[WS:] That is my point exactly. Foreign policy tends to be run by a shadowy cabal of unsavory characters like Chaney & Co (aka the Vulcans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vulcans) and some presidents are better at reigning them in than other. JFK did it in the Cuban Missile Crisis, Obama barely managed to do it - and both succeeded largely because of Russian cooperation. Bush failed - perhaps because the Russians did not say "nyet" and took a wait and see attitude.
However, I simply do not think that O was spearheading military strikes on Syria. Syria was a low priority issue for him, especially given his battle with the Congress, so he brushed it of with some cavalier rhetoric setting red lines and hoped the issue would go away. However, this was a political mistake. His rhetoric came back and bit him in the ass. I am pretty this was a result of clever manipulation by those who would benefit from a war, including the Saudis or some Israeli hardliners.
I am also pretty sure this "Syrian Chemical Weapons Crisis" will be studied to death in the future, just the Cuban Missile Crisis has been, and these studies will vindicate O as a peacemaker rather than a warmonger. This also opens an interesting possibility for a comparative analysis Bush vs. Obama. It would not surprise me if both Bush and Obama had initially little appetite for a military adventure in the Middle East, but Bush was simply overwhelmed by the Vulcans, whereas Obama did not face such a formidable internal pressure and in addition was offered a bailout by the Russians, something that Bush did not have.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."