Obama’s Incompetent and Unconstitutional Case for War

The president has embarrassed himself with the Syrian debacle.

When Secretary of State John Kerry, apparently irritated by a lack of sleep, gave a snippy and what he thought was an unrealistic reply to a reporter's question at a London press conference last weekend, he hardly could have imagined the world's response. Asked whether there is anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do at this relatively late hour to avoid an American invasion, Kerry told an international audience that if Assad gave up whatever chemical weapons his government possesses, the U.S. would forgo an invasion.

But not to worry, Kerry added. Assad is not going to do that, and we will end up invading Syria in order to vindicate President Obama's threat to do so. For two days, Obama remained silent on this as his arch-nemesis, Russian President Vladimir Putin, grabbed the spotlight and the high moral ground.

Putin, sounding more like a Nobel Peace laureate than the killer he is known to be, offered to broker a deal whereby the Syrian chemical stockpile would be surrendered to the United Nations, the Syrian government could go about defending itself from the al-Qaida-driven effort to take it over, and the U.S. would leave Syria alone.

Obama is generally firm in his belief that he needs to vindicate the threat he made last summer when he was trying to outdo Mitt Romney on sounding tough. It was then that Obama threatened to intervene in the Syrian civil war if chemical weapons were used by the government. Nevertheless, hating the international embarrassment visited upon him when suddenly Putin seems more reasonable than he does, Obama conceded to my Fox News colleague Chris Wallace that the Kerry-inspired and Putin-pushed idea seemed worth considering. And then the Syrian government agreed.

Just last week, the president was arguing that only military force would show the world that the U.S. means what it says. Just last week, he realized that he needed political cover in order to justify an unpopular invasion, and so he asked Congress for permission to invade Syria, even while knowing that he already has the legal authority to invade on his own. Just last week, he dispatched his political team, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to argue that war is the only way to go. And just last week, he intimated that he might bomb Syria even if Congress said no.

What happened?

What happened was the president's head counters polled their allies on Capitol Hill earlier this week and informed him that he was about to become the first American president in history to seek war-making authority from Congress and have it denied to him, including by many members of his own political party.

The president cannot even say for sure that the weapons he and his advisers claim were used were in fact deployed by the Assad regime. Nor can they state with intellectual honesty that the freedom or safety of Americans is affected by any weaponry used in this civil war 6,700 miles from our shores.

The legal linchpin of American involvement in a foreign war is not American hatred of one of the weapons systems used in the war, but the imminence of danger to American freedom and safety if we stay out. Treaties to which the U.S. is a party and the body of international law to which the U.S. subscribes make clear that the U.S. cannot lawfully use military force to punish the government of another country without first demonstrating that the other country's military poses an immediate threat of danger to the U.S. Obama and Kerry have been unable to address this.

They also have been unable to address how the U.S. can punish Syria for using weapons that the U.S. and the U.N. have outlawed but Syria has not. Put aside the fact that Syria is a client state of Russia and hence will be protected by it at the U.N., Syria never agreed to the U.N. prohibition on chemical weapons in the first place. So the U.N. is without lawful authority to authorize any violent American intercession in Syria over the use of these weapons.

We don't know whether the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people who may or may not have been combatants in its civil war. But we do know that the government of Syria -- like all governments -- has a natural right to defend itself from violent attacks by terrorist groups. We also know that the U.S. used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of Vietcong soldiers in South Vietnam in 1965, and used them as well to kill 76 Americans in Waco, Texas, where federal agents murdered peaceful religious fanatics, including their children, in 1993. Can you imagine the response if another country sought to use violence to punish the Clinton administration for that?

What have we here?

We have a president heedless of his duty to uphold the Constitution by keeping the government within its confines, disdainful of international law when it fails to suit his purposes, and contemptuous of a Congress he once controlled when it feels the heat from the American people who have had enough of being lied to and tricked into wars. The American people have come to realize that war is the mother's milk of big government: It kills innocents, increases taxes or borrowing, diminishes personal freedom, and unleashes irrational fears and hatreds, and the government continues to grow.

While all of this has been consuming us, the federal debt is approaching $17 trillion and Obama wants to borrow another trillion, the NSA has been exposed as spying on every computer and every mobile phone in the country for the past two years at the insistence of the Obama administration, and the fiscal bankruptcy of Obamacare is now just below the horizon.

Does the president really expect the American people to approve his bombing and killing just to avoid his personal embarrassment? Or is it his professional incompetence he wants to hide?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • some guy||

    Barack Obama has now reached the stage where he is embarrassing both himself and the office he holds.

    Just now? When was this article written? Early 2009? Not that the office was ever anything but an embarrassment.

  • ||

    One point; "so he asked Congress for permission to invade Syria, even while knowing that he already has the legal authority to invade on his own. "

    I strongly disagree. He has no such legal authority.

    Aside from that not so minor point, I agree wholeheartedly. Napolitano nails it again.

  • RBS||

    I agree. However, I have no doubt that Obama believes he has the legal authority to invade on his own.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Everyone who was in his Constitutional Law class should get a refund from Harvard and be required by their state bar associations to retake the course.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    I'm curious that I haven't ever seen any articles by his past students. You see them with the nazguls' former students all the time -'Op-ed by mediocre student of Supreme Court Justice Old Guy' - usually pushing an anti-freedom policy.
    But not with Barry 'The War Pig' Obama.
    Are they embarassed?
    Dead?

  • Rich||

  • Jose Chung||

    knowing should be in quotes there...

  • Snark Plissken||

    What? Unconstitutional? Hmmm:

    For starters, there is simply no legal basis in international law to support an American invasion of Syria. Yet, notwithstanding that, federal law permits the president to commit U.S. military forces anywhere he wants for up to 90 days, without express authorization from Congress.
  • ||

    As I recall under the war powers act he can only do so if the country or our interests are under imminent threat. He cannot demonstrate that such is the case.

    He would be violating the spirit and letter of both the constitution and the war powers act.

  • some guy||

    That's my understanding too. Congress gave blanket authority to use force to protect the US, its citizens and their property overseas. It did not extend that authority to intervening in external civil wars.

  • ||

    Here is the relevant section:

    "Section 1541(c):

    (c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

    The future possibility of Syria using chem weapons against us does not constitute a direct attack on the United States or our interests. If it did, by that reasoning he would be justified in attacking anyone, anywhere for any reason, including the American people. "Ol' Joe down in Alabama has a .22 single shot that he uses for coon hunting, but he could use it one day to attack us, therefore send in the drones!"

    I submit that this is the real reason he went to congress in spite of what he said. He knows it is illegal and with some congressmen beginning to mumble the 'I' word, he backed off on his bravado.

  • Snark Plissken||

    That is my understanding also.

  • ||

    I did not think you were asserting otherwise, my apologies if it seemed that way. Also, I did not read your link, but I did remember that point being made before, just not that you made it.

  • Snark Plissken||

    No worries mate.

  • FreeToFear||

    The issue is the constitutionality of the war powers act itself. Conventional interpretations think that it constitutes a legislative veto over powers reserved to the president

  • Matrix||

    As I recall under the war powers act he can only do so if the country or our interests are under imminent threat. He cannot demonstrate that such is the case.
    American interests could be a simple as the President doing what he said he would do.

    And what part of "my military" don't you understand?

  • ||

    "American interests could be a simple as the President doing what he said he would do."

    I think he has asserted this very thing, as have many of his supporters. That is, until it was pointed out to them how immoral is it to murder people to uphold your credibility.

    They really are the vilest kind of evil.

  • JWatts||

    That is, until it was pointed out to them how immoral is it to murder people to uphold your credibility.

    I think you mean, "Until it was pointed out how negatively it was affecting his polling numbers".

  • Jose Chung||

    Federal law is often at odds with the document that established the Federal government.

  • db||

    Vladimir Putin, citing "insufficient communication between our societies," takes to the New York Times's op-ed page to write directly to the American people.

    Basically he's saying, "your President is a dick and I can't work with him."

    Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

    Putin exercises the theme of the internal conflict, which is consistent with his position on Russia's Chechnyan problem.

    He talks about the failures of the U.S. policy of force over diplomacy, then he compliments Obama on his willingness to consider alternatives.

    He ends with this head-scratcher from an ex-KGB agent:

    We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
  • db||

    When Vladimir Putin comes off as less of a cowboy than Barack Obama and essentially says to to the American people, "you better talk to this guy because I can't get through to him," Obama's got a problem.

  • Hopfiend||

    I don't like being lectured by this guy anymore than I like it from Obama. The fact is that all people are created with an equal value as people if not equal talent. That does not mean that all societies or governments are created equal. I firmly believe that our intended form of government is far superior to the quasi communist brand in Russia. To the extent that our current government resembles the totalitarian states abroad is directly proportional to my dissatisfaction with it.

  • db||

    If you read any praise of Putin in my post, you're imagining it. You're right--now Putin wants to play the "make big speeches at Americans" game? Fuck him too.

  • Hopfiend||

    Nope, I read shock that our pres looks less reasonable and more bellicose than the former KGB agent.

  • ||

    Goddammit db, you owe me for two paper towels I had to use to clean coffee off of my monitor.

  • ||

    I forgot to paste the relevant section of your comment.

    "Basically he's saying, "your President is a dick and I can't work with him."

  • Number 2||

    Good Lord. Putin comes off as the reasonable one? He demonstrated more logic and reason in one paragraph than Team Obama in the past three weeks combined.

    Unfortunately, that is not a very high standard.

  • WTF||

    Obama is an incompetent embarrassment. In other news, the sun rose in the east this morning.

  • Sevo||

    Number 2| 9.12.13 @ 7:47AM |#
    "Good Lord. Putin comes off as the reasonable one? He demonstrated more logic and reason in one paragraph than Team Obama in the past three weeks combined."

    We finally found and idiot despicable enough to make Putin look good!

  • Snark Plissken||

    Citing "insufficient communication" from the greatest orator since Cicero was surely not a coincidence.

    Well done, Vlad, well done.

  • db||

    This one is chock full of nuance.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Putin pwns Obama.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Putin's primary shot was at Dumbya and his coalition - he even directly quoted him "You're either with us or against us".

    Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

    Putin went on to say that he has a "growing trust" with the USA.

  • Hopfiend||

    It is precious that you took his op-ed at face value. Super cute. Really.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

    Putin states the obvious. Iraq was a massive blunder and Bush would not listen to the United Nations.

  • Hopfiend||

    Still doesn't answer the point that Putin isn't expressing any personally sacred principle. He is just enjoying an opportunity to rub Obama's (and our) nose in it.

    you may be 94% libertarian but that 6% blue teamer is the controlling interest.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama was correct when he said that the US had become "arrogant" in his Cairo address.

    That arrogance what Putin is responding to. He even took a shot at this ridiculous concept of American Exceptionalism.

  • Loki||

    Obama was correct when he said that the US had become "arrogant" in his Cairo address.

    And yet here he is almost blundering us into another war just to massage his bruised ego Assad ignoring his "red line" bullshit.

    Keep sucking Choco-Nixon's cock shriek, I'm sure it'll firm up eventually.

  • sarcasmic||

    PB is 94% retard and 6% blue teamer. Not worth engaging.

  • Jordan||

    PB is 94% retard and 6% blue teamer. Not worth engaging.

    So, basically 100% retard. Still, your point stands.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "No fair pointing out Putin's disrespect of Dubya! No fair! It dilutes our anti-Obama spin!"

    Saith the Peanut Gallery.

  • Hopfiend||

    hahahahaha, when did I mention Bush? No, you did. The fact that Bush is irrelevant to the current discussion yet you choose to mention to distract from your man-crush's failure is what you are about.

    But, you routinely insist upon engaging in intellectual buggery to justify Mr. Obama's failures and I doubt that is likely to change.

  • db||

    Bush has not been in power for over four years now. At some point you are going to have to wake up to the fact that time has passed you by. Your antics are as irrelevant to the current world as they are annoying.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Tell Putin that. He wrote the op-ed directly quoting Bush.

    The Iraq blunder looms large on current policy - it is a blueprint on how NOT to do things.

  • Hopfiend||

    I know Bush and Iraq appear to you like a type of Rorshach. If you think the path Mr. Obama was trotting down didn't embody the "with us or against us" mantra then you weren't paying attention. I don't care who insults GWB, I routinely do it. However, Mr. Obama is not bound by any of the past failures of American foreign policy but was choosing to proceed in that manner all on his own.

    You do have to accept that eventually if you want to engage in any good faith argument.

  • Loki||

    You do have to accept that eventually if you want to engage in any good faith argument.

    That's just it, he doesn't want to engage in any good faith argument. He's stupid obnoxious troll.

  • JWatts||

    Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

    Putin is not speaking to Bush. He's speaking directly to and about Obama. And he's right. And Obama is wrong.

    And there's this part:

    I carefully studied his (Obama's) address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism...

    Putin's Op Ed was a direct rebuttal to Obama's push to War. Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature is aware of that.

  • ||

    Palin's Buttplug:

    Tell Putin that. He wrote the op-ed directly quoting Bush.

    The Iraq blunder looms large on current policy - it is a blueprint on how NOT to do things.

    So, when Putin essentially asks in an op-ed written in 2013, "Hey, why does Obama want to act so much like Bush?", he's obviously taking about Bush, not Obama.

    Got it. You can go back to being tone-deaf now.

  • WTF||

    Holy shit! The idiot shreek has convinced himself that even Putin blames Bush!

    BUSHPIGS!!11!!11CHRISTFAGS!!11!!!!

  • Matrix||

    This guy is such a fucking Obama-phile that he would defend the president for making child sacrifices to Molekh by claiming it was far more humane and that Bush did it first.

  • Swiss Servator - Gnome Slave||

    He is kind of like my parent's dog that has "floaters" in his eyes - always leaping and snapping at something that isn't there.

  • ||

    I swear to God, in 2020, we're going to be talking about how whatever we have is great because it's not Bush.

    Apparently, he has forever defined and damaged this country in a way that no succeeding politician or congress can undo.

    I doubt this will keep Democrat politicians from making wonderful promises, but "OMG Bush 2001-2009" will be their eternal excuse.

  • Loki||

    BUSHPIG!!!!11!!!!! CHRISTFAG!!!!1!!!111!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuGtxt84wPQ

  • BigT||

    Treaties to which the U.S. is a party and the body of international law to which the U.S. subscribes make clear that the U.S. cannot lawfully use military force to punish the government of another country without first demonstrating that the other country's military poses an immediate threat of danger to the U.S

    By that logic aren't half of the world's countries in 'immediate threat of danger' from the US military and hence could legitimately punish our government? Our forces are almost everywhere and can project power in a few minutes to those places.

  • Swiss Servator - Gnome Slave||

    "immediate threat of danger"....wherever the dronez is a flyin' would qualify. But Yemen uses us to whack domestic foes and Pakistan doth protest too much.

  • db||

    Yemen and Pakistan would probably have South American-style death squads chasing down their personae non grataif they hadn't contracted the job out to our little drone swarm. Think about how that looks.

    All either of those governments has to do is call someone a terrorist and (hopefully) provide some "proof" to provide enough cover for the U.S. to say all the targets are legit terrorists. Well, OK, I don't know the procedures but I bet they're not all that robust.

  • ||

    No, it doesn't, really.

  • ||

    From the link in 24/7;

    "A Russian-backed proposal that would see Syrian President Bashar Assad surrender his chemical weapons stockpile to international custody has been panned by Salim Idriss, the head of the Syrian opposition’s Supreme Military Council.

    “We announce our definitive rejection of the Russian initiative to place chemical weapons under international custody,” said Idriss, in a video posted online."

    Yeah, this attack was totally not a false flag perpetrated by the SFA. Thats why Jugears jumped on it like a duck on a junebug, cuz he totally does not want to help Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups. No way he would do that.

    What is the latest news from Libya? Egypt? How is the Islamist spri...I mean Arab spring going?

  • wareagle||

    there is no story in either Libya or Egypt, and my guess is Syria will that way soon, too, as the next distraction cum crisis emerges.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    “We announce our definitive rejection of the Russian initiative to place chemical weapons under international custody,” said Idriss, in a video posted online."

    Well, no shit. This has nothing to do with chemical weapons and everything to do with dragging the US into the conflict on your side.

  • Loki||

    Well, if the chemical weapons are all handed over to the UN, then how will they get their hands on them to use against either Isreal or us in the unlikely event that they end up winning?

  • wareagle||

    Legal arguments aside, and yes I realize that is a huge caveat, this is a highlight of the man's utter lack of principle and his being nothing more than a political animal. Were the Red Liner in Chief that bound by principal over the use of gas, he would have ordered a strike and THEN gone to Congress and on tv to explain himself.

    Dems would have given him cover as would the media, the Repubs would howl while the other side dismissed them, and we would have one more example of Obama's unfamiliarity with the document over which he claims expert status. He would at least have demonstrated the his red line threats have something behind them. Instead, we wind up with the most impotent of outcomes, where a thug and killer looks like the statesman and POTUS looks like, well, like an outlier ward boss.

  • Raven Nation||

    No only lack of principle but lack of experience in leading anything in his life. College professor requires certain skills but not leadership. Likewise community organizer. And being a senator is one of the worst preparations for being a leader since it encourages you to do anything but lead (Rich Lowry at NRO made this point back in 2004 about Kerry and, yes, I know NRO is not well regarded here).

    There's a reason only two sitting senators have been elected president since WWII and both of them ran against other senators.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yet the three most maligned President's in the past 100 years have been ex-Governors - Nixon, Carter, and Bush the Lesser.

  • Raven Nation||

    Non-sequitur

  • Libertymike||

    No, it is not.

  • Whahappan?||

    Nixon was never a governor, dumbass. He ran for governor of CA, but lost.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Instead, we wind up with the most impotent of outcomes, where a thug and killer looks like the statesman and POTUS looks like, well, like an outlier ward boss.

    How is Putin any more a thug or killer than Obama?

  • Swiss Servator - Gnome Slave||

    Well, he was KGB, and you could always ask the residents of Grozny or a Georgian how they feel about his subtle way of handling people he does not care for. Or various jailed foes, slain reporters, etc.

    He is probably jealous of the Lightworker's drone arsenal, to be sure.

  • wareagle||

    Putin did it professionally and made no bones about it. Obama pretends to be above the fray, which basically makes a dishonest dick.

  • ||

    Instead, we wind up with the most impotent of outcomes, where a thug and killer looks like the statesman and POTUS looks like, well, like an outlier ward boss.

    It is kind of embarrassing watching Putin run circles around Obama. No doubt Putin is a brilliant at the chess game of statescraft. Putin didn't get to and stay where he is by brute force alone. He has a certain amount of... well charisma. It kind of worries me that people are drawn to the brand of charisma that Putin has to offer.

  • Hopfiend||

    I would be embarrassed, but then I remembered, I didn't vote for him and felt much better.

  • sarcasmic||

    As far as the rest of the world is concerned, Obama represents you whether you voted for him or not. So you should indeed be embarrassed and ashamed.

  • Hopfiend||

    Day. Ruined.

    Thanks bro ;)

  • sarcasmic||

    The era of American Exceptionalism is truly over.

  • ||

    Hey, enjoy the decline. We should be so lucky to have front row seats to witness the world once greatest republic die. It's fucking awesome.

  • Raven Nation||

    Yep. It's not every generation that gets to watch a country die. The Brits in the 1950s. Maybe the Soviets & CIS in the 1990s.

  • Tejicano||

    I remember feeling that way under Carter. Somehow this time does feel more permanent.

  • Jose Chung||

    That's because this time it seems due to intent rather than incompetence.

  • Mainer2||

    POTUS looks like, well, like an outlier ward boss.

    He's a product of the Chicago Democratic machine. That's all you really need to know to understand him.

  • John Galt||

    The more times Obama has to demonstrate 'what Obama would do' the more he appears like a little boy dressed in his dad's clothes playing pretend he's president.

  • sarcasmic||

    he appears like a little boy dressed in his dad's clothes playing pretend he's president

    I'm stealing that.

  • Jose Chung||

    Putin, sounding more like a Nobel Peace laureate than the killer he is known to be current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ...

    Fixed

  • creech||

    "both of them ran against other senators"

    Senator Kennedy ran and won against Vice President Nixon.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Vladimir Putin's comments on American exceptionalism, Syria cause a fuss

    ...

    Democratic Senator Robert Menendez said the piece made him almost want to throw up.

    You know what, Bobby? Your sex tourist vacations to go and fuck Caribbean child prostitutes makes me want to vomit.



    "Hey Putin, next time you wanna write a letter to convince America about something, how about you skip saying we're not exceptional? #rude," tweeted Sarah Rumpf, a political consultant in Florida.

    Yes, how dare he suggest that you're not a special little snowflake just because your mother shitted you out on American soil, Sarah!

    "Man who launched military action in Georgia and Chechnya without UN say-so says wars without it are illegal?" tweeted the journalist John Podhoretz.

    Tu quoque, Vlad, tu quoque! So we get to kill all the Syrians we want!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Some Twitter users unearthed a previous op-ed that Putin wrote for The New York Times about the first Chechen conflict, in 1999.

    Putin, then the prime minister of Russia, struck a different tone in that piece in which he sought to explain Russia's military action.

    "No government can stand idly by when terrorism strikes," he wrote. "It is the solemn duty of all governments to protect their citizens from danger."

    "Not a word on UN or Pope or Int'l law," Philip Gourevitch, a staff writer at The New Yorker, commented about the 1999 article. (Putin mentions the pope in his op-ed this week as being among those opposed to a U.S. strike against Syria.)

    Yes, because the two situations are so similar; nay, they are exactly the same! Although, I commend Gourevitch for his successful career in journalism despite his cognitive disabilities.

  • db||

    Putin's adventurism and bullying in Georgia aside, --a big aside--his position on Chechnya is consistent with his Syrian rhetoric. He believes that it is an internal matter and not one of international scope.

    The U.S. has taken this position when its allies have had internal problems before too. There are no principled men in power on either side here, as far as I can tell.

  • Jose Chung||

    Never trust a pragmatist; you cannot put anything past someone for whom the ends justify the means.

    This goes doubly so for anyone with libido dominandi.

  • Anders||

    War on Syria is not only an unpopular option, it is a very stupid option. But it would make a nice distraction from the multitude of scandals this criminally incompetent regime has accrued.

    CNN et al love showing night time pictures of cruise missiles launching from Cruisers and Destroyers. Because the visuals are, like, totally awesome.

  • Matrix||

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • JohnD||

    Thank you, Hillary.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Looks like Obama and Putin have something in common (Excerpt from a Detroit News article this morning):

    Putin and his associates were reminded of the fragility of this system in December 2011, when mass protests broke out in Moscow over the falsification of the parliamentary elections. Since then, Putin has intensified anti-Western propaganda as controls over civil society have tightened. This isn’t because of any action by the U.S., but because the image of an external threat is the best way to distract ordinary Russians from the abuses of their own government.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    If Jug Ears was capable of embarrassment, he wouldn't be a Liberal.

  • John Galt||

    OT: Both Giron and Morse, the state senators who helped push through new gun control legislation in Colorado, both were recalled.

    Now, there's a reason to smile today.

  • BFawlty||

    Yes a little ray of sunshine.

  • ClosetClausewitz||

    My friend Talleyrand says that engagement in Syria would, "be worse than a crime. It would be a mistake."

  • JohnD||

    What's one more embarrassment for the chief liar and fool?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement