> The only interesting point, to me, on this issue is Obama's decision to
> let Congress decide what to do. Obviously he can't risk what happened in
> Parliament to Cameron, so what's his angle? Maybe it's to try to break the
> wall of "every Republican the same" and split the crazies like McCain from
> the more politically savvy? It smells like a trap to me, so I'm interested
> in the outcome.
[WS:] It looks like even a BBC correspondent thinks O got himself cornered. I am inclined to share similar concerns. WTF was he thinking?
Or may be someone was making those decisions for him, like Chaney & Co did for Bush as the very interesting Ames' piece that Shane posted suggests.
Syria debate in US Congress could break a president
If Barack Obama escapes humiliation that will be enough - there is no sense that even victory in Congress will leave him in an enviable position.
The next few days will see Mr Obama stripped, all the flaws of his presidency on display, all the strengths of his personality strained to their limit.
[...]The interplay between these strands led him to fight shy of involvement in Syria in the first place, but then announce red lines on chemical weapons. They caused him to back away from action when the lines were first breached, and then rather reluctantly return to them, stressing that this wasn't about regime change. When others, including the UK, declined to share his view he turned to Congress.
It is possible his many critics are wrong and he alone has taken a wise course, against the odds. But at the moment this all looks like a mess heading for a political disaster. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24012411
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."