>It is so enjoyable when you comment on my country. There will be a strike against Syria. President Obama is making sure there is an international coalition in place so it won't be a unilateral strike.
>
>Mike, while Assad definitely deserves a good thrashing - Obama's efforts for building an international coalition has been severely damaged.
>
>Some of it can be attributed to what Snowden has leaked, which has definitely hurt ourselves on the international front. I'll grant that there are limits to how much you pin that on Obama.
>
>But he has done just enough to make himself look royally stupid. His line yesterday about "it wasn't my red line, it was an international red line" doesn't mix with his actual words back in April....."if Syria indeed used chemical weapons, that would change MY calculus" (emphasis mine). Going back, he has repeatedly snubbed the U.K. (some of it symbolic, and some of it real), which possibly led to a predominantly conservative British govt voting no. The Arab coalition - certainly not sympathetic to this administration because of things like the tumoil in Egypt - hasn't expressed a strong interest in action. And tangentially related, the new president of Libya is still furious at the U.S. for blaming the Benghazi on that stupid video.
>
>In short, this amateur of a president and his even more amateurish administration have created a mess.
>
>Assad using CWs on his own people is certainly bad - but qualitatively no more significant than machete-wielding killers who have murdered far greater in African countries, or the Arab militia (Jinjaweed) killing more in the Sudan.
>
>There are senior officials in the State Dept and also White House advisers who have told CBS news that they absolutely believe Obama will take action even if Congress votes no.
>
>Don't get me wrong - I WISH the U.S. will come out of this in better shape and condition and appearance than we are now. But I see nothing in Barack Obama that makes me believe he is anything but a community organizer who had absolutely zero experience in commerce and the military, and a greatly-exaggerated background in the practice of law. He has absolutely earned his title of amateur - and while those who want to help him restore his credibility in this situation might have good intentions, they are unwilling to acknowledge that he'll simply do the same thing again if given the change.

I rang doorbells for Obama and given his opponents at the time, I'd do it again.
One of my favorite golf buddies RIP, when I asked him how he was playing, often answered "Compared to who?"
We have to ask that question when assessing Obama's overall performance, I think.
That said, I have to agree with Kevin that Obama has booted this one badly.
But Kevin and I will probably disagree on how he booted it.
If you look at his record, everything he has ever said or done leads one to conclude that he wants to avoid attacking any foreign country unless we are first attacked.
If he had taken that position at the outset, he'd be getting flack, but at least he'd have the moral high ground.
So yes, he has booted it badly, but so far no GI's have died and we haven't slaughtered any civilians the way we did in Iraq.
It looks as if some Dem's in congress will join up with Ron Paul et al and defeat the resolution and save Obama's skin on this one.
I'm really disappointed in Obama. He's a brilliant, principled guy who somehow lost his way on this one.
An attack would have been a huge mistake.
Thanks, Ron Paul, you endearing whackjob!!