So just what is Obama up to with the whole bombing thing?

  So I'm watching Fox News about the whole Syria entanglement and several commentators--lawyers--said that, since it isn't WAR or anything, it is perfectly Constitutional for Obama to bomb Syria without congressional approval.
  In fact, the lawyers went on to say, it's probably a good idea for Congress to eventually support Obama's desire to bomb Syria because he will lose authority as president if the people don't show a united front. 
  A weakened presidency isn't good for our country; our enemies might get the feeling that because a fancy French poodle is running the show rather than an authoritative, informed and adept Commander in Chief, they can take advantage of us.
  Like maybe talk us into doing something stupid, like giving the Palestinians half a billion dollars to finance their businesses and buy houses. Oh wait. We're already doing that. 
  Do the lawyers know that Obama's dug his own political hole? Do the lawyers know that there is such a thing as separation of powers? Doing what is right for the country, rather than saving face for a narcissist whose ego has a standing appointment with Massage Envy?
  The problem with this logic lawyerly thinking is that the world has already figured out that the guy with the big ears has a proclivity toward Muslim countries and not America; OTOH, we already suspect that what Obama really wants to do is pay back the Assad kid who made fun of him on Facebook.
  (Here are the words of the little punk, whose mother, incidentally, is hoarding the latest couture, fine china and new drapes in a frenzied attempt to convince herself that there's no fox in her hen-house-of-a-country:)

 

  Apparently Mr. Obama thinks a measure like this will have no geo-political consequences; lobbing a few bombs that might kill an innocent bystander should be something he decides on an hour walk on a Friday night or after he goes golfing with the fellas.

  Althouse questions Kerry's Rice-like performance of falling on his sword (he did look terrible, didn't he?), but more interesting to me is the Kerry quote, cited here:

Now why go to Congress? Because the United States of America is stronger when the Congress of the United States representing the people and the President of the United States are acting together. And the president wants that strength represented in this initiative….

  Really? Working together? That always works so well with this POTUS, like with the health care initiative? You mean like siccing the IRS on the Tea Party? You mean like stealing charter school grants from poor kids in failing schools in Louisiana? 
  Anyway Joseph Curl at the Washington Times says this threat of military action is all a political move on the part of Obama to bludgeon the Republicans and eventually regain the House so he can finish off the country his agenda:

Make no mistake: The president couldn’t care less about the plight of Syrians, the 1,500 gassed to death — including nearly 500 children. It’s all about 2014. Win the House, reign supreme.

Consider this: Mr. Obama made his dramatic Rose Garden statement on Saturday — then headed to the golf course. Congress has no plans to cut short its 30-day vacation, and the president did not call lawmakers back. So much for urgency.[SNIP]

Whatever happens, this much is clear: We’re no longer talking about the IRS targeting tea party groups, the Justice Department tapping reporters’ phone lines, the NSA’s surveillance programs, Benghazi. The president has smartly changed the subject to the most important decision a commander in chief makes: war.

  He can flap his feathers all he wants about going to war but a lot people aren't really buying what Mr. Obama is selling anymore, particularly if the sale involves forking over more cash that could be going to their own pockets for new Obamaphones or the like.
  Curl may be right; I listened to c-Span callers' opinions about Mr. Obama's desire to take military action against Syria; like drones, many were approvingly nodding in Obama's direction. Whatever the dear young man wants is right, they're sure.
  What irony, however, to watch the Harry Reids and the Nancy Pelosis turn on their pursed lip ideals against war only to wholeheartedly endorse the bombing of innocent children who were poisoned by Assad.
  If it was Assad who did it.
  Witnesses claim the rebels were responsible for an earlier poisoning.
  Well, it's the usual Leftist argument, I guess.
  Let's do it for the children.
  Lob a few bombs for the children. Eh. Like maybe Hafez Assad.
UPDATE: Hoosierman notes that Kerry, who has been compared to Lurch, looked like his makeup was done by a mortician. Althouse remarks that Kerry has acquired this habit of sticking out his tongue as he speaks, kind of like an unintentional Miley Cyrus. (Probably something to do with the marbles he stores in his cheeks.)

 

  Also take a look at this photo from strangesounds.com of the Kerrys dining cozily with the Assads in 2009, now apparently not so much cozy anymore as Kerry turns on the Assads the way Obama did on Mubarak. 

UPDATE TWO:Michael Ledeen has a few ideas and wonders why no journalists seem to be curious about Obama's abrupt change of mind. Has some kind of deal been brokered? 
UPDATE THREE: Powerline has more on the Democrat tendency to admire dictators like Assad. Wow.