
Weasel Zippers "And yet in the end it’s Obama and Biden who are pushing us into a war nobody wants to get involved with."

What he does see is a political (and geopolitical) disaster in the making. And so what is emerging is what comes most naturally to Mr. Obama: Blame shifting and blame sharing.Voting "present", in other words.
Barack Obama's pusillanimous bumbling brings powerfully to mind Winston Churchill's condemnation of the Baldwin government in 1936: "So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent." The President's staggering incompetence is, to me, the most cogent argument against striking Syria. We may as well have Bradley Manning in the Oval Office.From the comments to this article.
Recent news of a chemical weapons attack in Syria smacks of desperation. The question comes down to who is most desperate right now, the Assad regime or the Muslim Brotherhood rebels? Consider that since June, Assad's forces have been winning.
According to a CBS News report from last month, victories for the rebels had become "increasingly rare" and that the Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition fighters were sustaining "some of their heaviest losses" near Damascus.
The New York Times echoed this sentiment, even saying that before gaining the upper hand, concerns were that Assad would use chemical weapons; he did not
.
In fact, even before Assad's forces gained the momentum, a UN official reportedly found evidence of rebels using chemical weapons but no evidence Assad's regime did.
The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.
This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.
"Conventional wisdom says that a weakened Syria would undermine Iran's regional influence, but a U.S. military intervention in the country could actually benefit Tehran. The government there has devised a sophisticated strategy for responding to a U.S. attack. Of course, Tehran would activate its militant proxies in the region, including Hezbollah, in the event that the United States launches an attack, but it would also exploit Washington's visceral opposition to Sunni jihadist and Islamist groups to gain concessions elsewhere."...An unfriendly Syria could cut Tehran off from Hezbollah, its pre-eminent non-state Arab ally, and jeopardize the position of its Iraqi allies.