What has this story to do with the Syrian situation? Once you get beyond the observation that Obama and Chamberlain were both political leaders, the similarities become obscure. America is clearly the strongest nation in the world. Unpreparedness is not an issue here.
Yes, we feel the outrage of Syria's horrific civil war, and no, we're not content doing nothing about that or any other massacre taking place on the planet, whether perpetrated by ally or designated enemy. But we're sick of the inane "solutions."
"Assad was a master of evasion, dodging, weaving, demanding absolute certainty; he treated the interview as a game of chess, making the necessary moves to avoid having to admit the evidence he knows (I believe) is there."
I implore you to vote "no" on military intervention in Syria. No vital U.S. interest is at stake, and an attack will have unforeseen consequences that are nearly impossible to predict. The proper response to the Assad regime's use of poison gas is not more killing.
Can we rightly punish Assad for doing what his country never agreed not to do? Finger-pointing or worse, missile-pointing on our part at the bad guys of the world for breaking treaties that they never agreed to is rather useless, or even hypocritical.
I, for one, don't want to look back at Syria, the way I'm now looking back at Rwanda and the start of World War II. I know military strikes aren't simple. I understand the consequences. I know the heavy price soldiers pay. My mother was one.
What's a President to do when confronted with killer gas? But let's say that the gas in question threatens the President's own country and that Tomahawk missiles are utterly irrelevant. I refer not to poison gas released in a Damascus suburb, but to greenhouse gases.