National Review editor Rich Lowry slams Putin's invasion based on "lies and force of arms." You see, he's against that kind of thing–except when it was the invasion of Iraq.
Former Undersecretary of State John Bolton seems to tell the New York Times that only a nut would have claimed that Iraq had destroyed its chemical weapons stockpiles before the US-led war. The Times lets it pass, which is unfortunate, because if that's indeed what Bolton was referring to, it's false.
Time magazine's Michael Crowley (9/9/13) offers an analysis of how the Syrian situation reflects on Barack Obama's presidency: Whatever comes of Obama's confrontation with Assad, an even more dangerous confrontation lies in wait–the one with Iran. If another round of negotiations with Tehran should fail, Obama may soon be obliged to make good on his vow to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. "I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests," Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March 2012. But to his critics, Obama does […]
This week on FAIR TV: Is Syria Iraq all over again? Plus a look at the CNN "debate" over military strikes that didn't have much debate, and the Wall Street Journal sees a big Tea Party "comeback."