With Syria, has the liberal mind run up against the inherent limits of its naivety? There's only one solution to the Syria carnage if your concern is to protect the 'innocent', and even that solution at best would probably only have a 50/50 chance of long term success given endemic cultural, sectarian and extremist problems that plague the Mideast - and that solution is to do to Syria what Bush did to Iraq - except, unlike Bush, actually have a post war plan this time that calls for let's say a ten year occupation that forces secular democracy and responsible governance on the bloody awful place. Now of course no one would ever agree to this and the US military, what with sequestration and general war fatigue, is probably in no position to make it happen regardless - but here's the problem for liberals, whereas conservatives can recognize it's not gonna happen while still retaining a faith and belief in the US military's ability to effect such a thing - liberals, trapped behind the irrational wall of their naive idealism, cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the ugly truth, and no one's denying that it is a very ugly truth: that only a great power bringing to bear a righteous violence can make happen the good they long for. That's unacceptable to them - and so you get tokens and rhetoric and wishful thinking and then a begging to the media to cover up the fact that you are totally full of shit [see Libya/Benghazi].

So what's Obama thinking here? That the conceit of 'responsibility to protect' will be invalidated, shown to be the sham of shallow intellectualism that it is if he fails to respond in some way to this provocation? Or is he thinking that if he doesn't do something now Assad will use gas again, and maybe it's a worse event that forces Obama to step in in a much deeper way than he quite obviously is prepared to accept? The former argument is quite delusional, flat out idiotic; the latter, on the other hand, although flawed and highly problematic and probably doomed to failure, is at least somewhat logical and realistic in its pretensions.

Or is it that Obama is simply worried about his reputation - that if he fails to act and another gassing happens, he'll be blamed for it and his presidency, if it isn't already, will be a shambles, essentially over?

Obama came into office scornful of American power and consequently set about sending a message of deliberate weakness and apology to the wide world, basically agreeing with our enemies that America was indeed an awful place but promising that he, having acknowledged his agreement with them, could make it all better. Therefore, when the putative Arab Spring came, Obama was ideologically predisposed to utterly misunderstand it and fail abysmally in response to it. Alternatively, Israel, not ashamed of itself the way Obama is of America and therefore a great believer in power and the value of a finely honed military, understood perfectly from the very beginning what the Arab Spring was - the coming of chaos and violent upheaval. A wise American leader would have seen it too and acted accordingly. For all his intellectual gifts, Obama is just another delusional liberal flailing blindly at a cold, hard world that has refused as legal tender his fantasy.

Since the one marginally defensible reason for an 'attack' on Syria is now gone - that reason being to repair Obama's credibility after his 'red line' foolishness, something that is now not possible since it would have required a decisive show of meaningful force neither of which are now in the cards given the dithering and the telling of Assad what your 'shot across the bow' plans are, were, whatever - since the one barely [stretching it] justifiable reason for an attack is now toast, if Obama still goes through with it, what would be the reason? Continuing validation of the wholly irrational 'Responsibility to Protect' conceit, otherwise known as R2P. That's what Obama's love of drones is about, that's what the idiocy of Libya was about, and that's what the idiocy of this would be about should it come to pass - turning the US military into the progressive world's hi-tech little police force tasked with doing putative good everywhere so the Obamas of the world can go to bed at night feeling all proud of how wonderful they are. I mean, why the hell else would France indicate it's still willing to proceed even though England has now backed out? France! Socialist bloody France! The reason is obvious: the astoundingly obtuse philosophes of uber liberal Gaul have wanted to turn the American military machine into an emasculated global constabulary for years now and they're more than happy to sign onto idiotic, utterly detached from reality missions if Obama is promising to make that dream come true.

[this story on how the mission profile of UCLASS drones has been changed from one that served the needs of a powerful, China stopping military to one that serves the needs of a global police force is proof of my point. Think about it people, you cannot have both a giant welfare state that buys votes through ever growing entitlements and Obamaphones etc etc and a powerful military - you have to choose one or the other and one doesn't have to be even remotely bright to figure out which choice Dear Leader prefers - and yet still so many can't seem to figure the guy out - it's very distressing]

Russia announces sending some extra naval power to Mediterranean - no, this not beginning of WWIII - but I do wonder if Putin senses that Obama is about to back away from action and wants it to seem like stern words and now gestures from Russia are the reason why - in short, Obama's afraid of me. That's definitely the way Putin thinks, so... just saying.

Syria... well, that's turning into a farce, yes? Obama last night says he hasn't made a decision on Syria yet even though everything said and done over the last week strongly suggests that's a lie that may be a precursor to a backing out of doing something - it's almost as if it's Obama's goal to ruin the country through inept leadership - I guess those angry white-America hating sermons from Rev Wright really did hit home. But hey, maybe Wright was right - after all, we did elect a guy twice who seems intent on destroying the country - the fact that a presidency as bad as Carter's would actually be a significant upgrade at this point is hardly a ringing endorsement of the innate wisdom of the silent majority.

The Obama era is like a constant reminder of how fragile a thing democracy can be and that without an objective, informed, critical voice speaking truth to power things can really start to go to hell fast - liberal elite wanted Obama over Hillary even though his only seeming qualification was that he was a charming black guy, which really isn't a qualification at all except in some liberal elite fantasy land, and they got their wish; liberal elite wanted him over McCain, therefore McCain knew he had no chance without a game changer, enter Palin, goodbye election, and again liberal elite gets its wish; and even though his first term was clearly a failure and the country looked to be in dire need of a change of direction, liberal elite really didn't like the way Romney treated his dog and weren't about to admit being wrong about Obama anyway and so, well, here the fuck we are.

All joking aside - what the christ is happening? There can't be a leader in the Mideast who isn't sitting up nights wondering what they do now given that America is clearly being run by fools. Reminds me of something I read a few days ago, can't remember where, but said the Saudis were in deep talks with Russia about security arrangements and other things because they had become convinced that either Obama was so clueless or so contemptuous of the traditions of American power that they could no longer trust in the country's intentions. Don't know if it's true, but wouldn't really come as a shock if it was.

So, where are we with the whole Syria debacle, aka Western Civilization's continuing effort to destroy itself through the electing of incompetent fools? Ahhh... well, it appears that people like myself who found it very hard to believe Assad would do something so inherently risky for no compelling tactical reason were probably right - intercepted signals intelligence seems to say that yes, the Assad regime was responsible for the attack, but no, it's not at all clear he or any of his generals ordered it. At moment, looks like maybe a rogue element took it upon themselves to do it. Other interesting thing here is possibility that reason Obama et al seemingly not interested in UN report on what happened is because the gas used wasn't actually sarin or some such thing, but rather a powerful 'crowd control' toxin that can be lethal but is not outlawed by the Geneva Convention. That's a developing angle and not at all sure about its integrity - but that would explain why to my eye what I saw in the videos didn't look like a sarin attack to me, you weren't seeing the kind of trauma and devastation you'd see with use of an extremely vicious agent - there were clearly a lot of people who had been exposed to the gas but survived - from what I know about sarin, you get exposed at a level strong enough to produce symptoms, and that's it, you're dead.

From military experts I read getting impression that given the way the White House is so openly telegraphing its intentions suggests that if there is to be action they expect it to be a token effort, for show - if we really wanted to degrade Assad's capabilities the last thing you'd wanna do is give him several days warning to cover his ass. Now, could be misdirection - or could be just further manifestation of Obama's incompetence - but right now looks like Dear Leader simply gonna fire off a few Tomahawks to make amends for his stupid drawing of a redline. Now, am hearing a lot of talk about how a sustained campaign could force Assad to the bargaining table and that that should be the goal here - but I have trouble seeing that - one, the military assets required for that are not in place - two, what are these people going to bargain over? This fight is to the death seems to me - and three, I've seen nothing from Obama that suggests he's at all interested in taking on the huge risks a prolonged, penetrating campaign would give rise to.

And finally, to the leaders of England and France, shut the fuck up. We have to do something, this cannot stand!! What that really means is America has to do something - you people have systematically impoverished your militaries - you can't do a god damn thing without American power so stop talking as if you're integral players here - Obama let you play the lead in Libya [a role that was largely cosmetic but did allow Obama to peddle illusion that America wasn't the necessary country after all] and that idiotic indulgence managed to turn a war that should have lasted six weeks, hell six days, into a six month joke that did virtually nothing but kill a clown and incorporate a whole new legion of jihadists. Just shut the fuck up.

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].

It is funny that when it comes to domestic politics Obama without any seeming qualms or concern embraces the imperial presidency, is quite happy to unilaterally move an agenda ahead, scorn any consensus building with his hated opponents who are apparently all solely motivated by spite and ignorance - yet when it comes to foreign policy he's suddenly all about consensus building, multilateralism etc etc - that is indeed funny - but of course it's also all bullshit because the vaunted accommodation being embraced at the UN is really just the tyranny of the like minded - and what is it these progressives all agree on? They hate Israel and they hate American power. No wonder Obama willingly embraces the platitudes of the UN - its world view intersects nicely with his.

[and of course no sooner do I write above and Jerusalem Post reports Obama considering acting without UN approval since Russia and China will veto any effort - which flies in the face of everything Obama said last week - is this guy just making it up as he goes along? Jesus. Actually, as much as I feel mostly just scorn for the UN, I think trying to make an end run around the Security Council in this case is very likely a bad idea, mainly because as I've said before there are nothing but bad outcomes left when it comes to Syria - as in there's a very good chance you end up punishing one faction for war crimes who will then become victims of war crimes committed by the factions you have empowered - and so it will be virtually impossible to look like the 'good guys' here like you did in the Serbian action, which is the model Obama et al will no doubt be promoting here - and when all hell breaks loose and China and Russia and Iran are forced into a strategic alliance with Russia and Iran viewing Syria as a strategic asset, well... that all sounds like one hell of a toxic mix to me - I mean what if, explicitly or implicitly backed by Russia and China, Iran decides to do something bold like blockade Hormuz or through its proxies attempt to draw Israel into the mess? I really gotta believe the Joint Chiefs are not much thrilled by any of this]

Hmmn. Rouhani condemns chemical weapons use in Syria. Is that an admission of a fact or an attempt to get out in front of a controversy should it prove to be a fact? I still say it makes much more sense for the rebels to be behind this whatever this is than for Assad to have made such an ill advised gamble that on the surface of it seemed an unnecessary provocation. But if Assad is behind it, what would that mean? War is going worse than we've been led to believe. Assad is not in complete charge of his forces and an extremist element is making its own decisions. They read Obama's inaction as a carte blanche invitation to do whatever the hell they wanna do. They see some upside to raising the stakes, possibly to draw in other parties? Hmmn. Could be they're just idiotic monsters.

[they see an upside in raising stakes because if after this Obama still doesn't respond it will send clear message to rebels that it's over for them, they have no hope? If that's the case, huge gamble by Assad - but given Obama's seeming desire to absolutely destroy America's reputation as a power to be feared and respected, if this is what Assad's thinking, there is a logic to it - a remorseless and cruel logic, but a logic all the same. Again, I'm not advocating getting involved in Syria - the time for that if there ever was a time for that was at the beginning - now, nothing but bad comes of it and I guess it's the choice of which bad outcome do you prefer - but Obama brought this on himself by making two very foolish mistakes - Libya, which set a bad example begging to be repeated - and drawing a line in the sand viz WMDs which is absolutely something you cannot do if you're President of the United States unless you fully intend on following through on the threat. If he made that threat knowing full well he had no intention of honoring it or naively thinking he could get away with not honoring it then that pretty much ends the debate on who's worst president ever - it's him]

"... of course the central conundrum, the central paradox liberals need to address, although in a sense can't since time and history will be the final adjudicators... but the vexing thing they can't address and assiduously avoid addressing is reality that America became great under the guidance of a WASP majority that the left pretty much hates, despises... indeed, the new left is largely defined by its contempt for that highly successful WASP majority... but now, as the country becomes more in keeping with something the left would view as legitimate and noble and enlightened, what with a black president, transgender washrooms in California, pot legalized so as to ease the transition into a life long delusion for high school dropouts and one could just go on and on... now, with their dream world increasingly in play, oddly enough, America no longer seems the great thing it once was... and the problem for the liberal elite becomes how do you explain that... how do you make sense of fact that the closer the country comes to adopting the ideals and sympathies the left so dearly cherishes, the weaker, more irresolute, less meaningful the country is...?"

Following closely on heels of black teenagers killing an Australian jogger out of boredom and hell why not kill some white dude out for jog, two black youths yesterday beat and killed a WWII veteran for no apparent reason other than why not kill some old white dude who was in some war. No word yet from Obama on whether or not he feels a national conversation on race would have prevented these tragedies - regardless, media maintains well reasoned position that ultimately white privilege is to blame and, hey, what about Oprah in that Butler movie - isn't she just wonderful!