"... let's be honest, the whole point of Obamacare is to serve the left's political interests at the expense of just about anything else of general value to the country... even the New York Times admits it isn't going to control costs or improve care, that much of what was promised will never materialize... and many are starting to figure out that as the ACA starts to negatively impact quality of care and access that this will add to not diminish inequality as people who can afford better care will increasingly seek it out and the 'good' doctors will increasingly cater to that market leaving the poor with long lines and incompetent practitioners... no, the whole point of it is politics, to fracture the right by inciting the extremism of outrage which not only hurts conservatism but in the end only helps serve the real coup de grâce, the enfranchising in perpetuity of an ever increasing left wing voter base of the poor and weak and vulnerable who will be highly motivated every four years to run to the polling booth to save their free access to shitty healthcare that the evil right is ever threatening to take away from them..."

Has the GOP completely lost its mind? Has the tea party ethos addled it to such a degree that they just can't do the math anymore? Everything I've read suggests Obamacare is a disaster, absolutely and entirely not ready for prime time - so why is the GOP advocating for a delay that may in the end benefit the implementation of it? Let it fall and fail! Is it that they believe that once it's law you'll never be able to get rid of it? If it's demonstrably horrible, how can that be? Do they see some advantage to a delay viz the midterm elections? Please don't tell me that means that Obamacare may overall be a disaster but for the poor and minorities it will prove a boon and therefore a boon to the Democrats' voter base and that's what the GOP is running from here - 'cause if that's the case, we're screwed. At that point, the weakest, most needy, most vulnerable and therefore most liberal and least productive elements of your society are determining policy - and if that's the case, then it truly is over for us.

Are they thinking that because Obama delayed business exposure to his lousy bill that he'll have a very hard time explaining to the American people why he isn't willing to do them the same favor when the senate rejects the house bill or it comes to vetoing a house resolution? I guess that could happen - but as I've said many times before, that leaves you dependent on media to sell a narrative that goes against their sympathies - risky. And what if Obama pulls a fast one on you and agrees to the delay, knowing full well that his plan is not ready for the big leagues? In other words, what if he's set you up, convincing you that of course he'll veto the bill? I dunno - if Obamacare is the mess they say it is seems to me best idea is to kick it out of the nest and watch it fall to the ground and let the Democrats crawl all over themselves trying to explain what the hell happened.

"... my short take on a comparison of Bush and Obama?... given the whoreson nature of the world and the vast array of disturbing, corrupt, unevolved, evil creatures it inconveniently is home to... well, final analysis if you're America, I'd say it's much better to be seen as strong but flawed than to be seen as weak and flawed... it's something of a toss up, sure, but I think come the end of the day I'll take a Bush over an Obama nine times out of ten, no question..."

Thoughts on Cruz... ah, in general find the antics of these demagogues and charlatans annoying and unwatchable - I'll say simply that Cruz and those like him are a manifestation of an element of the right that, for whatever reason - stupidity, arrogance, self-righteousness, I dunno - an element who can't seem to grasp that outrage and contempt for the left is not a winning formula in a country where the media overwhelmingly supports the other side - I actually tend to doubt it'd be a winning formula regardless of media bias - extremes, no matter what ideology they serve, are fundamentally undemocratic as far as I'm concerned - but certainly in a country where the media is overtly sympathetic to the left it's delusional to think right wing outrage, which often devolves into farcical behavior and the promoting of outlandish candidates, is going to move the country in a positive direction or win you a governable majority in a general election and the angry extremism evinced along the way will only in the end prove self-defeating - indeed, much of Obama's political guile is based on a belief that the angrier the right gets the better off he is.

[and don't talk to me about 2010 - firstly, Obama's method is better suited to presidential elections when the constituents he depends on are fully engaged - that'd be the poor, minorities, youth, women, unions and most importantly the media - and secondly, the fact the GOP should have taken both house and senate and didn't proves the point: the senate didn't go their way because the greater voting sample of a senate campaign much more closely resembles the dynamics of a presidential election than the limited voter sample you see in house campaigns - it's much easier for outrage to pay dividends when broad appeal factors less in outcomes]

Failed in effort of avoiding entirely Obama's UN speech - suckered in by opinion that speech was modest in aspirations and in essence signaled Obama unilaterally announcing the end of the American empire, rhetorically delisting it as a superpower - this in itself not surprising since modern liberalism, both as a matter of its ideological idealism and more practically as a matter of it being hard if not impossible to find financing for a huge welfare state and a great army, is certainly reflected in Obama's foreign policy thinking - still, had expected him to go grandiose - maybe the Syria debacle has taught him that clumsy use of idealist humanitarian rhetoric on the world stage can really back you into some uncomfortable corners if you're not concurrently willing to acknowledge the necessary, indispensable nature of American military power.

Maybe what we're seeing is the education of a lefty, the slowly dawning realization that what plays well at a Harvard faculty wine and cheese gab fest doesn't translate too well to the real world - or, lacking a true awakening thereof, maybe the smallness of his speech is the form his denial takes. Liberals don't study history from a military, hard power point of view, they study it from a 'victims' point of view, a 'rich white guys are evil' point of view. I think it was Eisenhower who said that a president who comes to the White House without a coherent, realistic, well formed opinion regarding the tricks and turns of foreign policy and the uses and dynamics of military power is not going to acquire such wisdom once they're there - maybe what we're seeing is Obama coming to a humbling realization of just how true that is.

Or maybe not. A central incoherence hangs over this administration - they want to embrace and indeed in many ways fundamentally define themselves in terms of a Samantha Power styled humanitarian activism and yet events are clearly demonstrating just how detached from reality that activism is - you cannot tether the US military to the enervating whims, naive wishes and entrenched chauvinisms of the UN - that is not a workable arrangement, and only people who have studied history from a point of view corrupted by the fantasies of left wing sentiment would ever imagine such a thing being possible.

And in the wake of this incoherence what we're left with is Obama, as a matter of rhetorical inference, essentially agreeing with Iran that America has been guilty of overreach and arrogance and needs to be pushed back - this is the leverage the pleasant, smiling face of Rouhani will use to bring about one of two outcomes: running out the clock with 'negotiations' until Iran either tests a bomb or convincingly demonstrates a breakout capability; or expertly manipulating 'world opinion' so that it looks like Iran is being reasonable, America unreasonable and forcing Obama into signing an accord that will have all the legitimacy of the Munich Agreement.

What the Syria debacle taught Iran is that Obama is so desperate to avoid military entanglements, especially if they frame actions in ways that make American armed might look like an indispensable 'good' [the whole point of 'leading from behind'], that he will agree to anything just so long as it contains components that he can sell as viable regardless of whether or not they actually are. Any objective, informed observer knows that Putin cannot be trusted, has interests which conflict with American interests and that his 'plan' is more scheme than anything else and will achieve little or possibly none at all of the good it promises - yet Obama readily went along.

The questions to ask: is Obama a naive fool or is it that he feels or imagines that he somehow can avoid the negative consequences of his actions - and when we say 'he' does that mean the country and his party or does it just mean his own political self? He doesn't have to run in another election, so there's that - and he no doubt has some idea of a legacy he wants to protect - but does that mean he doesn't care about the fortunes of his party and that he feels 'peace at any cost' is a plenty good thing to be known for? Dunno. Are we possibly seeing here the wholly pernicious effects of media bias insomuch that Obama maybe believes that the liberal elite is so willingly blind to his flaws and so driven to burnish his image no matter what that he can get away with anything? Possibly. But that still leaves the vexing question: what about harm to the country? Can't be he doesn't care [we're hoping, anyway] - so it's got to be either he doesn't see it [naive], refuses to acknowledge it [wishful thinking], or has a different notion of what actually could be considered 'harm' as far as the country as a whole is concerned [all of the above - in short, he's an uber liberal].

Obama will be addressing the UN tomorrow [I will try as heroically as I can to not witness any of that speech, not the slightest sliver of a clip, not a single solemnly intoned word or even the faintest image of a studied pose for the cameras - it will be difficult, but a person has to try, yes? That at least] - and in this address he I suspect will attempt to sweep with lofty rhetoric and grand ideas all the mess of the last month and the immense damage done under the internationalist carpet - in the press gallery a writer from The New York Times will weep and announce for the umpteenth time that Dear Leader is back in all the glorious effulgence of his liberalicious wonderfulness - great initiatives will be outlined, stirring ideals referenced, world peace intimated - and in a shadowed somewhere Putin and Rouhani and Khamenei will wink at each other and say: Obama is desperate to resurrect his image with sweet words and bold gestures - we've got the idiot exactly where we want him.

The West is being run by fools - who knows to what hell it's taking us.

So I take it this the reason conservatives who support amnesty and immigration reform do so? From a WSJ op-ed about Bob Funk who owns and operates a highly successful employment service:

The primary jobs problem today, Mr. Funk says, is that too many workers are functionally unemployable because of attitude, behavior or lack of the most basic work skills. One discouraging statistic is that only about one of six workers who comes to Express seeking employment makes the cut. He recites a company statistic that about one in four applicants can't even pass a drug test.

"In my 40-some years in this business, the biggest change I've witnessed is the erosion of the American work ethic. It just isn't there today like it used to be," Mr. Funk says. Asked to define "work ethic," he replies that it's fairly simple but vital on-the-job behavior, such as showing up on time, being conscientious and productive in every task, showing a willingness to get your hands dirty and at times working extra hours. These attributes are essential, he says, because if low-level employees show a willingness to work hard, "most employers will gladly train them with the skills to fill higher-paying jobs."

He fears that too many of the young millennials who come knocking on his door view a paycheck as a kind of entitlement, not something to be earned. He is also concerned that the trendy concept of "life-balancing" is putting work second behind leisure.

"I guess I'm a little prejudiced to the immigrants and especially Hispanics," he says. "They have an amazing work ethic. They don't want handouts and are grateful to have a job. Our company has a great success rate with these workers." This focus on work effort is seldom, if ever, discussed by policy makers or labor economists when they ponder what to do about unemployment. To most liberals, the very topic is taboo and is disparaged as blaming the economy's victims.

That's a pretty disturbing picture of America's young, non-immigrant workforce. Three out of four applicants can't even pass a drug test? Wow. I guess we are doomed. No 'greatest generation' on the horizon here.

Brief reflection on Cruz's appearance on Fox News this morning - man's a gift to democrats in general and Obama's particular brand of media enabled political machination in particular. Republican's who think this guy has a chance of becoming president are out of their frickin' minds. Had heard about how smart he supposedly is and so was curious to hear him explain his 'defund' strategy - I heard nothing that made any sense whatsoever - all meaningless rhetoric and base pleasing boilerplate. Does the GOP base really not understand that when their anger summons up demagogues like Cruz Obama wins? That the reason Obama loves pissing you off is so that you'll play right into his hands? To put it in baseball terms: he's setting you up with his fastball so he can strike you out with his curve.

The Iran debate, specifically the 'what's the deal with Rouhani' debate took an interesting twist. I said early on that reactions to Rouhani's election clearly demarcated foreign policy camps between the progressive/idealist liberal worldview and the realist/skeptical conservative one - and since the Syrian debacle and the rise of the Putin/Iran tag team you've seen a lot of left wing opinions urging Obama to seize the moment, declaring that Rouhani's outreach deserves to be taken seriously, that Khamenei has had an ironical 'road to Damascus' awakening viz his nukes etc etc - with of course conservatives countering with a bitter 'c'mon, please' - I predicted early on that a certain foreign policy camp will be vindicated by who get's Rouhani right. And so the interesting twist: Iranian Revolutionary Guard makes public statement warning politicians as talks heat up against, in essence, being suckered in by America and selling short the Islamic state's interests to the devil. Predictably, liberals see this as proof that Rouhani is indeed breaking new ground and it's ruffling the old guard's feathers - while skeptics like me howl 'c'mon, please - what better way to sell illusion of Rouhani being serious than to make it look like the old guard doesn't trust him?'. And so it goes - I firmly believe Iran will not stop until it has a bomb or is just one small step short of having one - and I firmly believe all the theatrics currently in play are being orchestrated in concert with Putin - I don't believe for one second that the IRGC would dare make a public statement like they did without it first being approved by the Ayatollah, the person Rouhani takes his orders from - and I don't believe for a second Putin played his Syria gambit without first running it by the IRGC and Khamenei. Persians invented chess - these are all just layered moves on a board.

But someone's gonna be proven right here - and if it's the liberals, well, I'm just gonna stop talking.

Obama said something the other day along the lines of "increasing the debt ceiling does not add to our debt" - absolute nonsensical gibberish, sure - but what struck me about it was how some Republicans were of the opinion that this showed that either Dear Leader is not nearly as bright as some would like to think or how he is quite unsophisticated when it comes to economics and fiscal matters - but the reality with the statement, far as I'm concerned, is that it was an example of media bias at work and Obama exploiting it like the expert he is. There's no way I believe the man is so crude in his thinking that he actually considers what he said reasonable or true - that wasn't the point of what he said - the point was to send a message, the message being if the Republicans fight him on the debt ceiling they do so because they're unreasonable extremists [and, at this point, it's understood that this extremism also references an implied racism]. All Obama needs for that message to get out is for the media not to challenge the statement on its merits, which is what happened - and there ya go, a perfect example of how low info voters and media bias are a lethal combination that the Democrats under Obama are learning to exploit to maximal effect - and if conservatives don't soon wake up to smell that coffee, they will eventually be made obsolete. I mean, just ask yourself a simple question: if Bush had made such a nonsensical statement, what would the result have been? I think we all know the answer to that.

Now, some will argue this media bias has been around a long time and Republicans have survived - and that is true - but there are several important differences now. Last time you had a Democratic president, media was not nearly as pervasive as it is today - you have people on welfare walking around with smartphones for Christ sake - almost everyone in the society is constantly being exposed to and just as importantly interacting with simplistic messaging - that's a big change from the Clinton days. The other big change - demographics, the country is increasingly sympathetic to leftist propaganda. The other big change - Clinton was actually a centrist, Obama only pretends to be one - Clinton had no agenda to push the country irretrievably to the left - Obama does. Which brings us to the biggest difference - Obama - whether it's him or his handlers, I don't know - I suspect it's him because I've always maintained his one true political talent was his recognizing how pliable the media is when it comes to him and his Machiavellian willingness to exploit that advantage without shame - but wherever it comes from, it's under Obama that Democrats have truly mastered the ways to maximize the benefits of media bias - and the next liberal presidential candidate is sure to build off of what has been learned - which is why if Republicans don't start taking this threat seriously and figure out ways to address it, they're screwed and the country screwed along with them.

[is the effort to defund Obamacare an example of Republicans simply not understanding the witheringly toxic effects of media bias in the current era? Let's assume there's a practical, workable logic behind the defund scheme - I don't really think there is, but let's assume - for the scheme to work it's utterly dependent on the media carrying forth your message on the awfulness of Obamacare - and why would they do that? It's absolutely meaningless if Rush Limbaugh agrees with your efforts - you need the New York Times to agree, and that obviously ain't going to happen because even if they do sort of agree that Obamacare is maybe a disaster in progress they're not gonna come out and say that if it's to the benefit of the GOP, especially if it's to the benefit the extreme wing of the GOP - so where's the logic of the defund movement? Is it just a case of completely self serving political grandstanding for Cruz et al and to hell with the consequences? Or do these people just not grasp the way media bias under Obama works? The true appeal of universal health care for liberals is not that it helps people, it's that it helps liberalism - and therefore, as far as liberal media is concerned, Obamacare could be the worst legislative nightmare ever thrust upon the American people and the liberal media is still going to support it, possibly in some cases grudgingly, because they see the vast political utility of universal care and that's what really matters to them - and therefore hatching a plan to defund it that is dependent on the media selling the plan is quite foolish - but also quite foolish if this simply about political grandstanding by Cruz et al because although such theatrics may help you with the GOP base the media in the end will forever hold it over the head of the party, not just the individuals who supported it and therefore you're just costing your party in the long haul - although must say I am intrigued by notion Boehner put this motion forward for the very purpose of making Cruz et al look bad]

Well, that didn't take long - negative, destabilizing effects of Obama's parade of missteps in Syria start to show up - Arab League demanding, what with Syria having to give up its WMDs, that Israel do so as well - and Putin, the man Obama has by default made key power broker in the Mideast, chimes in that he thinks Israel disarming would probably be a good idea too - and next of course Rouhani will eventually make Israel disarming a requirement of Iran negotiating away its nuke ambitions [ambitions which ain't goin' anywhere, by the way, but make believe is so much more fun than reality, isn't it?].

This article from Kim Strassel at the WSJ very important far as I'm concerned because biggest threat to conservatism in America way I see it is under Obama Democrats figuring out how to leverage their huge advantage in media to best effect and Republicans failing to fully understand what a threat this is and consequently failing to work on strategies to overcome it. My whole fascination with Christie is based on this single point: I believe he's uniquely qualified to overcome the toxic effects of media bias - and yet many conservatives seem to reject him precisely because of this point, which tells me that many conservatives have still not figured out the way liberals plan on making them obsolete. Look at conservatives love of Cruz - it's all based on ideology - but I look at and listen to Cruz and I see a guy who has no chance of winning the presidency - too easy to negatively caricature, too easy to demonize, too easy to spin false narratives around - and on TV, he's got a bit of an evil look to him. Seems odd to me that conservatives obstinately refuse to acknowledge fact that low info voters combined with media bias is a huge advantage for liberalism and if you can't find a way to neutralize this advantage, you're screwed - so this article from Strassel indicating that maybe some conservatives are actually cognizant of the threat against them and are doing something about it is heartening.

Paragraph of the day from reasonable, clearheaded essay that states the obvious about future prospects of China/US relations that so many people who should know better continue to wilfully ignore or delude themselves about:

Of course, perhaps a U.S.-China clash will never occur—after all, as with the much-hyped rises of the Soviet Union and Japan, China’s economy may languish or implode; a “Chinese Spring” could also derail its future prosperity. But assuming China’s economy continues to grow at a healthy rate, unless the United States departs from six decades of foreign-policy precedent, or unless China elects to pursue extreme foreign-policy meekness, America’s and China’s reasonable national-security interests will collide. This is how the tragedy of great-power politics unfolds.

NATO Secretary General says military option still on table viz Syria - are these people idiots? Are the West's strategic interests now in the hands of absolute fools? Forget the reasons why Putin has effectively taken the military option off the table or at the very least made it a much, much more perilous thing should Obama choose to roll those dice for utterly specious reasons - let's just concentrate on fact that Obama has exchanged letters with Rouhani, has put bilateral negotiations on the table with Iran over its nuke ambitions and in general has indicated he's more than willing to be beguiled by Rouhani's sales pitch and therefore expect these 'negotiations' when they happen to drag on for many months with understanding that a strike on Syria puts an end to all that pretty hope and change - therefore, obviously, stating the military option is still on the table within this context is mindless bluster - negotiations with Iran and a strike on Syria are mutually exclusive, you can have one or the other but not both, and indeed that would be one of the main reasons if not the sole reason why Rouhani would seek out and welcome negotiations! So again I ask: are the West's strategic interests now in the hands of absolute fools? Sure seems that way.

UN report on Syrian gas use comes out, says basically what we already knew or suspected - nerve agent employed, it was sarin but of unspecified quality or concentration, killed many people but not at all clear how many, possibly as low as 200, but Kerry's number of 1429 definitely appears inflated - and delivery system points to Assad regime. Pretty much says what one expected: a somewhat strong circumstantial case that does not clear up the loose ends or fill in troubling blanks and therefore doesn't really change anything - or as Putin would put it: you wanna commit to a 'token' punitive action that threatens to escalate things to a very dangerous level and after you've already agreed to let diplomacy throw a wet blanket over this squalor of incompetency and indecision and empty, strategically incoherent rhetoric, well then go ahead, I dare ya.

All this tough talk from Western leaders is pathetic - Putin has beaten you and the game is over, he identified your weakness and exploited it to his advantage - significant action by the US and the absurdly ineffectual EU would be utterly dependent on the unabashed use of American power and Obama has made it very clear that's not a place he's willing to go to and what's more the American people have made it clear that under his feckless leadership unless you can demonstrate an obvious US interest at stake here, being dragged once more into the Muslim world to solve Muslim problems is not a project they're keen on. Now, you probably could define a real American interest here if you wanted to [Iran for starters] but again, and this is key, addressing the threat to this interest would involve a firm commitment to the use of American power which again is something Obama has clearly demonstrated he has no enthusiasm for - so, yeah, game over.

The only question now is, what will be the fallout from this debacle? Don't know - Iran will obviously be emboldened [if they didn't know before they do now that Obama's dislike of American power makes him vulnerable to manipulation, so expect huge charm offensive from Rouhani that will be all illusion] - and of course Israel will be increasingly on edge - but how that plays out, hard to say. And as said before, if you're China and you have three years left of Obama running American foreign policy, you've got to be at least considering something in the nature of a game changer - occupy the Senkaku Islands or some such thing - but will it happen? Who knows. As for Putin, well, Obama has made Russia a player in the Mideast again and possibly the player there depending on how things pan out - whatever Putin does with this power, it certainly won't be to serve US interests - if Assad survives and Iran builds a nuke, the power dynamic of the region changes dramatically, with Putin leading the way and Obama sidelined - China will lurk off stage but undoubtedly back behind the scenes a Russian/Iranian hegemony in the region - this won't sit well with the Saudis and Putin possibly uses that discomfort to his advantage - many sleepless nights in Israel as they contemplate the possibilities...

[but what if Obama, privately acknowledging how badly he has screwed the pooch here and the bad scenarios that could play out because of it, tries to remedy things with a show of force? Well, I don't think ideologues like him are in any way inclined towards admitting error - they're led by a blind faith in the rightness of their ideals and a reversal like that would be an assault on those ideals, so hard to see that happening - but even if it did happen, does anyone believe anymore that Obama's the man to lead such a thing? I'm pretty sure US military brass don't think he is and are convinced he has a view of American power that is at odds with reality, a reality that Putin embraces with gusto - besides, in objective terms, you don't want to get involved, it was a no win scenario before this mess, worse now - and unless you're going to use the amount of force required to topple Assad, which Obama has clearly indicated he's not going to do, a 'token' display now would just play into Putin's hands and probably achieve nothing aside from further highlighting how ineffectual a president Obama is]

[and as a sidebar to UN report - it says one of the rockets used in the attack - I believe they only studied two of the delivery rockets - one of the rockets studied is of a type fired from an old Soviet launcher that there's no record of Syria having or currently fielding - that seems pretty damn odd - what if Putin has proof that Assad forces couldn't have been behind this attack and releases it now? As bad as Obama looks currently, that would be an absolute humiliation]

Have heard some talking, wondering how it is Obama could have screwed up Syria so badly - and I say to them, have you not been paying attention? Obama comes from an intellectual milieu where the traditional aspects of American power are despised and seen as corrupt, grotesquely unenlightened, evil. His whole purpose is to reduce that power - and not simply because, as with his lefty academic brethren, it does not sit well with his presumptions and naive sympathies - but also because that for people like him the proper business of government is the welfare state and such a leviathan leaves very little room in the budget for aircraft carriers and whatnot. A man who does not particularly like or appreciate what America is or was and probably believes that the republic really didn't become something admirable until it showed the good sense to make him president can hardly be expected to manage or promote a foreign policy that's in the best interests of an America that is or was - no, he's serving a foreign policy that's in the best interests of an America that will be once he's finished ruining it. If you're surprised by this then you haven't been paying attention - or haven't had the great misfortune to overhear the daily conversations spewing like miasmic clouds from the faculty lounges of every university in this country.

We could talk about the delusional idiocy of 'leading from behind' and the mess it left behind in Libya, the misreading of the Arab Spring, the mishandling of Israel, the astoundingly foolish embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the naivety of the Russian reset, the setting of foolish red lines that you don't intend to honor not just with Syria but also much more seriously with Iran, the sequester, the Asia pivot that isn't - but let's go right back to the beginning of the Obama presidency and the putative 'surge' in Afghanistan, the good war as Obama so disingenuously defined it in his primary battle against Hillary. Everyone knew what needed to be done to make the surge work, or at least give it a chance to work - and since Obama had called it the 'good war' it was reasonable to assume he had something of a clue what he was talking about when he called it that - and so it was also reasonable to expect an expeditious decision on its go ahead. Instead it took him, what, six months to decide? Many of the naive pundits of America saw this delay as Obama doing due diligence on a tough choice - but I don't think that's what the dilation was about - it was either caused by him not having a clue what the hell he was talking about when he called Afghanistan the 'good war' and struggling to get up to speed; or, much more likely as far as I'm concerned, the dilation was staged - he wanted no part of that war, it didn't fit with his agenda at all, but he had to find a politically tenable way out of the commitment he had made - therefore, make it look like you've really put a lot of thought into it and then agree to something that makes it look like you're keeping your word but will not get you bogged down in something you really want no part of. There were two things you needed for COIN to have a chance: enough troops on the ground and no deadline. So what was Obama willing to agree to in order to fight this good war of his? Less troops than what was asked for - and, worst of all, he insisted on a deadline. Surge over.

The naive pundits of America may be surprised by Obama's 'incompetence', but I'm guessing there's not a high ranking officer in the US military surprised by it. They wanted no part of Syria - and, sure, there's many practical reasons for them not to want a part of that mess - but don't exclude thought that they wanted no part of it also because there's no way they want to be led into a war by a guy like Obama - they saw first hand what such a thing would look like with the farce that was Libya - and I'm guessing there's a lot of people in the US military right now who are daily crossing their fingers and praying that we somehow get through the next three years without something really bad happening. Unfortunately, for them and us, China et al realize this too and will be asking themselves: Obama has opened the door, how can we not walk through it? Putin just did.

Putin's actions must be based on the assumption that Obama will not act, right? Or that, if he acts, out of a sense of looking beaten by Putin and fear of how that might roil power dynamics in the region, his actions will be, as Kerry emphatically said, 'incredibly small' and have no effect, thereby making Obama look reckless, weak and uncomfortable with or even contemptuous of the traditional strategic uses of American power, an impression that would also roil power dynamics in the region. Because if Obama rejects Putin's no doubt hollow offer to broker a deal with Assad on surrendering his WMDs and launches significant strikes that actually threaten the viability of Assad's regime, well then Putin will look the loser, yes? Or would he have some other trick up his sleeve should that happen?

I'd say Putin must feel confident about three things here: that the UN will point blame at Assad for the chemical attack but that there'll be no beyond reasonable doubt proof [remember, Russia must have inside info on all of this]; that the EU will be very worried about escalating this mess and will jump on his offer no matter how dubious it is, thus isolating America; that, caught like this, Obama will have no stomach to meet the challenge Putin has tossed in front of him and instead will look for a means to talk his way out of his predicament.

What about trying to trap Putin at the UN with a counter offer that says if Assad doesn't surrender his WMDs within a certain time frame punitive military action will be authorized? I assume at that point Israel's possession of WMDs would enter the fray and scuttle everything. But wouldn't that show Putin's plan up as having been a ploy? Possibly - but again he may be simply looking for two things here - sucker in the EU to accept anything in order to wriggle out of this mess, and stretching out the timeline which increasingly makes a punitive attack look ridiculous. And remember as well, verifying stockpiles and consequent removal of WMDs in a country not at war is difficult, so one has got to figure everyone starts off here knowing that Putin's offer is bullshit and so it really becomes a question of how desperate are the various parties to crawl out from under the mess they've made. Putin I guess feels they're very desperate to do that.

Yes, I should have realized Putin's scheme didn't pop up out of nowhere - US and Russia have been talking about plans to secure Assad's WMDs for a least a year now, which makes complete sense since back when this war began the big fear, and one of the most compelling reasons to support the US getting involved, was what to do about Assad's WMDs should he fall. I should have seen that.

Anyway, question still out there - why did Putin spring it now, what with Obama looking like he was heading to defeat on the AUMF resolution? Could be he's just screwing with Dear Leader, the way a cat tortures a mouse. Could be just a play for time, knowing that the longer this drags out the more ridiculous a 'punitive' strike seems, or because he knows something about the facts of the alleged attack that isn't public yet. Could it be he's trying to split the EU off from Obama, thereby totally isolating him? That sounds intriguing.

[I dunno - not getting this - Putin has given Obama a way out, even if it's only temporary, from a rather dire problem - he sure as hell didn't do it out of kindness - so that leaves two options: it was a mistake; or he's working a scheme - the fact that today Putin suggested he was open to selling the advanced S-300 air defense system to Iran doesn't clarify things: that could be over compensation for a mistake made; could be used as leverage in service of a scheme. The timing is curious, right before Obama's speech - I guess you could argue that to do it after the speech would make it look like Obama had pressured you into a concession, whereas before gives you the appearance of initiative with the added advantage of leaving Obama with nothing much to say - or maybe the whole point was to throw a wrench into his speech, trick him into welcoming a Russian plan that everyone knows is probably just a ruse, and thus make him look even less in charge of things or less reliable to be trusted with what he's asking - or not asking]

Didn't attempt to endure any of Obama's blather yesterday - it's just getting too depressing listening to these people speak utter nonsense dressed up as serious policy - did read some takes on where we stand now in this farce, what with Putin delivering what appears to be the coup de grâce to Obama's strategic incompetence by astutely treating Kerry's gaffe as an actual proposal - including this assault by Tobin at Commentary which sounds pretty much like what I would have wanted to say had I the stomach to listen to the noise.

The question becomes, what will be the fallout of all this awfulness? Anyone, friend or foe, who still harbored illusions concerning Obama's ability to lead the nation as the superpower it is, well those illusions are now dust - so where does that leave us? Certainly, Israel is not feeling too good right now - I think Bibi always understood what a weak leader Obama was, but possibly he still held out hope - no more, and now they must recalibrate their thinking on Iran and the Mideast as a whole - and needless to say Iran as well will be making appropriate adjustments. The other concern is an increasingly aggressive China - people in that theatre look to America to thwart a Chinese hegemony in the Pacific - they too must recalibrate thinking - and certainly Japan, which was already modifying its military posture, will do so now with more urgency I imagine. Taiwan? Boy - seems like a real stretch but if China had something in mind when it comes to Taiwan, wouldn't they at least have to consider moving on it now given that America is led by a president who makes Jimmy Carter look like a cunning and strategically gifted hawk?

And what about ol' Vlad? He knows that if it looks like he's 'bested' America and made Obama look like an amateurish fool that that buys him a lot of good will with Russians - so if he comes out of this thing looking like the 'wise hero', well, it's not like he's a man to rest on his laurels, not like he's a man without ambition - he'll be looking to capitalize on that windfall - and it's pretty much a guarantee his objective will not be a reset with Washington.

I dunno, people, I think we must come to the sad conclusion that the entire executive branch of the most powerful country on earth is populated by fools - Kerry yesterday doubled down with great specificity on how what they're planning for Syria will be short and theatrical, a gesture, a show of limited, narrow power - these redoubtable idiots seem to have no conception of reality that actual escalation must be implied in a threat otherwise the threat has no meaning - nor do they seem to have any understanding of war and how, once you begin hostilities, they take on a logic of their own and you cannot simply walk away from that logic without doing great harm to your reputation as a power to be respected. I think congress has no choice but to vote 'no' on the resolution because incompetence like this cannot be endorsed - in short, endorsing such foolishness would do much more harm to the country than a rejection of the president is like to do.

So the question becomes, if congress does turn him down, will Obama go ahead regardless? He's put himself in quite a bind because he has maintained all along that he has the right under the War Powers Act to do so and he and his catamites have built their flimsy case on the idea that a failure to act would be immoral - therefore he can't simply blame all this unconscionable immorality on congress should he not act. But then he's going to have another vexing problem: if congress says no it's a virtual certainty that Russia and China, who both have warships in the Mediterranean now, would argue vociferously that any action would be both illegal as an international matter and a US constitutional one - a difficult argument to simply ignore - but here's the problem, if Obama decides to stand down with Russian and Chinese naval forces glowering nearby it's not going to look like he backed down because he no longer had legitimacy to act, he will look like he backed down in the face of Russian and Chinese power - that's a pretty awful message to be sending. Yep, he's put himself, the congress and the whole bloody country in quite a bind here.

Just listened to Obama's Chief of Staff Denis McDonough talk on Face the Nation and I gotta say, these people seem clueless - they don't understand how the military works, how military interventions work, how wars work, how extremists think, how dictators backed into a corner think - they're clueless - it's as if the only thing they know how to do well is manipulate the media in order to get elected - and once again McDonough said the evidence is solid implicating Assad and yet doesn't say what that evidence is, instead suggesting people go watch the videos - the videos are proof of nothing! This is so astounding that I again am led back to thinking it's merely a shockingly misguided but I suppose in a sense somewhat cunning political ploy because I have a very hard time believing these people are that stupid. I was watching this McDonough interview with my mouth wide open - I couldn't believe the idiocy I was hearing being spouted as if it were brilliant insight and sound logic and established fact.

So, given the amount of effort Obama will be putting in over the next few days to convince Americans that he actually has a clue, I'm guessing that means that my fading idea that this is all just a desperate political ploy is probably a little off the mark. Hell, he's even sitting down for Fox News, which is like Cheney writing an op-ed for Mother Jones. Also, given this effort and apparently the graphic videos he's going to show to make his 'point', I have to assume that also means that if he loses the vote he's going to move ahead regardless - I mean, you can't play an emotional card like showing videos of dead children and then not act. Certainly, if it's a no vote and he indeed doesn't act, then that will mean I was right, it was a political ploy.

Anyway, prediction time - I see three likely scenarios. A few days of bombings, probably no more than three, and then things just continue on as before - which will result in America looking quite foolish. A few days of bombings, Assad comes out with his own video show of dead children and then he ups the ante, mounting a large offensive but with conventional weapons - this makes America look foolish and weak, since I see no way that Obama matches that ante. And then of course the worst scenario of all - Syria, Iran [with Hezbollah in tow] and Russia choose to see the missile strike as an act of war and then things really start to get interesting - America is in big trouble if it plays out that way because if they take the bait that quickly turns into the nightmare scenario of regional war - but if Obama backs away, he becomes a president that neither friend nor foe can take seriously anymore. Which is why I'm leaning to the last as most likely - and I've read people who study strategy who think the same, postulating [with direful foreboding] that if Iran sees an opportunity here to really stick it to America then they may not be able to resist taking that chance.

[which of course leads to the really big question: if the last scenario plays out, Obama backs away and Iran looks like the exultant victor, how does Israel avoid coming to the conclusion that they now have no choice but to attack Iran's nuclear assets? Oddly enough, meditation on that outcome may be the thing that causes Iran to back off from the doomsday scenario]

[there is a fourth option: that the rebels turn this into a wider war by using US strikes as an opening to launch a massive sort of Tet offensive type thing, which forces Assad into desperation mode, and then everything madly escalates from there - and good luck containing that]

Wow - tell me Kerry didn't actually say this:

US Secretary of State John Kerry has described the situation in Syria as "our Munich moment", comparing possible military intervention to the 1938 Munich Agreement, which ceded control of part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany.

These remarkable morons do realize that there is no similarity whatsoever between Europe under Nazism and Syria right? That we went to war, actual full on war against Hitler for sound political reasons, to defend democracy and all that stuff and not simply because the man was a monster that we thought we could deter with a few martial theatrics? My God, this is just amazing - these people are astoundingly stupid - to compare what they're planning for Assad with Hitler and WWII?!! I'm speechless - these people are out of their fucking minds. Hell, maybe we'll see a coup in the US eventually. Why not?  I mean, I've got to believe every single high ranking military professional in the country is at this point having serious doubts about the people they're taking order from [well, actually not - Petraeus came out the other day in support of strikes - although, don't know if his opinion matters much anymore].

What are the prime 'dogs that won't hunt' in the bomb Syria narrative? That gassing a thousand people is a moral outrage that needs to be addressed in a way that risks sparking a greater, much more devastating war, but killing one hundred thousand people by conventional means is apparently tolerable. That punitive actions that aren't particularly punitive can deter combatants who cannot afford to lose - hell, combatants who won't be dissuaded by punitive actions that are decidedly punitive because they know full well they have but two choices: win or die [see war on Eastern Front in WWII for example of how this works]. That US military can become the humanitarian police force of the world and that won't lead to, one, serious degradation of US forces, two, a revolt amongst those forces because of, three, increasing entanglements in hopelessly incoherent scenarios that are impossible to fight because winning is not an option [see Afghanistan, Libya, Syria]. That the violence can be contained should the 'enemy' chose to turn your 'punitive action' into an act of war - in other words, that if the enemy decides to turn it into a war, you can pretend it isn't. That threats where you tell the person you're threatening that the threats you're making are really more gestures than threats are still threats. That it makes sense to attempt UN styled interventions without actual UN backing or lacking that at least a broad non-UN coalition of the willing that has that ebulliently naive UN feel to it. Thinking that 'doing good' on your own is noble and not begging for trouble or that symbolic wars devoid of attainable goals work out well. Spending your whole life thinking and talking as if the United States of America is not a special thing but then when you become President taking actions that are absolutely dependent on one frickin' god damn thing, the participation of the United States of America.

"... yes, it does seem obvious, but apparently some need to be reminded of it regardless... the assumed power in a shot across the bow comes from the ship to which the warning is aimed believing that the shooter is both more than willing to and capable of actually putting a shell through the bow should the warning be ignored... a shot across the bow absent a convincing threat of implied consequences if unheeded is nothing more than a shot across a bow... for the accused though, an empty threat becomes a golden opportunity to turn the tables and take the initiative..."

This article points to one of the most distressing and concerning elements of Obama's push to action in Syria - the fact that America's generals [and no doubt many all the way down the ladder] are clearly not on board with what's being talked about here - and then the insinuation one can legitimately make that many of these military professionals don't think much of Obama as a Commander in Chief. The article mentions something that has stood out to me regarding Dempsey's public performances over the last few weeks - both in what he says and how he says it it's clear the man is not happy at all with the civilian leadership of the country, and not just Obama - Kerry, Hagel, Obama's entire security staff but of course first and foremost Rice - every time I see this man speak I get the feeling he'd rather spit than answer the question being put to him. This cannot be a good thing if Obama actually goes ahead with action against Syria and it goes badly [spirals out control and leads to greater involvement than planned for], especially if he does it against the wishes of Congress.

Let's look at Obama's history here with his military - the surge in Afghanistan, which Obama took a ridiculously long time to decide upon and then sabotaged by not supplying enough troops and attaching a deadline to it [can also throw in his treatment of McCrystal which I'm guessing pissed a lot of people off] - then there was bin Laden which Obama had a tendency to talk about as if it was his bravery that made it possible, and I think it was Biden who called it one of the most courageous presidential decisions ever made; one assumes this grandstanding over a mission that Obama had virtually nothing to do with no doubt pissed off a lot of people too - then there's Obama's drone wars which are an insult to military professionals who view drones as tactically useful, sure, but the way Obama is using them they become the illusion of power and Obama seems to want to see them as the be all and end all of American military might; I imagine many in the military have nothing but scorn for the way Obama uses drones - then you have Libya and 'leading from behind', again from what I've read and heard military professionals have nothing but contempt for this LFB nonsense; America did all the heavy lifting in Libya but the weak air forces of Europe got all the credit, a lot of people are pissed off about that and pissed off that LFB took a six week war and turned it into a six month one - and to leave behind what? A crime riddled jihadist nightmare.

Then there's sequestration, which is really having a negative impact on readiness and training - Obama was offered a chance to exclude the military from sequestration and refused - and now he wants to involve them in Syria? Hard to know, but I'm guessing many in the military have no respect for the man whatsoever - and I'm guessing that most of them believe that Obama's view of the military is not just at odds with the traditions of American power, but is actually antagonistic towards them. From what I've read, many in the military view Obama and his cabinet as being almost contemptuous of the military's thinking on issues - and they're deeply troubled by fact that many pushing for action in Syria seem to be completely discounting the threat of what the hell happens should Syria, Iran and Russia decide to counter attack? All very nice to say it's just a punitive action, a shot across the bow - but what if they decide to interpret it as an act of war? This is the central absurdity at the heart of the 'responsibility to protect' conceit and I'm guessing every military professional out there understands just how absurd it is and are shocked at having to serve a president who doesn't seem to have a clue.

[although I'm hedging my bets - I'm still convinced there's at least a chance that Obama doesn't at all intend to strike Syria and is really at this point just looking for a way to involve the GOP house in the mess - that may sound hard to believe, but when you have sway over the media like he does, a lot of dumb stuff becomes possible]

Yet again at the G20 in Russia Obama has said he has 'high confidence' of Assad culpability in gas attack - and yet produces no evidence. I repeat, this makes no sense - the American people are against involvement, it's looking like the House is going to vote down the authorization of force - if Obama truly believes in this action he badly needs to sell it - and yet doesn't produce the evidence which might sell it. It makes no sense, and as far as I'm concerned there's only two ways to explain what's going on: Obama's an idiot stumbling incoherently into war; or he wants the House to vote down the authorization which he imagines rescuing him from current problems while allowing him to blame the GOP should another gas attack occur down the road. I just don't know how else to explain this behavior.

I have to say this constant refrain of comparing the current Syria mess to Bush and Iraq is absurd and is getting quite annoying. There is no comparison. Period. I'm not gonna pretend Bush didn't make serious mistakes viz Iraq and that looked at from a viewpoint of Iranian regional influence the invasion can be with some legitimacy viewed as completely moronic - but let's look at the facts. You had 9/11 which was only 50% successful and was still pretty bad - had it been 100% successful you would have had a ruined Pentagon, with Rumsfeld possibly dead, and either a destroyed White House or a destroyed Congress with possibly dozens of lawmakers dead - not good. That's what Bush was dealing with - and the thought that if these people got hold of chemical, biological or radiological weapons the threat to America could be existential. Okay? That's quite a remove from Syria, ain't it?

So we invade Afghanistan and that goes incredibly well - we basically take over a country with a handful of special forces guys - and then you start doing the math. We've wanted to get rid of Saddam, an invidious troublemaker, for a long time, and that included Clinton who I believe hatched two plans to that end - we have a 'new' way of war which we think can get it done expeditiously - we believe and everybody else believes he has WMDs - plus it's logical to conclude, looking at radical Islam, that the problem here is a lack of secular democracy in these bloody countries - and so the thoughts coalesce - let's get rid of Saddam, get rid of his WMDs, set up some democracy, and send a message to all the evil fuckers out there that if they're looking to screw with Uncle Sam, watch the fuck out. Easy now in hindsight to criticise it - but at the time?

Now you can with complete legitimacy fault Bush for totally botching the post hostilities dynamic - but there's no way in hell you can compare Syria to Iraq. Seen from a certain angle and understanding the context of the immediate post 9/11 times, Iraq made sense - at the time I said if you were entirely for or against the war you weren't paying attention - it was a 60/40 toss up either way - and the fact that the post hostilities environment was totally mismanaged means we can never know if the people who supported the invasion were maybe more right than wrong.

To me Iraq made one central thing clear - we in the West didn't clearly understand how significant, destabilizing and incendiary the Sunni/Shia divide was - if you could go back and do Iraq again with a complete understanding of how explosive this sectarian divide is, who knows what happens. One thing for sure, you sure as hell don't disband the largely Sunni military, probably the key mistake made in post war Iraq - that, and the rush to democracy - democracy should have been eased in and should have been explicitly secular. [although, admittedly, the last ten years have clearly demonstrated the impediments in Muslim culture regarding adoption of democracy are extremely difficult to overcome and so even a well managed and thoughtful post war plan may have failed too].

The point being that in the immediate post 9/11 world Iraq legitimately represented conceptually both a threat and an opportunity for us - Syria is manifestly neither, unless of course we make it so by turning it into the flash point of a regional war. Twenty twenty hindsight can pretend that Iraq was entirely misbegotten - but that is absolutely not true, there were legitimate arguments for and against the invasion and the fact that there was no coherent plan for the post war world has post hoc  de facto made the anti-invasion crowd seem right, but that's a less than honest appraisal.

The only way Syria even remotely approaches the argument that was Iraq is if we were planning to invade the bloody place, take it over, force secular democracy on it, and effectively say to Iran and Russia and China go and fuck yourselves - but of course that's not at all what we're talking about - what we're talking about is Obama firing off a few Tomahawks in order to repair his reputation or to prop up the delusional 'responsibility to protect' nonsense which is truly misguided in its pretensions - and that is so far removed from Iraq that attempts to compare the two should be proof of an irremediable idiocy.

In short, Iraq may have been a mistake, but seen in the context of the immediate post 9/11 world, the problem of Saddam which had been dragging on for ten years at that point, and the initial success of Afghanistan which fed illusions regarding how things might play out in Iraq, it was an understandable mistake - whereas involvement in Syria at this late date, with no clear and compelling, never mind achievable objective guiding it and no desire or interest shown at all on the part of Obama [not to mention the Joint Chiefs] for a commitment to a wider, more comprehensive involvement should it become necessary, has mistake written all over it right from the beginning.

If US conclusions on Syrian gas use are wrong, why is Kerry still emotionally advocating the 'doing of something' the way he is and why is Obama still advocating a response? These are the actions and demonstrations of people with conclusive evidence - but where is that evidence? Why has it not been made public? We know rebel factions have access to nerve agents and have used them, we know that a Russian study showed an attack in March was rebel sourced, we know that the rebel factions have good reason to want to draw the US into the war and Assad virtually no reasons to want to tempt such a thing - and we know that so far no public case has been made by the Obama administration that clearly establishes Assad as the guilty party here - so what the hell is going on? Emotional pleas from Kerry are not proof - but if Obama knows there's no compelling case to be made against Assad why on earth would he be proceeding as if there is? Is the proof classified and can't be revealed? I haven't heard that claim being made yet. We know that Obama wants nothing to do with involvement in Syria and must logically conclude that if he's getting involved it must be because he has proof of Assad being behind the attack - but why then wouldn't you make that proof public? This story just doesn't add up - either Obama is doubling down on foolishness with ever more foolishness, or someone here is playing a convoluted and devious game the purposes of which I can't piece together. I mean, this can't all be a ruse by Obama meant to trick the GOP into voting 'no' on the use of force so that he can use that vote against them can it? That'd be ridiculous. But I defy you to find some other way to explain the inconsistencies here, other than like I said Obama doubling down on his initial foolishness, which quite frankly seems hard to believe - I mean, I don't agree with the man's thinking on just about everything but he's not an idiot - yet him being an idiot is one of the few explanations that makes sense here. I dunno - I'm not a conspiracy guy - but this just doesn't add up.

Why did Obama make the absurd declaration in Sweden today that he didn't draw a red line viz Syrian WMD use, that the world did, congress did, but not him? I'm going to assume the man isn't completely delusional and actually believes in the verity and coherence of that statement - I mean, sure, extreme arrogance can often look like delusion so I guess it's conceivable he's gone bye bye, but of course common sense says it's not that and rather that there's some practical motivation behind it. Now, certainly could be simple case that he has to be able to address the 'red line problem' in some way that doesn't make him sound reckless or inept or foolish and the way he just spoke about it in Sweden is the way they've decided to go. But could it be more cynical, self serving political game playing here from Obama? The statement is so ridiculous that you wonder: he wants to lose the vote in congress on use of force and reckons that if he says some stuff that he knows is gonna piss republicans off then that increases the likelihood of a no vote. Sure, I'm reaching with that one - but I've often said and the last four years have demonstrated to a significant degree the truth of it: I don't think there's anything this guy wouldn't say or do if he thought it served his political interests. If he can manufacture some way to blame the whole Syria fiasco on the GOP house, or at the very least make them share substantial blame for it, then that's what he's gonna do. If he compromises American strategic wherewithals and reputation in the process, who cares! As long as he wins. I mean, he doesn't believe in the traditional uses of American power anyways so why would he care if he's compromising it?

Putin says he'd support action against Syria if charges against it can be proved beyond doubt - since I believe there's absolutely no way Putin would say something like that without being sure of his facts, I have to imagine that the facts that he's sure of are: there's no solid proof that can be unequivocally presented; Assad didn't do it, but possibly a rogue element did; the rebels did it or are responsible for falsifying evidence; it wasn't sarin or any other chemical banned under international treaty. I still maintain that there's no compelling tactical reason for Assad to have done this - that of course doesn't rule out him being stupid, but until I see evidence I'm going to still lean towards a rogue element, the rebels or an agent other than sarin being the most likely dispositive factors here. It reminds me of something I read yesterday by Michael Yon, who has had a lot of experience reporting from these failed states and war zones - he said it's virtually impossible to get truthful info in these places, everything is more or less corrupted by lies and propaganda - and therefore he found it highly suspicious that Kerry was assigning an exact figure to the number killed by the purported gassing, a degree of accuracy that Yon considered impossible to achieve, or that you could so quickly find evidence that wasn't tainted by something or someone.

I'm not saying there was no event - something clearly happened - but as yet there's nothing in the public domain that states clearly what that something was and who was responsible for it - and as far as I'm concerned the only way Putin says what he said is if he's convinced there's never going to emerge evidence proving what Kerry has charged.

[although you could make another argument here: that Putin has brought up the possibility of backing actions against Syria because he knows there's a chance the charges can be proven, which would mean he knows for a fact what actually did happen, and that now he's positioning himself to look like a reasonable man simply making the case for patience and in no way sanctioning the slaughtering of children etc etc]

Really? Kerry says we must act because Iran is watching? C'mon, people. If that's their case then we should have gotten involved two years ago - that would have sent a clear message to Iran - this is ridiculous - that he gets to say something so absurd in congress and no one really challenges him on it? Jesus. So the logical conclusion to be drawn here from Kerry's hollow bravado is that if we hit Assad and he intensifies his actions then we should also intensify because of, ya know, that whole message thing to Iran? We all know that's not gonna bloody well happen, Iran knows it, Assad knows it, Putin knows it, they know it cause that's what Obama has told them! This is just pathetic - these people are completely clueless. America is officially adrift. Is there no way to redo the 2012 election? But that's the frightening thing about America right now - you could redo that election and there's probably a good chance that Obama would still win.

What happens if, as seems very likely, Obama's response to Assad is merely a token effort that does no real or lasting harm to Assad's capabilities and in response he, with Iranian Republican Guard help, possibly even Russian, doubles down on the violence but with conventional weapons - in short, does more damage with a conventional attack than his purported gassing atrocity did, and thus challenges Obama to do what his timid response would clearly suggest he very much does not want to do? I have a strong inclination to believe that if Obama's response is tepid that is exactly what we'll see - if Iran decides that Obama is weak and on the run and they see it as to their advantage to drive that point home [which I'm not entirely sure it is] then expect timid action by Obama to be answered with a conventional challenge.

"... sorry, but you cannot have a forceful foreign policy, in this case as involves Syria, when you don't have as it were a forceful president to lead it... this president as a matter of core ideological conviction believes that the true best calling, least evil role for the US military in the world is to be using drones to blow up putative bad guys racing down dirty streets on motorcycles and aside from that in general to be humbly, apologetically standing back to lead UN sponsored good causes from behind... all this debate about how ambitious our Syria policy should be is beside the point because even if Obama were to step out of character and agree to something like that he's probably the last president you'd want running such an endeavor... the only version of American power that Obama and his ilk can tolerate is one tethered to the confused and enervating sympathies of the world community and the incoherent bleatings of liberal idealism... but unfortunately for us and the rest of the free world the realities of geopolitics guarantee that if you're America trouble is gonna come knocking at your door and pretending it isn't there is simply not an option..."

So, what, are there four ways for Republicans to go here with authorizing Dear Leader's use of vague force for no seeming reason at all other than to try and heal his reputation? Let's see - they can simply say yes, arguing that a no, given Obama's missteps so far, would be salt to wounds for the country, and thusly try and dump the disaster back in Obama's lap - they can say yes under certain conditions, ie Obama engages in a much more substantial thing than he's indicated he wants, like regime change and active support for would be 'moderate' rebel groups, which Obama probably refuses, which is maybe something that marginally works out for both sides, or possibly agrees to as part of political calculation typical of him, thinking that such an intervention won't work and is indeed like to make things worse and that will be final proof of how neoconservative, interventionist thinking is flawed - they can say no and use that no vote as a soapbox to hammer away at Obama's failures in much the same way Democrats did Bush over Iraq - or they can quietly, reluctantly vote no, arguing that although it will damage America's standing in the world, both as regards allies and enemies, that is a rotten state of affairs that can only really be fixed when Obama is gone because ultimately Obama's worldview and ideologically conditioned dislike of American power is at the core of this problem and until he's replaced the stench of that ideology ain't goin' away.

Hard to pick but think only real options are between one and four and at moment I'm leaning towards choice four, problematic as it will prove - and for reasons stated, the core of the problem is Obama's world view and ideological inclinations and simply modifying some bad decision he's made in what will probably end up being in a vague and limited [merely cosmetic] way won't solve the core problem and therefore how can it really heal the damage done, which would be the presumption behind choice number one? Might as well back away and leave Americans with thought that this is the misguided fool they voted for - twice. Maybe something good can come of that.

But I gotta roll it around in my head a bit more. I can see myself eventually playing it safe and going with choice one - I think choices two and three are bad and really not worth considering - it's a bad idea for congress to be making foreign policy, that's a recipe for disaster and ruinous confusion - and if Obama were foolish enough to allow interventionist types like McCain and Graham to rewrite his foreign policy, watch out, to me that would mean he's put in motion a political scheme the purpose of which will absolutely not be in the best interests of hawks or the country - or that he really just doesn't have a clue.

If one assumes Obama's red line on WMD use was drawn in a considered way [yes, it's pretty obvious it wasn't but since Obama is pretending it was we might as well play along] - if we assume the red line's legitimacy, then what follows logically is that if the red line is crossed, force will be used to punish and to dissuade further use - the presumption of force is obvious and yet Obama on several occasions has said he hasn't made a decision yet on the use of force, even though Kerry has stated the use of WMDs by Assad is a certainty - in short, Obama saying he hasn't made his mind up yet about the use of force amounts to an admission by him that the drawing of the red line was an ill-considered mistake by an inept president - and yet the press still acts as if the president is making sense when he talks.

A question: if the red line was a grotesque example of executive bumbling, we need to ask ourselves if it had never been drawn would we be considering an intervention regardless? If not, how unwise would it be to intervene simply because Obama is a fool? Can one make a convincing argument that in order to serve America's best interests repairing the damage done by Obama's foolishness is necessary? Of course, the further related complication here is that with the matter now moving to congress many lawmakers are going to be put in the very difficult position of signing off on the use of force in order to preserve America's reputation but in doing so having to put the authority of this use of force into the hands of an executive that is manifestly incompetent when it comes to matters of foreign policy and has dumped this choice on congress for no other reason than to spread around blame for what is to come.

[and there's a further abuse of logic at work here - you have an American president who clearly distrusts, dislikes or possibly secretly feels outright contempt for American power - that's how the leftist intellectual elite that spawned Obama thinks and that is the obvious conclusion to be drawn from Obama's actions as president - so you have an executive who clearly is uncomfortable with American power threatening the evil doers of the world with the harsh retribution of that august power should they misbehave - it's absurd, it makes no sense, yet again the press acts as if it does. Liberal thought, given it's abstract idealism, is in essence incoherent and Obama is a near perfect manifestation of that reality]