Syria conversation gets more confusing, and inane

I don’t know about you, but this Syria stuff has my head spinning.

First Secretary of State John Kerry comes out wringing his hands at the horror of what he says the Syrian president is guilty of, namely using chemical weapons to kill and terrorize his own people.

He shows us horrific pictures of dead babies wrapped in white linen stacked up like cordwood and rails against the tyrant’s cruelty.

Then President Obama comes on TV and builds on Kerry’s passion for retribution and action, including a surgical missile strike that will degrade Syria’s ability to launch such attacks and teach them a lesson that their actions are untenable in the world we live.

Then Obama defends the planned strike, saying it will be miniscule. He also must have said there will be no “boots on the ground” 127 times.

OK, we get it.

But then, something happens. There's a shift. He defers the decision to Congress, saying he wants them on board.

Then he defers it to the American people, saying “we” will be judged harshly if we don’t stand together to send a message to Syrian President Assad.

I’m waiting to be asked to cast my vote like the audience participation lifeline on “Who wants to be a Millionaire.”

Every other Internet ad is clamoring for us to vote.

When the votes come in, however, it’s thumbs down, but Obama has another card up his sleeve.

He allows the Russians, a fervent, longtime Syrian ally, to enter the negotiating fray, along with Iran.

If the strike was so tiny, so surgical, so necessary why didn’t he just do it like so many presidents before him initiated military action without Congress’ approval.

Why the handwringing?

If this were Elizabethan England, Shakespeare would cast him as Hamlet for sure.

But this is not some morality play. The use of chemical weapons really happened, killing hundreds of innocents.

 And all we do for the world to watch is debate and debate, then postpone the debate and debate some more.

What, exactly, is the message here?