I often use "Reader Supported News" articles as a way to present to my audience the flaws in the liberal argument on any given topic. This is different. This piece is from a liberal who is as suspicious of the Obama administration on Syria as he was the Bush administration on Iraq.I too, have wondered aloud why President Obama is so hawkish on Syria. Conventional wisdom has it that he recklessly drew his red line in the heat of a presidential campaign and realizing he put America's credibility on the line he knows he must honor his words of last year.
And all of that may be true. But Boardman makes an interesting case here; none of the major players in American government on this current crusade, Hagel, Kerry or President Obama have a track record of being champions against biological weapons. And Kerry and Hagel have been in the game a long time and have had the opportunity to establish their bona fides on this issue.
Liberals touted a litany of ulterior motives that President Bush allegedly had for wanting to go into Iraq. Michael Moore made a movie out of them. Boardman is the first liberal I've read that believes a democratic president is capable of lying the country into war. If Boardman is right and there is an ulterior motive, what is it?