Ferchi

*** But not acting might be the worst option: Indeed, even the hawks are split about what to do when it comes to Syria. Do you institute the no-fly zone? Put U.S. boots on the ground? Arm the rebels (who could turn out to be another problem down the road)? And this was the cloud hanging over the dedication of the Bush library yesterday -- the American public probably doesn’t have the stomach about intervening (one way or another) in a foreign civil war. But as , the Obama administration not acting might be the worst consequence of all. “There are no good choices -- good outcomes in Syria are impossible to imagine. But if it is proved to a certainty that Assad is trying to kill his people with chemical weapons, then Obama may have no choice but to act, not only because he has put the country’s credibility on the line … but also because the alternative -- allowing human beings to be murdered by a monstrous regime using the world’s most devilish weapons, when he has the power to stop it -- is not a moral option for a moral man.” And Goldberg recalls this line that Obama said when he was a senator: “What I don’t want to see happen is for Iraq to become an excuse for us to ignore misery or human-rights violations or genocide.”