What do you think ?
not sure I get the rationale. Obama has maneuvered himself into a bad position. Most of the public opposed a strike, but if he were to sit this one out, it would also reflect bad on him. So he is pretty much in a lose lose situation.
It's bullshit, and he ought to be dragged out and strung up from the nearest tree to the White House. This lacks even Bush's flimsy 9-11 related justifications. A dictator is gassing terrorists. That basically calls for popcorn, not cruise missiles. Or maybe THIS time the Middle East uprising is going to bring Jeffersonian democracy. I mean, it didn't in Iran thirty plus years ago, it didn't in Egypt or Libya in the Arab spring, but yeah. This time, the rebels are gonna do it right.
And Obama is going LOOK BAD, so he's just going to chuck some missiles at a country that is no threat to the US? Even if you subscribe to his "transformative" agenda and the need to empower him to save the world, he is never going to face another election, so why does he need to preserve his image? If you can get a Nobel Peace Prize for not doing anything, shouldn't you at least be liable to censure for attacking two countries and ramping up a war already in progress when you took office?
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
- 04/09/2013 05:58:47 AM
793 Views