Do you have something on your mind and want to write your own online editorial?
Click here to get started!


MR PRESIDENT, FOLLOW THE OATH YOU TOOK


Date posted - August 30, 2013


If my memory serves me correct, there was a former president that went to war when a country was suspect of using chemical weapons against it own people, among other reasons. WOW did he get hammered on it. He was given information on chemicals being used and stored. He then went out and got support from a large number of allies. I am in no way defending that war. The war lasted way too long and we lost more dear American soldiers than necessary!! We even had a current vice president that wanted to impeach him b/c he did not get full approval from congress. We even had a current president condemn him on his actions.

GUESS WHAT: Now we have that same vice president and president that condemend those actions going to war without congressional approval, without NATO approval, without allied approval, especially the UK. So what are we going to condemn his actions?? I say we need to leave those nations that insist on murdering their own people and thumbing their nose at humanity, to fend themselves. Does that seem callused? perhaps. I feel for those inocent people involved!! However, We no longer can be the police of the world! If this president starts a war without any backup of ANY kind, he is more crazy than I thought!! Are Americans being attached? I don’t think so. So really what are we doing? Mr. President, follow the consitution as you swore an oath to do!!!

Print Friendly

17 Responses to “MR PRESIDENT, FOLLOW THE OATH YOU TOOK”

  1. Turbo Ted says:

    How’s that hope and change working out for you.

  2. als says:

    Here Here! Thanks for voicing a thought that has to be on many Americans minds!

  3. Harriet Oleson says:

    I remember back in Walnut Grove when President Grant was expected to chase the Indians (native Americans to be politically correct) from the Northwoods of MN & Wisconsin to make room for the settlers…. Nels, Charles, Mr.Edwards, etal. were directed to go to the teepees to look for WMD. They found nothing of the sort – only arrows, spears and hatchets (which Doc Baker said were not necessarily deadly). After hearing that President Grant and his cabinet contacted Robert Conrad & the cast of the Wild Wild West – one of whom had at least a decent shot at becoming President of the U.S. They confirmed this propaganda – due to the oath they had taken to support their commander-in-chief. It cost them the election and any chance of a future political career. Of course, they didn’t feel any need to ask Congress first.

    • Harriet Oleson Fan Club says:

      Well said, Harriet. Thanks for the pearls of wisdom. By the way, what’s a bolt of cloth going for these days at Oleson’s Merchantile???

      • Harriet Oleson says:

        We have many different fabrics available by the bolt….. Calico, linen, linsey-woolsey, wool, cotton – however the polyesters & nylon blends won’t be available for another 60 years or so!!!

    • Doug says:

      Harriet, are you implying that Bloody Friday did not actually occur on March 16, 1988?

  4. Commenting says:

    Time for Obama to return his Nobel Peace Prize which he never earned in the first place.

  5. Jay says:

    Actually, he isn’t going to war just yet. He stated he is going to Congress for their approval.

    The reason Syria is a big deal is because if nothing happens, it’ll basically send the message “hey, it’s okay to use chemical weapons on your citizens and/or during war.” It’s pretty much a silent agreement that countries shouldn’t use chemical weapons during war because its a catastrophe, so by letting this one pass by most likely wont stop terror groups/other countries from doing the same in the future. The President already stated he doesn’t want a “boots on the ground” approach and an endless war. I think he just wants to send a signal to the regime that chemical weapons aren’t tolerated in the international community.

    I really suggest you do some fair research.

    • Tim says:

      But why is it OUR respncibility to send that message?? Why does that ALWAYS lie in the hands of the US?? We need to change our mindset on being the police of the world!!

    • Commenting says:

      There is no such thing as a “limited approach” in the middle east. It will take only a spark to set that timber box aflame. Use some common sense.

  6. Lee Ann says:

    There are over 160 countries that signed that treaty against using chemical weapons. Why are they all silent? Couldn’t they get together and decide, along with the UN, to use sanctions or something like that? Lock his bank account, or allow only humanitarian shipments to dock, such as food, etc. The US is one of 160 countries. The rest are surprisingly quiet.

    • Tim says:

      Lee Ann, I gree eveyone signed it, you are correct where are the rest, a very good point. Perhapsnthe rest of the world is sick and tirred of the US trying to be in charge of policing everyone.

  7. Jon says:

    I suggest that the writer of the post look at the actual information. You’ll notice that though the President, the Secretary of State, and the Vice President are all making a case for some action in Syria, their energy is directed towards getting congressional support for a response to the atrocities of using chemical weapons on a nation’s people, not a preemptive strike against a nation. Now, I think this is a pretty hard sell, I mean, I guess we shouldn’t care if chemical weapons are used on a nation’s people as long as it’s not us. That’s the attitude expressed in the UK and by many in this country. And I get it. Why should we have to be involved? That is a tough question, particularly given our recent track record on irresponsibly getting involved in wars. What is our task in the world? Do we maybe get called on to be the world’s police because we spend more than any other nation on defense and have a permanent presence around the world that no other nation has? What is the real role of our defense and our relation to other nations? Do we let people die horrible deaths and injuries caused by a government regime as long as it doesn’t affect us directly other than to make us look like terrible people that allow this activity to go on with impunity? Is the message we want to send to Assad that he can use all the chemical weapons he wants…the world will just watch it happen? And, we can’t just support the rebels…the conservative pal Glenn Beck showed some wonderful footage of how kind the rebels are to the Syrian regime on his show. They are not better. Does that mean we just let people suffer and die? I don’t know. This is a difficult position to be put into, and I’m afraid that there is no easy answer. At least Obama is trying to make his case (made weaker by the decision of the UK). Syria is not as crucial as other Middle Eastern nations to our oil industry, though, so those people can suffer while the world watches, and no one will lift a finger to come to their aid.

    • Concerned says:

      If we look back to a guy named Hitler, those that weren’t being invaded, turned their backs on the death camps of the Jews, thinking that no one could be as evil to do those things to their fellow man. We went into the war when Japan bombed us and then we saw with our own eyes what was happening and that there was truth to the rumors. With communication so far advanced, we still overthink attrocities until they put the bomb at our door. I don’t want to go into another war but if we can give $$$ to those countries and then look the other way when they use chemical weapons, the U.S. is just as guilty as Syria. The way the constitution reads is that the president is the one who can send U.S. to war and doesn’t need congress’s approval. Congress can’t agree on anything so I think this president is counting on that so he doesn’t have to make a decision!

  8. HappyTimes says:

    I’m sorry? I don’t understand, if your liberal and/or an environmentalist, you believe the world is over populated, people cause gobal change, and animals are more important than humans as is witnessed by all of the abortions. Our dear President wasn’t going to congress until he finally woke up and realised that he could be impeached if he didn’t. If we go in and disrupt the present government in Syria, we give the country to the Muslims. In other words, the liberals/environmentalists, democrats and the President win. We get rid of a few people and our President’s religion is supported.

  9. Wanda says:

    What is happening in Syria is a horrible thing. But, before the U.S. gets involved with saving children and adults in another country, we should first get involved with saving our babies from abortion in the United States. The 300,000+ babies killed by abortion in our own country last year is also a horrible thing. I asked my doctor about this and he said that a baby is a human being that begins life with the sperm. Let’s rememer this and start fighting to keep our own children alive and safe.

    • Abortion...Really? Apples and Sugar says:

      It’s really horrible what’s going on in Syria, but for real…people really need to stop feeding their kids so much sugar.

Leave a Reply

Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language.
2. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem (personal) attacks.
3. Threats are treated seriously and will be reported to law enforcement.
4. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. or its advertisers agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the selected staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email walt@kiwaradio.com.


Back to:MR PRESIDENT, FOLLOW THE OATH YOU TOOK