Syria Update

Sep 03 2013

I've received a number of questions about my position on Syria so I thought I would respond briefly here with my thoughts or better yet my questions for the President. First, I am pleased that President Obama is seeking Congressional approval for the use of force in Syria. With an issue as contentious as this, it is important to seek Congressional approval. It is also required by law.

With that said, I have a number of questions for the President and this administration before I cast my vote on Syria. They include: How will one limited strike be successful in ending Assad’s war against the Syrian people? What is the end game of military intervention? Who are our allies in this effort and which side are we on? And finally is this a prudent use of force?

The President needs to completely answer these questions if he wants to get the support of the American people. Until he does, I cannot support military intervention. I will keep you posted on Facebook and on my website as things develop so please check back frequently.

Comments 1-5 of 360

  • Chasity Scott

    10/08/2013 07:19 PM

    Stick to every word you stated in this matter. I don't care what party you or any other office is, I follow statements, then actions, and use them to decide who I vote for in the upcoming elections. At 33 years old, I post what offices state to my Facebook to assure others I know are fully informed. America is watching, Arkansas is watching...Be our voice. I support your statement and questions concerning Syria and we want SOLID answers and votes from our elected leaders. Thank You!

  • Thomas Black

    09/17/2013 03:26 PM

    I would hope you will discourage the supply of weapons to the insurgents,it is not in the interest of the American people to overthrow the government of Syria,The only ones who might benefit would be, Arms dealers, oil companies,banks. I dont believe the propaganda i see daily on the news about humanitarian reasons,Its all about someone stealing the resources of Syria.

  • Larry McCulley

    09/11/2013 04:07 PM

    1st - I agree with your initial response. We don't need to get involved unless we know the consequences and are willing to accept them.
    2nd - AS BAD AS CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE the people are still dead. Why is the death of 1,500 people drawing so much more media coverage then the hundreds of thousands who are being killed across the nations of Africa particularly Christians. Where is the President's abhorrence to that genocide???

  • Carl Gustke

    09/09/2013 10:29 PM

    Thank you for soliciting our input. I am a 22 year veteran who is very concerned about the implications of taking unilateral action against Syria. There are numerous reasons that military action is a BAD idea. If there was international consensus that chemical weapons will not be tolerated then there might be an argument for reprisals. Proposed strikes will have no affect preventing further chemical warfare in the region. Muslim rebels have been ruthlessly persecuting Christians. I suspect Syria has already dispersed their military assets, resulting in dubious value for multimillion dollar Tomahawk missiles. National prestige has been lost years ago, no "saving" it now. Bottom line: Only reason to strike is Presidential honor, not a justifiable reason for putting military personal in harms way or huge expenditure of national treasure.

  • Steve Green

    09/09/2013 10:10 PM

    I hope that you do not vote to go to war with Syria. It is not our war and all Obama is doing is trying to get out of the mess he created by opening his mouth when he should have kept it shut. All a military action would do is create more problems than they would solve. War has been going on in these countries for thousands of years and nothing we do or say will change that. Thank you very much.