First off, I will admit to being a prior GG fan when he was at Salon. I read all of his columns and have read (I think) all of his books. However, since I’ve been reading here you guys have mostly turned my thinking towards him especially in regards to how he has handled Edward Snowden and all of those leaks. I also understand you guys, in general, dislike GG because of his bombastic nature and his exaggeration and half-truths with regards to a lot of topics as well as probably some other things I’m not listing.

But I have to ask why is it wrong for him to question what legal authority Obama has to bomb ISIL within Syria? Why is it wrong for him to point out that our coalition of partners don’t exactly have the best track record of human rights on the planet? Why is it wrong to point out that attacking ISIL like this only strengthens their numbers and aids in their recruitment? Is it because GG is the one pointing it out? Or do none of you have any concern about these questions?

ISIL should be dealt with no doubt, but they should be dealt with by taking out leadership which we are incredibly capable of doing. Allow interested parties in the region to do their own bombing and let’s stay out of it for once. Is it wrong for wanting that?

I’m not trolling, either. I’m generally curious about the above questions from those of you who want to answer.