The New York Times is hardly a progressive newspaper -- but when it comes to the surveillance state and ongoing militarism of the Obama White House, the establishment's "paper of record" puts MoveOn.org to shame.
The common denominator for me and most people in this country is as follows: we are against dropping bombs on Syria without a thorough explanation. It should have never taken the entire world to scream at the top of their lungs for you to "ask permission" for you to have a sit down with Congress.
The United States is once again on the brink of war in the heart of the Middle East. While the necessity of some kind of military intervention -- if only symbolic in nature -- is now evident, the risks are enormous.
In recent months, fractured Syrian opposition offered little resistance to Assad's forces. Strategically, there would be no upside to Assad using nerve gas at a time when conventional weapons were sufficient in putting down the opposition.
The "war on terror" was built on two tiers of grief. Momentous and meaningless. Ours and theirs. The domestic politics of grief settled in for a very long haul, while perpetual war required the leaders of both major parties to keep affirming and reinforcing the two tiers of grief.
Rather than selling a war as an existential threat to America, American democracy, freedom, the flag, Mom, and apple pie (as pretty much every president has done for decades), Barack Obama's approach is something new: war as a nuisance.