. To hell with that idea.
The only intervention the US should make is providing intelligence information to the rebels on how best to attack Assad’s forces. That should be more than enough. If the Saudis want to give them small arms, fine.
Well, there will be a few winners if we go to war. Saudi Arabia. The banksters. And secessionists.
Muzzies killing muzzies is always a good thing.
And I feel fine!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.