I suppose we haven't started enough wars in the Middle-East? Is that what Republican leaders like Senator Lindsey Graham are purporting?
“The President of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it.”
What does that even mean? The only way to “lead” the free world is through a show of military force? Isn't that thinking exactly what has brought misery and carnage to millions of people around the world for the last eight years? Or thirty might be more accurate.
Republicans like Graham are calling Obama “timid” and “passive.” Neo-cons aren't getting their war fix. Maybe, just maybe, America can sit one out. Iran didn't attack us. But, then again, that doesn't necessarily mean anything (Ahem, Iraq, anyone?).
Iran is experiencing civil disobedience as a result of an apparent deception by their government. It's not World War III.
If the United States was caught “rigging” a presidential election, and as a result millions stood up and took to the streets in protest of this assault on democracy, do you honestly think the ensuing riots would not result in at least as many deaths as has happened in Iran? Of course, don't be foolish. Then, just like what will happen soon enough in Iran, the protesters here at home would eventually be broken by the elite and we would go back on our merry way of sleepwalking through life. Hey Iran, welcome to real democracy!
People like Lindsay Graham need to shut up. He needs to realize the cowboys have left Pennsylvania Ave. The neo-cons will just have to wait until we short-sighted citizens forget about the evils perpetuated by the Bush administration and decide once again we need a moron who “thinks with his gut” back in the White House. Don't fret too much, it will happen eventually.
Until then, let Obama think things through and stop the “invade first, ask questions later” approach to foreign policy.
Here's a clip from MSNBC's Morning Joe explaining the situation better than I ever could: