I have a number of links on this GD thread re Syria

[wisteria]

111. I am well aware of the opposition to attacking Syria.

Most of which I think was based on experiences with Bush and company. Some conflicts aren't popular, but sometimes it is necessary to buck public opinion and take leadership of an issue. Obama did, than didn't, making people even more unsure. Kerry tried hard to be a good soldier, to a President that was on board, than wasn't entirely, without further Congressional support. It denigrates Kerry to assume there was not diplomatic avenues attempted already, and there was a rush to do this. Sure, somehow, Obama gets a reprieve for now, and maybe some more time to sell a strike-especially when/if Assad does not comply. Sadly, I think this entire idea is to simplistic and people are just jumping on board to delay the inevitable. I don't consider myself a war hawk, but we have been down a very, very similar path with Saddam during the 80's. Ultimately, I believe we will need to strike Syria, either sooner or later, to protect our interests, help our allies, and protect our security. At least this buys some time. I hope there is a diplomatic solution, I don't think this one is it though.
As for Sullivan, please, continue to post his commentary. I simply do not care for him, but I am sure others enjoy reading him.