Oh, sweet irony

The US response to the situation in Syria is amusing to me. To be clear, I think that what happened is a very serious situation, and not something that should be taken lightly. What I'm saying is that the manner in which the US is responding (or, at the moment, not responding) is laughable. The same goes for the Brits. I mean seriously, when was the last time the FRENCH were calling for action and it was the limeys and the yankees who couldn't get our act together?

The Syrian government bombed its own people with chemical weapons. This is not in dispute, except in the mind of Vladimir Putin and the Chinese. Really, I don't think even they are questioning what happened privately, they're only questioning it publicly to put on a show. If you think they're more credible than France, then UN, and the US, oh, and the 1429 Syrians who died in the attack, I can't help you. The UN security council can't even agree on the day of the week, so anyone who suggests they should agree on a response is nuts. Don't take my word for it though. Start with Christiane Amanpour, one of the most well respected journalists on the planet. There is no conspiracy here, this was not the work of the rebels, it was not the Israelis, it was a crazy dictator killing his own people in one of the most cruel ways possible.

So why is the US response amusing? Because only the 2013 Congress could turn this into a political battle. And really I'm talking about John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. This is largely the same Congress that blindly approved Bush's war in Iraq based on what we now know was one, lying, informant. Except that our current president is one of a very few Senators who voted against that war. So why the change of heart? Let's compare some key points:

• W & Powell contended that Saddam had WMD and might use them - in contrast Kerry & Obama have strong evidence that Assad DID use them, on August 21.
• Obama has committed to NOT placing any boots on the ground - W sent half the army, who ended up staying there for 10 years (7 years after he appeared under a "mission accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier)

So how is it that Bush's war hawks have now turned into peace loving hippies? Is it because they learned their lesson and want to be more cautious? Nope. No rational, logical person can look at the evidence here and question anything about it. It's overwhelming, it's from dozens of sources, and it's simply impossible that it's all been fabricated. So Congress is opposing this for the same reason they oppose everything Obama proposes. Actually it's much like China versus US at the UN Security council - "I oppose things just because you proposed them. I don't care about the lessons of history; that when you allow a crazy dictator to gas his own citizens it tends to result in a holocaust. I care about elections, and me winning them and you losing them." Awesome attitude. Real leadership there. Great role models for the kids!

The only positive note here is that Obama has also forced Congress to own the decision. It's really the closest any President has come to complying with the War Powers Act, if you think about it. He's saying "look, I could act here, but really it's the job of Congress to determine when we go to war." That's true. I agree that's the right thing to do. Somehow, I'll bet they even find a way to blame him for doing exactly what a President is supposed to do in a situation like this: deferring to Congress. They'll say he's not shown leadership (like they did with Obamacare - if he's not shown leadership, why are they calling it Obamacare?), that he's wussing out. Well, if we fail to punish a guy who has gassed his own people, I think we've all wussed out. FYI 79% of Americans support military action here.