You have to assume that by continuing to pursue the Benghazi "scandal" story, the GOP is trying to imply that Obama is "soft on terrorism," when in fact he has done more to destroy the al Qaeda terrorist network than the neo-cons who surrounded Bush could have dreamed.
There has been mounting criticism of the Obama administration for setting a line in the sand on Syria -- the movement or use of chemical weapons -- and then apparently failing to act out on its promise. The criticism has come in two varieties.
Perhaps Obama should be more careful about what he calls a "red line." Dictators are not impressed by empty threats. Would there be support for a multi-national effort to secure chemical weapons stores?
The big problem -- not just for Obama, but for America -- is that there simply aren't a whole lot of good options in Syria. So I thought it'd be worthwhile to go through them, in the spirit of Bush's "decider room."
Here we go again. Syria's apparent use of a small amount of chemical weapons against its own people has many Republicans and conservatives calling for President Barack Obama to intervene. Yeah, easy, right? Just like Iraq.
The long-tail effects of chemical weapons continue to plague Iraq today, burdening a decimated health care system, and providing horrifying visual fodder for extremists who would incite hatred against the West.
How could any U.S. administration stand by as an Arab dictator gassed his own people? The fact is they did: President Reagan not only turned his back on such ruthless attacks, though they were substantiated by grisly video evidence, but continued to aid the tyrant who was ordering the savagery.
The U.S. surely, as well as NATO at large, cannot be indifferent to the issue of chemical weapons in Syria, and there is another country whose interest is definitely to prevent the use of chemicals. This is Russia.
Revelations that the Russian Foreign Minister and Hillary Clinton agreed that Washington would refrain from intervening in Syria if Russia secured Bashar Assad's chemical weapons demonstrated how compromise unavoidably attends American efforts to spread humanitarian ideals globally.