Okay.

Huh. I'm in favor -- no, that's the wrong way to start. I'm not not in favor of action in Syria. I'm worried, with good reason, that we won't go to Syria simply because of the past two Middle East debacles. That's the wrong way to look at this decision! Every situation is unique and dismissing one option because of past failures of a different sort is a huge mistake. If the chemical weapons had been used in, to pick random examples, Chechnya, Bolivia, Serbia or Bangladesh, our approach to this would be completely different.

I think it's pretty clear that Congress (and the public) are going to say no. The Brits said no. If the Brits had said yes Congress (and the public) would still probably say no. Is this right? Chemical weapons are something we pledged to oppose in every form, everywhere, 150 years ago. Actual use of chemical weapons to combat political change is in my opinion worse than suspected ties to terrorist organizations and flimsy suspected possession of nuclear capabilities.

We're finally looking at history to make our decisions, which is good, and we're misreading it, which is bad.