Hear tell that Kerry got all emotional in his little Syria speech yesterday - never heard myself, can't listen to these people, their words so obviously being crafted to appease and stupefy the foolish and gullible I find it almost painful to listen to them - but everything I read about the speech stressed him getting emotional - and I wonder, what the hell is that about? Was it an honest expression or staged for reasons not clear? If honest, why after a reported 100,000 killed in the war plus more than a million refugees produced does the putative gassing of a few hundred more [which, if true, would actually mark the fourth time at least that Assad has gone there] suddenly move the administration to anger or tears? And, if honest, doesn't allowing that emotion into the debate cloud things and restrict options? As the Godfather said, never let someone outside the family know what you're thinking.
But if staged, to what end? Would it mean Obama is planning something 'big' and needs to stoke an emotional response to the 'outrage' in order to sway public opinion towards supporting this something big? Or, conversely, could it mean that the response is likely to be muted, a mere token of strength, and the show of emotion is an artificially thin way of compensating for a weak hand that may disappoint?
One thing for sure, once you've made the mistake of showing emotion, doing nothing is no longer an option - so, this should be interesting [and not in a good way].
