I support President Obama on most issues, and maybe my assessment is wrong, but it really seems

[still_one]

to me that the Obama administration is essentially following the bush/cheney policy of nation building. Lybia was one obvious example, and now Syria. Currently, we are so intent on overthrowing Assad, that it seems to overshadow ISIS and AQ. Why is the Obama administration subscribing to the policy that it is our duty to over throw certain regimes. Weren't the lessons of Iraq enough?

Saddam Hussein was overthrown and the entire middle east became extremely unstable.

Other then we aren't committing ground troops as of yet in our effort to "overthrow" the regime in Syria, we are providing military support to "those against Assad", without any idea if they are ISIS or AQ.

Enough is enough

[LuvLoogie]

1. The President has to walk up to the line, so to speak.

This will leave the Republicans to either push for withdrawal or push for escalation, because, to the GOP, what the President does at any given juncture is wrong no matter what.

I suspect that if back-door diplomacy can't get Putin to back off the throttle, then we will see the administration entertain thoughts of a no fly zone.

Kind of depends, too, on how much fear gets ginned up over ISIS.

Obama has to make it so that the only escalation left to the GOP would be to push for troops on the ground. It's not just the facts on the ground in Syria that The President has to deal with. He too has to deal with the facts in a Washington that seethes with hostility toward anything he does--AND an Israeli leader that loathes him. This, by design, undermines his ability in foreign affairs. See Neocon Letter to the Ayatollahs. & Netanyahu's speech to the Congress.

Bashar is a doughy prick who can get tough with women and children, but he does not seem to have answer for those jizzed-up ISIS hot heads. Hafez was the real deal. Putin is the real deal. So is Barack Obama. But he has the constraints of an open society that unfortunately gives domestic sociopaths and ideologues a lot of opportunity for subterfuge and sabotage.

We should have his back. Barack is not a war monger. And neither is Hillary.

[still_one]

6. We don't know who are our "friend" and who are our "enemies" are in Syria. We might be supporting

ISIS without knowing it, to overthrow Assad. The situation there will never be clear, and it can be argued that a democracy in Syria at this time couldn't even be realized based on the many factions involved.

Our foreign policy in Afghanistan under Reagan against the Russians gave birth to AQ. There are always unforeseen consequences, and some can be ver bad.

If Assad was overthrown, who would fill the vacuum? Based on what is occurring there, an overthrowing of Assad could create a country that potentially could be a real threat to the middle east, and us.

The President, or for that matter ANY of the Democratic candidates are NOT war mongers, but trying to setup "democracies" in the middle east, may not have the expected outcomes

[MrMickeysMom]

2. I think you read this one correctly...

Why are we still in Afghanistan?

Why are we in any of these places to begin with?

Why, since sweeping unitary executive action of BushCo, have our civil liberties narrowed further?

Why are the American people not represented by their House of Representatives?

We are past all the lip service as to who steps up to the line. We have long walked over the line and everyone doesn't love America like they used to for sure.

But, like all sustained wrong, we can go in another direction and ask for all the domestic spying to be put on hold. As far as the national security policy... I'm with you.

[still_one]

5. It can be argued that Afghanistan was inherited, and trying to get us out of that mess is more

complicated. However, Libya and Syria, are a different story. We picked a side, and supported an overthrow of those governments, which is really just a continuation of the bush doctrine. Like supply side economics, the bush doctrine has been shown to be a failure time and again. Our involvement in Viet Nam is another example of this.

[kelliekat44]

3. You ask why? In an acronym: PNAC (behind every tree). nt

[still_one]

8. That is too easy. In fact the Iran nuclear deal flies counter to that. I have no doubt there are

influences, but they sure are not learning from the past

[bullwinkle428]

4. Rep. Tulsi Gabbards (D) of Hawaii said basically the same thing tonight, when

she was interviewed on Rachel's show. She also including the deposition of Gaddafi. Pointed out how these all were/are secular dictators, and now these nations are hotbeds of radical fundamentalist versions of Islam. Talked about how crazy it is that we're now teaming up with the very wack-a-doodles that committed mass murder in an effort to dump Assad.

[still_one]

7. She is right. Look at Egypt and Libya, they are a mess. Kerry got Assad to remove his chemical

weapons, which was good, but why are we actively trying to over throw him, and how could we even control who would take his place? No one can answer that question