Jun 13, 2013 5:01 PM GMT
Bill Clinton harsh regarding Obama inaction in Syria
-
Jun 13, 2013 5:01 PM GMT -
Jun 13, 2013 7:35 PM GMTGiven there are about three people in the US at the moment who want their country to get involved in another major military action, it's a difficult call.
Clearly Obama has set the bar very high regarding evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Assad. In view of his predecessor's mistakes in Iraq, he is probably right to do so.
If the evidence does prove conclusive, I think he will go for some form of limited military action (e.g. missile strikes) against Syrian military targets.
In the longer term, I think we could see a NATO no-fly zone over Syria. The no-fly zones over Iraq from 1992 to 2003 were very effective.
-
Jun 13, 2013 11:45 PM GMTBreaking news:
Assad forces used chemical weapons - White House
Syrian forces under President Bashar al-Assad have used chemical weapons "on a small scale" against the opposition rebels, the White House has said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289 -
Jun 14, 2013 12:17 AM GMTtopathlete saidBoldly stating there is a red line, then not following through...
Maybe we are seeing a gradual shift of the liberal media away from Obama, the scandals, the increased costs of Obamacare, etc., to shield the Clintons from the administration. Maybe they are starting to consider Obama a lame duck, especially with such demonstrations of lameness that Bill described.
The intent would be to try and insulate Hillary from the Obama problems to preserve her standing for 2016. Will be interesting to see if she is impacted by the evolving State Dept scandals.
Some of this is propaganda, Socal. The media has been hard on Obama all along. But the stuff about Hillary is probably on the money.
