If passing the buck is so futile, why are you singling Obama out?
I'm not intentionally, I was originally responding to a comment which appeared to indemnify him.
If passing the buck is so futile, why are you singling Obama out?
Obama could have stopped what happened in Syria today.
He deserves (unequivocal) blame for his inaction - not Bush - and certainly not a guy who's been on the throne for less than 100 days.
Obama could have stopped what happened in Syria today.
He deserves (unequivocal) blame for his inaction - not Bush - and certainly not a guy who's been on the throne for less than 100 days.
this letter from today sums up my thoughts
President Obama was successful in forcing the Syrians to give up its existing chemical arsenal
I have to ask, Hawk...what ought we have done to stop it?
That's not a snarky question. I want your best shot at this.
We should have deposed Assad.
We should have deposed Assad.
We still should.
I don't care if it's via a targeted kill, aid to rebels, or a land invasion.
That's exactly the kind of certainty that I was referring to. Maybe he could have. At what cost? Do you care to speculate? I'm not saying you're unequivocally wrong, just that it's a HELL of an assumption, and one most often ventured by people who were full-on Iraq hawks...which does include you, yeah?
For what it's worth, I'm way more of an internationalist/interventionist than most of my lefty brethren, and I'm pretty close to your POV about Syria. That said, criticism of Obama without including the Dubya context is spitting in the wind.
Yes, I supported the Iraq War and still believe it was the right fight with the wrong battle plan.
I don't see it that way. I think you can make a connection broadly between the Syrian Civil War and the Bush Doctrine, but beyond that it's pretty tenuous and subject to a lot of nit-picking.
Ok. Then what?
We should have deposed Assad.
We still should.
I don't care if it's via a targeted kill, aid to rebels, or a land invasion.