Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
First, get Security Council approval. Second, get congressional approval. Third (or zero-th), determine if engagement is a good idea. Wary about that, actually.
6 comments:
JackD
said...
Be interesting to see how the House of Commons vote again military action may influence the administration.
Andy Borowitz nailed it: Obama promises Syria strike will have no objective." He's already established himself as the country's worst chief executive negotiator. This seems closely allied.
Eh. My understanding is the "objective" here is to make use of chemical weapons a special wrong that will subject a sovereign to some special penalty. If the penalty is too weak to make the use of force worthwhile, fine, I'm wary of force overall. But, "no objective" is a bit too cute.
6 comments:
Be interesting to see how the House of Commons vote again military action may influence the administration.
Yes, Libya had European cover. Going it alone here would look bad.
Andy Borowitz nailed it: Obama promises Syria strike will have no objective." He's already established himself as the country's worst chief executive negotiator. This seems closely allied.
Eh. My understanding is the "objective" here is to make use of chemical weapons a special wrong that will subject a sovereign to some special penalty. If the penalty is too weak to make the use of force worthwhile, fine, I'm wary of force overall. But, "no objective" is a bit too cute.
You answered yourself: "If the penalty is too weak . . . ". Borowitz was being a wise guy but the joke had bite.
Well, I think he's doing the right thing by going to Congress.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!