Regarding this article:
1) the word Palestine and Palestinians appear not once in this long article. Not once. In fact, Israel is mentioned in the context as being one of the only legitimate reason for US intervention in the Middle East. This omission undermines the entire credibility of the article.
2) the treatment of Bashshar Al-Asad's regime is way too favorable: just because he does not chop off heads like Saudi Arabia, does not make the regime acceptable (to Syrians or to standards).
3) His treatment of US foreign policy is rather way too absolving of his uncle's administration: the CIA was not operating without the full approval and consent of the US government.
1) the word Palestine and Palestinians appear not once in this long article. Not once. In fact, Israel is mentioned in the context as being one of the only legitimate reason for US intervention in the Middle East. This omission undermines the entire credibility of the article.
2) the treatment of Bashshar Al-Asad's regime is way too favorable: just because he does not chop off heads like Saudi Arabia, does not make the regime acceptable (to Syrians or to standards).
3) His treatment of US foreign policy is rather way too absolving of his uncle's administration: the CIA was not operating without the full approval and consent of the US government.
