The New York Times is squarely against military action at Syria by us, judging by the Sept. 6 front-page treatment of the rebels executing army captives -- one of many examples of atrocities by those we purport to "tip the momentum" in favor of.
This is noteworthy because the Times has consistently supported this president's agenda -- even to and beyond the edge of self-parody.
This is a war in which we had lost the opportunity of having any positive influence with over two years ago.
The reality is that this country has been in retreat from its global preeminence by the default of indifference since 2009. The last remaining people on the planet unaware of this fact reside in this country.
The most chilling example of why supporting the president's proposal for intervention is a very bad idea was delivered by the president himself in Stockholm on Sept. 4. Now, it is not his reputation at stake; now, he did not draw the red line in this instance.
These outrageous excuses by inversion are befitting an impetuous adolescent -- not of a U.S. president.
He has demonstrated time and again that he is incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions unless he considers the results to be self-affirming.
Nobody with any sense who's been paying attention truly believes him any more.
Except in a clearly defensive military action, we must not commit our troops into harm's way.
Not at this time; not by this president.
Dan Flathers, Toms Brook