And yet this modus operandi has your fingerprints all over it. Perhaps I should cut you some slack. After all, it must be difficult to discern all the shit out there when your eyes are so brown, eh?
Not all democrats support Obama but since the majority do this article is fair imo I'm am extremely disappointed in the democratic party.The last 2 democratic presidents have a record of fiscal responsibility ,limited use of our military and a non aggressive foreign policy . Obama has followed the path of Reagan and Bush with record deficits and continued and expanded most of Bush's policies yet most democrats still support him
I find it hard to believe your writer can't grasp this basic concept: "As the world's sole superpower, and with unique military capabilities, the U.S. will find itself at the center of many future debates over humanitarian action. The emerging standards for intervention would argue for restraint in many cases. For example, so far in Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, the government responses to protests have killed civilians on a much smaller scale than in Libya -- no more than 80 in each case. These acts are deplorable, but the impact is orders of magnitude less than in Libya and so merits an intense diplomatic rather than military response. " from http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...standard-for-humanitarian-intervention/73361/ more than likely the writer of that initial piece fully understand the difference between Libya and Yemen, etc. He's just writing that crap out of political motivation. Seems pretty obvious to me.
So given the 10's if not 100's of thousands of people murdered by Saddam Hussein you obviously supported the invasion of Iraq.
As opposed to the writer of your article, Robert Pape a known liberal, who works at the university of Chicago no less..... he couldnt have an axe to grind for Obama, no that couldnt be possibly be it...... LOL