Thanks, but don't call us, we'll call you

I didn't see it, but Politico's Reid Epstein did. And here's his characterization of yesterday's telling congressional twaddle on the Sunday shows, as twaddled on "Face the Nation" by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tex.): "Without offering much in the way of solutions on what Obama should do, McCaul repeatedly said he’s on 'the American side' of the Syrian civil war."

What, conceivably, does that mean? Our guess is as good as his, although I'm reasonably sure it means President Obama is on his own in choosing the least abominable option in response to Assad's chemical assault, after which the twaddlers will declare he chose the indisputably worst--and anyone could have told him that beforehand.

I did see "This Week," although it, too, came up somewhat short in the enlightenment department. While WaPo's Dan Balz dropped the credible observation that a U.S. missile strike would effect little more than "symbolism," Cokie Roberts' permanently fixed bobblehead promptly picked up on inanity, noting that sometimes symbolism means something. Hers was either excessively or insufficiently Wittgensteinian; I'm not sure which.

There was, however, this, from Colin Powell, also appearing on "Face the Nation": 

We shouldn’t go around thinking that we can really make things happen. We can influence things, we can be ready to help people when problems have been resolved or when one side has prevailed over the other, that’s when I think we can play a role. But to think that we can change things immediately just because we’re America, that’s not necessarily the case.

Supremely sensible, thus unrealistic. In opposition there is of course the imperishable bugaboo of "credibility," a rather odd little doctrine which dictates that the United States must always act, unilaterally if necessary, and especially when it shouldn't; and then there's the political ghost of "Democratic weakness," which is always haunting the next election.   

Obama's in a box, with no one but his own counsel. Nonetheless tradition is bearing down--and that, I would further guess, is "the American side."

Comments

[Peter G]

Want it means is that the congressman was unable to buy a program for the festivities in Syria and hence, has no clue as to who the players might be on any of the multiple teams engaged there. So he has chosen to vaguely back whichever is the correct one should that ever be determined. that choice may, unfortunately be made by the president at which point the congressman will know that that is clearly the wrong choice.