If the New York Times openly admits that Obama lacks the competence to conduct a simple risk assessment when it comes to matters of war, then why do they continue to support him?
Bombing Syria’s chemical weapons could unleash nerve gas clouds.
Because Syria is in a civil war, Assad has to store his chemical weapons in areas that he controls...cities.
Assad controls the major cities while the rebels control lots of the rural countryside.
...which means that 0bama’s bombing of those WMDs could release hyper-toxic clouds of nerve gas...inside those cities.
Does 0bama’s war planning include stationing nearby U.S. assets to evacuate civilians from any nerve gas clouds released in a U.S. attack on Assad’s WMDs?
For certain, the sycophantic news media will blame Assad for having and storing WMDs in cities (the only areas that he controls) instead of blaming 0bama for “not seeing” the release of large clouds of nerve gas inside cities as being an entirely preventable disaster.
The news media will pump up 0bama’s new UN treaty to ban chemical weapons...completely ignoring 0bama’s culpability in the deaths of thousands of civilians and instead cheering him for advancing his UN treaty against those munitions.
So where’s the plan for evacuating civilians from the nerve gas released out of bombed Syrian chemical weapons?
Is anyone willing to save civilians?
Overlooks risks, unintended consequences, or even goals.
“Experts Fear U.S. Plan to Strike Syria Overlooks Risks”
It was NOT overlooked. The pos in the wh has been planning this for a couple of years. And if anyone thinks assad is a bad guy, wait till they see what future plans presbo has.
On a related subject, has anyone seen Waldo boehner? Where’s Waldo?