Thus, it represented a clear and present threat to the safety of Americans and the security of the nation.

The Syrian civil war represents none of those things. So stop trying to make these ridiculous comparisons.

Nothing ill-advised and precipitate, but plenty of smart diplomacy leading to a satisfactory outcome.

Interesting how history repeats itself.

If that was the main issue here, it wouldn't explain why we've done nothing until now.

No, this action was suppose to be in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack in Syria. Which had nothing to do with US national security interests.

I'm not buying what you're selling.

as opposed to that of an unstable dictator, makes us all safer.

Then all bets are off.

What could possibly go wrong?

purchase Sarin at fire-sale prices.

The possibilities are endless.....

They are in essence highly potent pesticides (organophosophates).

Stopping Syria from having them will not stop anyone else.

Not that it matters. Obama did not want war to protect the US.

FAIL.

And Obama to Kennedy?



Kennedy was a great president, and could have been one of the best ever if he had'nt been assassinated.

President Obama? Not in the same league.

Don't worry, I feel your pain.

actions on the diplomatic front.

Kennedy wanted a diplomatic solution but was willing to use pressure from the military to help bring this about. Would Kennedy have used force if negotiations had not worked? One guy wasn't sure - Khrushchev. It worked because Kennedy wanted a peaceful resolution and played hardball to get it.

In the case of Bush/Cheney/McCain, it would not work because they have no fundamental interest in peaceful negotiations except as a prelude to war. That is the mirror image of Kennedy and Obama.

.

How people here, bobble-heads in the 24/7 news cycle, and the RW/GOP judge the outcome will depend 100% on what they thought of the President before this.

This is brinksmanship, and I think that's why those of us who remember the Cuban Missile Crisis have it so on our minds, minus the sheer terror of those days. Of course the situation at home is vastly different -- the US is currently without trust in our own government, thanks to Dubya, and also sick to death of unwinnable war in the Middle East, also thanks to Dubya.

Dubya didn't do brinksmanship, or diplomacy either. Dubya and the NeoCons (sounds like the name of a crummy but very loud band) just charged in and bashed away. They were the proverbial hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail. They leave quite the legacy, and poisonous mistrust of our own government is a big part of it. Obama is not Bush, but some can't keep that straight in their minds.

The place in foreign policy where the personalities and methods of both JFK and Barack Obama overlap is that Obama does do diplomacy, and as we are now discovering, he does brinksmanship as well.

Someone here commented that the Cold War is over. The problem is: has anyone shared that with Putin? The man who spends time every summer showing off his manly physique so everyone gets the message that he is ready for a brawl should he wish to engage in one, that man made his bones in the KGB of the Cold War.

As to your last sentence: If JFK were president now he'd be excoriated from morning til night, same as FDR would be, for having the audacity to have feet of clay. At least at DU and in the GOP.