Despite some subsequently changed views, Kerry was indeed magnificent in his advocacy, but did he -- and do many other witnesses from both sides of the aisle -- tell the whole truth, and nothing but?
If for no other reason, we should be grateful to the Russians for shining light on two of the recent mysteries surrounding Syria, and American policy, and for reminding us that you can't understand the current war by looking at Syria alone. At a minimum, you've got to watch the Russians and the Iranians.
Yesterday I spent as much time as I could reading about the president's push to launch a Syrian strike, and responded to some blogs and comments on Th...
Remember how President Obama kept poker-faced yet jovial at a White House Correspondents' Dinner on the eve of the mission to get Osama bin Laden? Perhaps he's been at it again.
It is not yet clear whether the Russian plan is the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end of chemical weapons in Syria, but one way or the other, mass murder by chemical weapons, a crime against humanity, must not be tolerated.
Are you having problems with leaky pipes? Are you stuck in a dead-end, go-nowhere job? Is your cat disobedient? Are chemical weapons from an insane di...
It would be pretty easy to be pessimistic (or even downright cynical) at this juncture in time, for these and dozens of other reasons. Even so, the possible success of the idea is more than a little tantalizing, for all concerned.
Today, the delays are emboldening Assad. Waiting another 45 days won't degrade the situation further, but may allow an opportunity for some net positive to emerge.
While we debate the future of President Bashar al-Assad, the most urgent issue is the protection of millions of Syrian people who are already being victimized. The international community must act to prevent the displacement or even worse, the deaths of women, children and men.
While the Obama Administration is in the surreal situation of suddenly mounting its biggest congressional lobbying effort since national health care on behalf of missile and bombing raids against Syria, it's important not to lose site of a more coherent aspect of the president's geopolitics.
Obama will address the nation on Tuesday at 9:00 PM in an attempt to provide reassurances that striking Assad will be different, but he faces a skeptical nation that's worried this will be another dumb war.
Obama bets his presidency for a third time. Will war-weary liberals really reject his pledge that Syria's not Iraq? Will hawks who supported an invasion over rumored WMD now oppose a one-time attack when it was actually used? Is there a majority pony to be found in this mess? Reagan & Matalin doubt it.
The president has placed the decision whether to go to war where it belongs, with Congress. Legislators should act on behalf of the American people, not the Obama administration. And the right decision is to keep the U.S. at peace.
This week saw President Obama take his anemic case for military strikes against Syria to Congress. Just how anemic was made clear on Monday as Secretary of State Kerry ominously warned that the U.S. was facing a "Munich moment." It was a comparison every bit as absurd and insulting as the "mushroom cloud" metaphor brandished by Condoleezza Rice and President Bush in the fall of 2002. But this time the fear-mongering fell flat, as the Coalition of the Unwilling continued to grow throughout the week. In response, the president announced he would speak to the country on Tuesday, to "make the best case that I can to the American people." A good start would be jettisoning the over-the-top scare tactics. Addressing the overwhelming unpopularity of the proposed strikes, the president declared "these kinds of actions are always unpopular, because they seem distant and removed." But he got it backwards. The unpopularity is precisely because the blowback from poorly-conceived military actions no longer seems distant or removed.
As a result of President Obama's decision to ask Congress to support his call for "limited" strikes against the Assad regime, we find ourselves in the throes of a much needed, but still incomplete, national debate on the wisdom of U.S. policy toward Syria.
No matter how many times we've seen it before, the frenzy for launching a military attack on another country is -- to the extent we're not numb -- profoundly upsetting. But new variables have opened up possibilities for disrupting the repetitive plunge to war.