Back about 2001, right after America was attacked, President Bush sent our military to Afghanistan to try and kill Osama bin-Laden and the other terrorists who had planned the attack that took place on 9/11. A couple of years later, an attack was launched against the nightmarish regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Bush administration's justification was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to develop them, and that he was a brutal dictator who had killed thousands of his own people, and that he harbored ill-will against America and perhaps was sympathetic and therefore hiding terrorists that would launch further attacks against the U.S.
Jump to 2013 and President Obama's war-like talk toward Syria. To the best of my knowledge, Syria hasn't attacked us, though there's evidence that they are sympathetic to would-be terrorists, so far, none of those terrorists has attacked the U.S. They've perhaps used WMDs against their own people, but there is doubt about that.
Yet Obama seems ready to go to war.
What, therefore, is the same about the two Presidents? One was representing a nation that had only recently been attacked and was trying to prevent further attacks. The other? Perhaps looking for ways to distract Americans from his failed policies, ala Bill Clinton who launched a few cruise missiles back in the day to distract folks from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
This is a dangerous game the administration is playing. A dangerous game indeed.
