In an opinion piece, Dana Perino says this:
Obama's work is cut out for him to sell a war to a war-weary country. But at least Dana Perino is trying to help him out a bit here. He does seem rather stuck on promising that the strike will be limited and quick. Most of us know what apparently Obama doesn't know (and of course he wouldn't lie to us)...........that once that strike has been done, any of many things could happen to keep us in a war longer than he has promised that we will be in this one.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-it-will-never/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2eFT1vvb6
In my opinion, Mr. Obama is presenting his case incorrectly. He has the order and the emphasis wrong when laying out his arguments in favor of a strike. He’s been putting too much stress on the limited point, that the intervention will be limited, targeted and over before you know it.
Instead, he should first argue that a strike is necessary. Then he should tell us why he thinks we will succeed. And only then should he get to the point that a strike is not going to become a long-term or costly endeavor.
The more the president keeps jumping to, and spending too much time on, the limited aspect of the strike, the more he’s taking for granted that he’s already won the argument on the first two points. And clearly he has not.
Obama's work is cut out for him to sell a war to a war-weary country. But at least Dana Perino is trying to help him out a bit here. He does seem rather stuck on promising that the strike will be limited and quick. Most of us know what apparently Obama doesn't know (and of course he wouldn't lie to us)...........that once that strike has been done, any of many things could happen to keep us in a war longer than he has promised that we will be in this one.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-it-will-never/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2eFT1vvb6