An American president says a Middle Eastern country has weapons of mass destruction. He builds a “coalition of the willing” for a military strike against said country.
Sound familiar?
It could be President Barack Obama in 2013 or President George W. Bush in 2003, or so fear liberal Democrats leery of getting involved in yet another war in the Middle East.
“While the use of chemical weapons is deeply troubling and unacceptable, I believe there is no military solution to the complex Syrian crisis,” Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat who famously was the only member to vote against authorizing the war in Afghanistan, said Tuesday in a statement on her Facebook page. “Congress needs to have a full debate before the United States commits to any military force in Syria — or elsewhere.”But Obama, who ran on a platform in 2008 of ending Bush’s wars in the Middle East, isn’t Bush, and there are important distinctions between the two scenarios. Here are six ways Syria 2013 isn’t Iraq 2003:
Via: Time Magazine
Continue Reading....
1 comment:
Howdу terrific wеbsite! Does running
a blog suсh as this require a largе amount of work?
I'νe virtually nο undеrstanԁing of ρrogгamming but
I had beеn hοping to stаrt mу oωn blog іn the near future.
Anyhоw, if you haνе any ideas οr tips
for new blоg owners plеase sharе. Ι know this is off topic but I just wаnted
to ask. Thаnks a lot!
my sitе - bebek ürüNleri
Post a Comment