The Issue: A chemical attack that killed 1,300 Syrians and how the US government should react to it.
***
One year ago to the day after President Obama declared his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons by Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad, Assad celebrated by using said weapons on the civilians of his own country (“Obama’s Thin Red Line,” Editorial, Aug. 22).
The red line has turned into a bright red river of innocent civilian blood. Nothing has changed since the original “strongly worded statement” was made.
Maybe Obama should consult with his former Secretary of State, but Hillary Clinton’s response would probably be: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
The difference is that if you did not want to help in the first place, you should have said so.
Now it looks like no one will take the United States seriously in the future. Patrick Phelan
Sebastian, Fla.
How can we tell the good guys from the bad guys?
And how do we know that this latest accusation of a chemical attack against innocent men, women and children in Syria was not launched by the Syrian opposition?
No doubt, the opposition forces would love for the United States to jump into the fray.
Not only would they receive more sophisticated weapons, but they would likely benefit by getting monetary assistance, as well.
I’m always suspicious of he who protests the loudest.
In any case, my hope is that our government doesn’t get hoodwinked by this latest allegation.
What we don’t need is another war to fight.
What we do need is to practice neutrality.
JoAnn Lee Frank
Clearwater, Fla.
When will the cowards in Congress and the White House wake up? This is a war crime. To not even try to stop Assad and his thugs is dirty.
Call the Marines. Mobilize the fleet. Can we spare a hospital ship?
At the least, establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Syria or else Assad will talk all day and do this again and again.
It is time for war. Will Congress fund it? Or will Republicans object?
Only in America do politicians stay on vacation when the lives of women and children are at stake. Peter Peirano
Ridgewood, NJ
It was safe to assume a red line meant military action and a stop to this madman Assad.
But one year later, it seems the Syrian army has used chemical weapons and hundreds of children and women lay dead in the streets.
Obama, a liberal coward, responded with: “I’m looking into it.”
Sort of like the Libya mess and every other scandal that has come his way.
Mr. President, does the sight of dead children lying in the streets with foam coming out of their mouths cross your red line? C. Bisignano
Staten Island
On the one-year anniversary of Obama’s announcement to the Syrian army and the world that a red line against a chemical attack on the Syrian people was now in place, the Syrian army has killed over 1,300 people. Now what?
Does the president put them on double-secret probation, or does he use a larger red pen?
Gary Cella
Cos Cob, Conn.
Does anyone else see a pattern here?
The Benghazi attack happened Sept. 11 of last year. A chemical attack occurs one year to the day after Obama’s crossing-the-line bluster. Russia spit in America’s eye in the Snowden affair after a supposed reset.
When Obama literally bowed to foreign leaders and went on his apology tour after his election, America was doomed. He is a disgrace and an embarrassment to this country and no one fears him. Edward Sanchez
White Plains