We now now what really matters to Obie, don’t we? (If we didn’t already.)
The guy who laid down and rolled over on public-option healthcare (not to mention single-payer); the guy who made no effort to close Guantanamo; the guy who stayed in Iraq until the Iranians chased him out; the guy who didn’t pick up the phone and put a stop to the torture of Bradley Manning; the guy who hasn’t sicced his Attorney General on George Zimmerman; that same guy — that apparently feckless guy — has become a balls-to-the-wall zealot for war with Syria. He’s willing to put his ‘Presidential legacy’ on the line for it, as all the bigfoot media solemnly intone.
Of course, one might observe that qua legacy, it’s pretty pathetic, so why not?
One wonders why he decided to involve Congress. Did he want company in the dock, at some possible future Nuremberg trial?
Whatever his reason, it was a disastrous error. The congressional ‘leadership’, of course, is solidly behind this crusade, but even with the Israel lobby at full throttle on the topic, rankanfilers are reluctant.
Presumably the reason is that the US public isn’t buying it at all. Never let it be said that the human capacity for pattern recognition is entirely atrophied.
Even the British Parliament seems to get it. Amazing. The only thing not to like about Cameron’s stunning rebuff is that it makes that querulous runt, Ed Miliband, look like a political genius.
Meanwhile, in France, the ‘socialist’ Francois Hollande, like his Tory cross-channel counterpart, has become a figure of fun for his lapdoggery towards the Bombardier-In-Chief. A kind of bipartisan abjection.
Among other sources of pleasure it’s amusing to see the cliche mill operating at max RPM. The whole plant is vibrating, the overheated bearings shrieking at near-supersonic pitch.
My favorite cliche product of the moment is the shocked observation that Assad (*) ‘used chemical weapons against…’ — wait for it — ‘his own people’.
Hmm. Would it be better if he had used them against somebody else’s people? Better if he had blown them up rather than gassed them? Why?
I’ve always suspected that the great powers’ disapproval of chemical weapons is based on the fact that they might be a field-leveller for small powers against large ones. If one well-placed rocket could wipe out an armored division, then the big battalions don’t count for quite so much any more. Same reasoning as with nukes, really.
(*) Supposedly. The whole business smells a lot like the Gulf of Tonkin to me.