On Saturday, President Obama reverted to type (since he was first elected, he has strenuously avoided the appearance of actually leading on anything) and announced that he would be seeking authorization from Congress to engage in military strikes in Syria.
Yesterday, we learned that Obama had actually been reconsidering on Friday, while the news media were banging the drums for an imminent attack. We’ve been had, again.
But the drumbeat for war continued on the evening news last night:
- “Air samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin,” noted our Secretary of State. That’s not particularly surprising: sarin is an effective chemical weapon. But that doesn’t address the more important question: who used it?
- We’re told that when Obama told his advisers that he would hold off on the attacks and seek authorization from Congress, his advisers tried to talk him out of it. Why would he do such a thing? Because by getting the US involved in a pointless war–by himself–he could get himself impeached. And his fingerprints would be all over it.
- Senator John McCain, Obama’s rival in the 2008 election, had a somewhat different take on it. The actual merits of the case in Syria seemed beside the point. But if the President deferred to Congress, and Congress voted him down, it would be bad for future Presidents who might need to engage in unilateral executive action. And this is a problem… how?
- The evening news then reported on Syrian refugees who are distinctly disappointed that America hadn’t come through with destruction. “We are asking for Obama to strike Assad, like he promised,” one refugee remarked. When all else fails, go for the heartstrings….
On last night’s news, other than noting that some Congressmen and Senators were opposed to the attacks, there was no discussion of the case against striking Syria. Is this because the case is so self-evident as to not be worth reporting, or is it that the news media’s corporate masters really want us to drag out the blunderbuss?