Paddling thru the transcript of the speech this morning…..
For example, a mixed message;
-
“[We] should not be the world’s policeman.”
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
Then, several paragraphs thereafter;
-
“My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.”
Whatever…...I don’t know who wrote this speech, maybe it was the former ( and never published) editor of the Harvard Law Review, because, its like reading 2 separate speeches in many instances….. the above should have gone directly there after the ‘world policemen’ remark and hammered home as a counter point to make the case for action.
Then he slips onto more familiar ground, the ole appeal to unite us behind his leadership by…….. Splitting us up

…I mean for god sakes whats the point of this? Really? Can he not, just once stop enjoining partisanship, even in the interest of getting his own ass off the hook?
“And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.
To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.”
I have to say, semantically? That’s mush….what a horrible and roundabout way to say what he wanted to say…...
And of course any time you have to keep reverting to naked pleas of/for emotionalism;
“Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos…”
You are working a weak hand.
Several senators ( 2 being Dems- Landrieu and Markey tweeted- sent out press releases) shortly after the speech speaking strongly for the diplomatic effort …looking at the whip count from The Hill this morning, he actually lost more senators there after then he had going in to the dat, with the behind the door briefings, the speech.
And,( I have to consider it),
maybe that’s what he wanted. I said a few days ago there would be no vote, period, ever ( unless assad would like , fly a crop duster and gas folks in plain sight, then, maybe).