Syria. Obama's mouth puts our ass in danger.

Red lines ain't what they used to be. Back in the day, when you drew a red line, it meant something. Nowadays, you have to go running behind Congress's skirt after making that ultimatum. Obama draws the red line then embarrasses himself when the heat in the kitchen gets too hot. Makes you wonder if he ever really wanted to take any action against Assad. I could argue that he doesn't have the authority to launch an attack - as there is no discernible "imminent danger" from Syria. But that aside, the President seem to be waffling on what he really wants to do.
What happens if the Senate and House don't approve his planned action in Syria? What does he do if the Senate votes to authorize but the House votes no? (Which is what I believe will happen) Does one legislative house give him the authority or does he require both? Well, if both houses are required for the passage of bills, etc. it stands to reason that both would be required when seeking authorization for military actions. It's even possible neither the house or Senate will give him a thumbs up. Should Obama decline to take military action based upon a legislative vote, he will look weak. Not the image we want presented to such bad guys as Iran and North Korea, let alone the Russians and Chinese. He has painted himself into a corner and now wants Congress to bail him out. Perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut from the beginning and not drawn brightly colored lines.

Assad is a nasty guy for sure. His regime is every bit as bad as Saddam's was. Both gassed their own people for starters. But like many Americans, I don't believe there is much of anything positive that can be achieved by attacking Syria.  If we attack with just enough power to weaken Assad, the rebels may use that to their advantage and make inroads in toppling the government. But Obama says that wouldn't be his goal. Rather he just wants to punish Assad by bombing his Air Force's runways, planes and military assets. And what if Assad is toppled? Who or what replaces him? Some of the rebels have strong ties to militant Muslim extremist groups. Are these the people we want in charge of Syria's chemical weapons? Bombing a Muslim country - any Muslim country, is not going to endear them to us. What if Syria uses their chemical weapons again after we attack? Do we bomb em' some more? How much more?

I'm sympathetic to the plight of innocent civilians. They don't deserve this. But why does it have to be us to take action? Why not let the countries in that regions use their own military to keep Assad in line? America only has one true friend in the Middle East. Israel. Jordan gets the silver metal for second place. After that, it's just a matter of how less than the next country they hate us. Does anyone really think the Saudis like us? Really like us? They, like the Turks and Pakistanis are just looking out for their best interests. Perhaps it's time that we do the same. But Obama has put all of us in a unique situation. The risk is now having America look weak and confused. I fear we may have to cover the President's ass and launch some sort of limited attack just so we don't look so ineffective and stupid. No, I'm not happy with that decision. I hate it. But Barack's mouth got our ass in trouble. This is what happens when you elect a Community organizer to the Presidency. Twice.