my recommendation is to tune it all out. That's what I'm doing. I think I have been pretty consistent here in my instinct that we stop meddling in the Middle East because even with the best of intentions it always goes badly wrong. There simply is no strategy here, like what do we want to accomplish? There are strange bedfellows in Syria, like Assad is protecting the Christians there, who may be slaughtered if Assad goes down (and no, I am not getting that from Rand Paul, but my study of the matter over the last year). The rebels don't strike me as an amiable bunch who will turn Syria into a stable state. So, again, it seems the only point of this is to "send a message" that it's not right to use chemical weapons. Sorry, that is not good enough.
I think it's important never to fully "trust" politicians. Sometimes they make the wrong call, as Obama and Kerry have done. I actually am happy that Obama is asking for Congressional approval, because I hope he gets turned down like Cameron did in the UK. I don't think this will hurt Obama long term. It will be a temporary setback from what is otherwise a great presidency. Kerry also has other things in the fire, like the Mideast peace talks, for which this Syria mess really doesn't have to impact (I suspect it is the main reason Kerry is so intent about getting involved -- he thinks it will help on the Mideast Peace front. I disagree, but frankly, it's the only way I can reconcile why he would recommend such a foolish move like getting involved in another war, when we just got out of Iraq and are trying to get out of Afghanistan.).
But as to the Republicans ... good Lord, what a bunch of hypocrites!! I don't care what they say, they are never friends of ours. In fact, this NYT article shows that Republicans are opposed to this war simply because a black guy is proposing it. I mean, geez, what a barrel of laughs these people are.
= new reply since forum marked as read