The secretary of state is dissembling in a most unconvincing manner.
The hawks' overwrought warnings are not credible.
They invoke World War II because it is popular, not because any of its lessons are applicable.
The messages they want to send aren't anything a foreign government would plausibly believe.
Hawkish assumptions embedded in newspaper coverage -- and one article that shined above the rest.
The unfortunate personalization of British politics
The American people's lack of engagement on Syria is cited in Washington to help legitimize war. But it does the opposite.
The latest staggering example: treating John Yoo as an authority on the president's authority to intervene in Syria.
He took that position after years as a U.S. senator, and taught it during lectures on the separation of powers.
Ideologically diverse critics warn that unilateral intervention would be risky, unpopular, and a transgression against domestic and international law.
Some hawks want America to strike, no matter how bad an idea it seems to be.
The pressure on President Obama to intervene in Syria is hyped -- and the pressure to stay out of the conflict is unjustly ignored.
His rare comments on the subject have addressed widely discussed stories and aimed to bridge differences.
The consequences of intervention are unknown because they are unknowable.
Reflections on the Ex-PFC Wintergreens of the national-security state
New details about innocent Americans targeted for surveillance by undercover officers.
With great power and the cloak of secrecy, the temptation to act immorally proves irresistible.
Surely there are methods for reducing violent crime that don't require indiscriminately throwing innocents against walls.
Total transparency would force officials to consider their kill decisions more carefully.
Its editorial board is ready to bomb Syria. Then what? They don't appear to have thought that far ahead.