If his name was Bush, they'd be calling for impeachment.
There is no truly compelling reason to act militarily in Syria except for the fact the empty suit boxed himself into a corner with his "red line".
Now, every tinpot dictator with a stash of sarin gas is watching to see whether they, too, will be free to use it on innocent civilians without repercussions.
Obama already ignored his own red line several times. But, I suppose it's all part of his incredibly intelligent foreign policy we've been told about.
There is no truly compelling reason to act militarily in Syria except for the fact the empty suit boxed himself into a corner with his "red line".
Now, every tinpot dictator with a stash of sarin gas is watching to see whether they, too, will be free to use it on innocent civilians without repercussions.
Obama already ignored his own red line several times. But, I suppose it's all part of his incredibly intelligent foreign policy we've been told about.
EVANSTON, Ill. (NYT) — THE latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad. But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.
There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.
More...
