So there you go.  The Warhawks line up to submit to Mr Obama’s incompetence.

From the WashingtonTimes.com:

Senators on Wednesday tried to write a tight resolution authorizing President Obama to strike Syria under very specific circumstances, but analysts and lawmakers said the language still has plenty of holes the White House could use to expand military action well beyond what Congress appears to intend.

Further, from TheDailyBeast.com:

Senate Breaks Own Rules in Rush to Vote on Syria War

by Josh Rogin

Senate Democratic leadership tossed aside the rules for moving legislation with regard to the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Syria, angering some Republicans and creating confusion on Capitol Hill in the run-up to the war vote.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved a modified war resolution Wednesday afternoon by vote of 10–7 with one member, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), voting present. The committee’s action allows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to bring the measure to the floor as early as Monday, following a break for the Jewish holidays. That would allow a vote by the full Senate as soon as Wednesday, giving the Senate a chance to pass a war resolution before the House has a chance to craft and pass a resolution of its own.

Republican Speaker John Boehner also supports Obama.  Obama, “shaken,” let a bit of sphincter dribble course down his leg at the news.  Having flipped, John McCain now does not support Mr Obama.

What?

Mr Obama says: “my credibility is not on the line.”

Really?

The absolute and unbridled arrogance of Mr Obama is simply off the charts.

From RealClearPolitics.com:

STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

Mr Obama disavows: “I didn’t set a red line.  The world set a red line.  Congress set a red line.”  And more pointedly: “my credibility is not on the line.  The international community’s credibility is on the line.”

Meaning: it wasn’t me, I wasn’t there, I was asleep in my bunk at the time, I am not responsible, I am not accountable, I am above that, and you can’t hold me to my quotes.

Staggering arrogance and incompetence.

But let’s go back to the “start” for a moment; just who is responsible for the gas attacks and what do we know for certain because, I would hope, we predicate our response on some assured modicum of certainty.  Or at least we should.

With that in mind, what do you make of this from Global Research in Canada:

And from RT.com:

A statement released by the (Russian) ministry on Wednesday particularly drew attention to the “massive stove-piping of various information aimed at placing the responsibility for the alleged  chemical weapons use in Syria on Damascus, even though the  results of the UN investigation have not yet been  revealed.” 

That is the part catching my attention: the UN report results have not yet been revealed.

Further:

The key points of the report have been given as follows: 

• the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;

• RDX, which is also known as hexogen or cyclonite, was used as the bursting charge for the shell, and it is “not used in standard chemical munitions”;

• soil and shell samples contain “the non-industrially synthesized nerve agent sarin and  diisopropylfluorophosphate,” which was “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”  

Submission: I hear and read much more specificity on the Russian side than I do on the US side.  Check this also.

Putin called Secretary Of State John Kerry a “liar.”  Frankly, I concur.

MOSCOW –  Russian President Vladimir Putin has called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a liar for denying that al-Qaida was fighting with the Syrian opposition in that country’s civil war.

John Friggin’ Kerry first vehemently denied there would be “boots on the ground” in Syria (with apologies to James Lileks):

“Mr. Chairman, it would be preferable not to, not because there is any intention or any plan or any desire whatsoever to have boots on the ground,” Kerry replied. “And I think the president will give you every assurance in the world, as am I, as has the secretary of defense and the chairman.”

Yep.  No boots on the ground.  John Friggin’ Kerry then doubles down:

“I’m absolutely confident, Mr. Chairman, that it is easy — not that complicated — to work out language that will satisfy the Congress and the American people that there’s no door open here through which someone can march in ways that the Congress doesn’t want it to, while still protecting the national-security interests of the country,” Kerry unspooled his answer. “I’m confident that can be worked out. The bottom line is, the president has no intention and will not, and we do not want to, put American troops on the ground to fight this — or be involved in the fighting of this civil war, period.”

Period.

Until SOS John Friggin’ Kerry vaccilated:

Secretary of State John Kerry opened the door Tuesday to sending American troops into Syria if Bashar Assad’s regime collapses and al-Qaida-linked extremist groups stand to get their hands on his chemical weapons.

No boots until there are.

No damage until there is.

No propagandist advantage to Syria until there is.

No US soldier deaths wasted and pissed away until there are.

Hugh Hewitt, whom I customarily set as a compass to the stars, has set his astrolabe or sextant — in my opinion — to the incorrect position regarding Syria.  This is the first time I have heard or understood his emotions to over-ride his sense of rationality, proportion, common sense or logic in favor of acts that he clearly labels as predicated but upon Obama’s clusterfuckery.

He’s thinking with his heart on his sleeve, and not with history or reality in mind.  He’s thinking about “what if” and not “what is.”

Some base points and questions:

– These gas attacks killed, as far as we know, 355 to perhaps 500 people;
– Obama has said he does not favor “regime change” via President Assad;
– Obama favors a “limited military action”;
– A minimum of 9 countries have expressed “support” for a US incursion into Syria but have not committed actual resources or soldiers;
– That clear and honest support does not yet include the United States of America;
– Assad indicates rebel troops utilized gas weapons; there is no clear evidence yet revealed without fault that Assad clearly and incontrovertibly used gas against Syrian civilians — and, to what point?  What end?
– Obama painted himself into this corner and cannot wait to slough responsibility onto other persons, agencies, entities or political groups;
– Obama, vacillating, wants as many fingerprints on the Syrian knife as possible;
– Obama, having no credibility, must now trade “blood for ego”;
– Now, three weeks after the fact, much of any response is now ineffective, meaningless, laggardly and impoverished;
– Iran is still the issue; Syria is but a brief sideshow;
– No one seems to consider being drawn into another endless foreign civil war;
– Throwing some missiles is a haphazard and standoffish manner of accomplishing nothing of substance in Syria;
– It’s not about Syria; it’s about Assad.  And the US has vetoed regime change;
– Then: remove Assad?  What gets sucked into that vacuum?
– Jihadi extremists and barbaric Bedouin nomadic tribal elements replace that air with an equally-violent replacement sect;
– As America, the axiom goes: “if we break a country, we feel obligated to re-assemble it once more, and then some.”
– First, if we were serious, we dithered too damned long;
– But: what is the long-term strategy?
– Are we committed to removing Assad?
– Are we willing to commit to the breakage of shit and the outright killing of those we deem “bad”?

Just a few questions.

Questions posed here, but no evidentiary questions posed by the AMM.

In the ME Muslim world, there are shadows within shadows, plans and plots within plans and plots, Bedouin and nomadic and tribal instincts set against brothers and cousins and sisters and blood relatives and clans and tribes and — all — set against whatever or whomever is perceived as infidel.

Answers or solutions, anyone?

There is only one reason I can submit for an excursion into Syria: practice.

BZ