http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/syria-crisis-president-obama-95907.html?hp=t1_3
the sign of a Pres. that cares.
Nearly five years into a presidency animated in no small measure by getting the United States out of costly wars in the Middle East, Barack Obama finds himself on the cusp of entering a potential quagmire of his own.
Circumstances on the ground and building momentum in elite political and policy circles that something vigorous must be done to prevent additional bloodshed and regional chaos point in one direction.
reluctance is good look what happened when we allowed Bush's gut and Cheyney to take us into wars of choice not necessity, thank God for his thoughtful demeanor or we would be engaged in to more wars while still occupying the last two if Romney had gotten in.
Clear majorities of public opinion and Obama’s own clear conviction that the United States has spent the last decade overextended militarily in the Middle East point the opposite way.
Navigating these crosscurrents — in the face of nearly 100,000 deaths since he announced that Assad must go — is shaping up as the most excruciating moral choice of Obama’s second term.
He’ll be making the decision largely alone.
As evidence mounts that Assad’s regime gassed to death hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians outside Damascus, pressure is growing on Capitol Hill and abroad to respond with military force.
The establishment consensus in Washington appears to be gelling around, at a minimum, punitive cruise-missile strikes on key regime targets. But other than a smattering of demoralized and poorly funded Syrian émigré groups, there is little grass-roots support for direct U.S. intervention of any kind. No significant domestic interest group has called for intervention. No Senate or House races will hinge on the fate of Syria.
these people have been at each other for centuries are we expected to do something about somebody elses pissing match that has not been or likely to be resolved because we helped arm the resistance, latest Egypt can't force democracy in when dictatorship is all they've known for centuries. and if we are thew example i can see why that's not working out so well.
the right wing has ruined the image of do good America instead of looking up they are looking down like we fell in a hole, and the Pres.'s is trying to re-fix what he had made such headway on before republicans stated butting in and undoing it all, if you want to be proud of the US again vote out the TPer's Nov. 6th 2014
Nearly five years into a presidency animated in no small measure by getting the United States out of costly wars in the Middle East, Barack Obama finds himself on the cusp of entering a potential quagmire of his own.
Circumstances on the ground and building momentum in elite political and policy circles that something vigorous must be done to prevent additional bloodshed and regional chaos point in one direction.
Clear majorities of public opinion and Obama’s own clear conviction that the United States has spent the last decade overextended militarily in the Middle East point the opposite way.
Navigating these crosscurrents — in the face of nearly 100,000 deaths since he announced that Assad must go — is shaping up as the most excruciating moral choice of Obama’s second term.
He’ll be making the decision largely alone.
As evidence mounts that Assad’s regime gassed to death hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians outside Damascus, pressure is growing on Capitol Hill and abroad to respond with military force.
The establishment consensus in Washington appears to be gelling around, at a minimum, punitive cruise-missile strikes on key regime targets. But other than a smattering of demoralized and poorly funded Syrian émigré groups, there is little grass-roots support for direct U.S. intervention of any kind. No significant domestic interest group has called for intervention. No Senate or House races will hinge on the fate of Syria.
