Search Results

“I don’t want them [Iran] to get a weapon. But I think what we’re doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around their country, plus our submarines. The Iranians can’t possibly attack anybody, and we’re worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon.

Now, just think about the Cold War. The Soviets had 30,000 of them, and we talked to them. The Soviets killed 100 million people...and we worked our way out of it…

We talked to the Soviets during the Cuban Crisis. We can at least talk to somebody who we do not have proof that [they] have a weapon. Why go to war so carelessly?”

“Promoting democracy can be messy in the short-run and isn’t always possible in every circumstance but, in general, it is the best long-term bet for promoting American interests.”

For the United States to go to war with around a quarter of the nation supporting intervention–even before the bombing has started–is a very dicey and unsettling proposition.

Neocon Michael Gerson, the guy who is credited with penning the "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" lie line that helped enable the Iraq war,  is afraid that Congress might strike down Obama’s despicable rush to war in Syria:

A limited military strike may be symbolic. But for Congress to block that strike would be more than symbolic. It would undermine a tangible element of American influence: the perception that the commander in chief is fully in command.

Separation of powers? Gerson either never heard of it, or more likely could care less about it. An iron-fisted commander in chief must “fully” run the show.

It is time for the United States to stop hiding behind such obsolete, formalistic views of the laws of war and embrace a pragmatic approach in keeping with long American practice.

Assad’s crimes are not merely against Syrians but against the civilized world.