VDH on Syria

Victor Davis Hanson writing today over at NRO brilliantly captures the Orwellian doublethink that is Obama's Syria "policy":  

We are contemplating going to war in Syria to help the opposition a lot and to hurt Assad some, or to help the opposition some and hurt Assad a lot, or to hurt Assad some and help the opposition some, or to force Assad to stop or to leave, or to stop but stay, or to stop and leave; or to restore the word of the president, or the word of the United States, or the word of the international community by bombing, or by threatening to bomb but not bombing, or by neither threatening to bomb nor bombing; or to warn the Russians to stay out, or to welcome the Russians to come in, or to warn the Russians to stay out and welcome the Russians to come in. Message? We are planning to do all kinds of things by not doing anything....

If we are going to bomb Syria, the president does not have to go to Congress. But he also is supposed to go to Congress. But he also can bomb Syria after he goes to Congress if he doesn’t like the way Congress votes. But he can also postpone going to Congress if he is afraid that he won’t like the way Congress votes. Or he can go ahead and not postpone going to Congress, and just bomb Syria because he does not want to go to Congress if he thinks he won’t like the way Congress votes. Message? Going and not going to Congress are essential.

Assad is a monster who kills thousands. Assad is a monster who gasses children and seems also to be the only one protecting Christians, Alawites, and Kurds from non-monsters who do not gas children but do kill minorities. Assad is opposed by monsters who are cannibals and execute prisoners as well as non-monsters who only kill but do not eat Assad’s monsters. Message? Sometimes monsters are non-monsters, and sometimes non-monsters are monsters.

Read the whole thing.

***

Oh, and Jay Carney doesn't do the President any favors here:

“I would simply say that, when it comes to being commander-in-chief, I think the American people, at least in my assessment, appreciate a commander-in-chief who takes in new information and doesn’t, you know, celebrate decisiveness for the sake of decisiveness,” Carney added.

Indecision is a virtue in a commander-in-chief.   OK, then.