This was clear from the start. Asking Congress for permission was the smartest thing Obama has done as president that I can think of. I don't think as many people missed that as the author of this article suggests. -- That second article was incredible in every way. Thanks. But ... option three, do nothing -- what's the endgame? Where do we draw the line at not meddling? The Middle East? The Far East? Europe? Mexico? At some point, something will happen that requires our involvement for the good of us -- right? Some would argue it's already happening economically with the pipeline and natural gas monopolies. I'm not sure we can afford to let USSR 2.0 become the preeminent power in the world. Do you think that could happen if we abandon the Middle East? I think it's at least possible. I guess what I'm saying is that abandoning the world, while definitely the intelligent thing to do in the short term, has potentially catastrophic longterm consequences. Am I wrong? If I'm right, I see no correct answer to this situation.So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.