So what you are saying is that it means nothing that two of Obama's former Sec. of Defense criticized him in a coordinated attack?<quoted text>Pfffftt! The best summation about the whole deal is the first posted comment below the article itself:
Gates says that a strike not only wouldn't solve anything but that it would incite further violence. Panetta holds that a strike should have gone on because of the creditability issue. It should be clear to everyone that this situation has no easy solution, maybe no solution at all, and that the best approach is extreme prudence.
Presidents have usurped the role of Congress either by chicanery (Johnson and Bush) or by exaggerating the potential danger of a situation for our country. There are some situations, very, very few, I might add, when an immediate response is needed and in this case, the president should have the authority to move on his own, But when this condition does not obtain, the proper recourse is to get congressional approval. As to the famous red line. I do not see any virtue in maintaining a stated position when conditions have changed or that position turns out to be untenable or doubtful. As always, if war can be avoided or delayed, it is worth any embarrassment that the action may bring about. If you have any doubt, go to a military cemetery, a veterans' hospital or the home of a widow with three children.
You are dumber than a rock.