I think perhaps Obama is just outwitting the folks in Congress.
Now, hear me out.
Certainly, it seems quite illogical to roll out this plan to bomb Syria, then botch the roll out. And botch it, they have. So much so, that by next week, John Kerry will downgrade from "Unbelievably tiny" to a Middle Eastern kid named David with a sling shot and a bag of rocks, as the plan of attack against Syria.
Obama, the cool cucumber that he is, appears to be wildly swinging over this Syria thing. And this is the guy who spoke out against Iraq in the early days, and won the primary against Hillary based on having no blood on his hands over it.
Either the PR people at the White House are smoking a lot of weed, or there is method to the madness.
Does Obama really want to bomb Syria? No one can seem to answer that. He says he does. He says he can. But maybe he is looking for an out, by seeing it voted down in Congress. Maybe.
John Kerry? He's spending every breath between his early morning work out on the White House lawn, where he wanders around for hours looking for those medals he tossed over the fence 40 years ago, rattling the war saber like he was ... oh, I don't know ... John McCain!
And what of McCain and his common law wife, Lindsey Graham? They signed on with Obama. So did Boehner.
Say what? They wouldn't agree with Obama if he said water was wet. And they'd call for impeachment when he threw a cup of it in their faces.
Did Obama just trick 3 of his most mortal enemies into joining his side, while driving many Dems to side with Rand Paul (the jeri-curled wonder from KY) against action against Syria.
And what about all that talk of shutting down the government to defund Obama Care (which would not be defunded by a government shutdown, by the way)?
If we're bombing Syria, how could those who voted to join the Prez in this adventure, justify letting their party shut down the government? Right? It would be out of bounds and highly irresponsible.
But what if Congress votes with the people, who are polling well close to two thirds being against this action?
Well, then Obama can point out that they just used the "will of the people" as the standard to vote against striking Syria, which he can turn around and point out that the will of the people is over 90% in favor of gun control measures, and that a plurality of people support ObamaCare or something even more extreme than the watered down, left over GOP thing that it actually is.
And in the end, if he doesn't bomb Syria, isn't that a win-win for him in the long run? Doesn't make him look weak, despite how they might try to spin it. It makes him look like the responsible adult in the room, and the only one who is following the letter of the law and the constitution. Which those on the right should love, even if they don't get it.
So, what is it, then?
Is he really wanting war, and massively screwing up the sale of it to the world and the US? Or is he looking for a major rumble that causes the Congress to actually do something that resembles their jobs, and then pointing a finger at them for being such deadbeat jag offs in ALL other areas?
Major presidential address coming tonight. All channels will be airing it. What will he say? It is interesting, if for nothing more than the fact that I don't think anyone can actually predict what his next move will be. He's got quite the poker face, which should be worrying enemies, both domestic and foreign.