I read this today [bold is mine]:

Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement on the conviction of Al Jazeera's journalists in Egypt calling the convictions and sentences "chilling" and "deeply disturbing", but still plans to try and position the US government closer to the military junta now running Egypt.  The journalists at Al Jazeera were convicted of aiding the Muslim Brotherhood and reporting false news which led to sentences of up to ten years for some of the journalists.

The Egyptian government, now in the hands of military leadership who recently staged an election to legitimize their rule, has targeted journalists as well as democratic activists in its effort to consolidate power after criminalizing the Muslim Brotherhood and couping out former elected President Mohammad Morsi. The Egyptian Military is firmly in command once again turning the "revolution" that occurred previously in Egypt on its head. The revolution is lost.

Despite Secretary Kerry's strong words against criminalizing journalism by the junta he has committed himself to trying to get closer to the new regime.

   After a 90-minute meeting with Mr. Sisi, Mr. Kerry said at a news conference here that he had come to reaffirm Washington's "historic partnership" with Egypt. "We want to see the people of Egypt succeed," he said, and so he and Mr. Sisi had discussed, "most importantly, our mutual determination for our countries to work together in partnership."

    Mr. Kerry expressed firm confidence that the United States would soon fully restore $650 million -- the first tranche of the $1.3 billion in annual aid -- to the military that the Obama administration had partly withheld after the takeover.

Yeah, nothing says "we don't approve of your actions" like giving them hundreds of millions of dollars.

The reasons for a re-entry, or just a little bombing, are interesting to ascertain, in a sad way.  ISIS can now "menace not just Syria and Iraq, but Jordan and Saudi Arabia" claims Michael Gordon, NYT military correspondent and co-author with Judith Miller in the good old days of the run up to the 2003 invasion.  No babies thrown out of incubators as of yet, or as Bush claimed (or one of the claims--throw as many against the wall and see what sticks)--we need to invade Afghanistan to liberate women from wearing headscarves.  

1. 51% supported sending in 300 military advisors

2. 56% supported using drones

3.  36% support Obama's handling of foreign policy (assume he's getting disapproval on both ends of spectrum)

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq was based upon a knowingly false premise that was willingly proffered by the previous administration to the American public, that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks.

That is a documented fact which is no longer subject to debate, and further, it renders that entire wretched enterprise a war crime.

And if some fool from that know-nothing 25% wants to challenge my evaluation, hey, bring it on.

Yes, proponents like you will repeatedly point out that we repulsed a North Korean invasion of South Korea in the summer of 1950, and you're absolutely right about that.

But what you and your fellow armchair warriors conveniently and studiously avoid mentioning in any discussion of that war is one rather inconvenient little truth, which is what happened in Korea after the North Korean Army was repulsed and defeated.

Our own subsequent invasion of North Korea became arguably the greatest strategic blunder and tactical debacle in the entire history of the U.S. military, one in which we initially overran the country, only to soon find ourselves in a predicament that narrowly averted becoming an outright catastrophe.

And had China's People's Liberation Army not been a primarily non-mechanized peasant force that proved itself unable follow up its own initial dazzling battlefield successes, as quickly as our own troops were able to flee southward in total disarray -- well, let's just say that in the winter of 1950-51, we were damned lucky that our entire Eighth Army wasn't driven headlong by the Chinese right into the Sea of Japan.

As it stands, we were clearly routed by the Chinese in North Korea and pushed completely out of that country, and back south below the 38th parallel. There's really no polite way to put it.

The Korean War can be considered a "victory" only in the sense that at enormous cost in both men and materiel, and sometimes in spite of ourselves, the United States was somehow able to restore the military equilibrium and political status quo which had existed on the Korean peninsula prior to that conflict's outbreak in June 1950.

Does that make Ronald Reagan irrational, that he cozied up to Saddam, did the ol' "wink-wink" on Saddam's use of chemical weapons?

Or are we still trying to shape the truth to justify an illegal war based on manufactured "evidence?"

But,

Pigs don't fly?