For John, BLUF: Overheated rhetoric regarding Syria. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Senator McCain's comment, "it would be 'catastrophic' if Congress rejected a use-of-force resolution", reminds me of this line from The Princes Bride.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.It would be catastrophic if we got into a nuclear exchange, or a 9.5 earthquake hit California or a tsunami swept over Florida or two hurricanes hit New York City within a 7 day period. Congress voting "No" on dope-slapping Syria would not be catastrophic.
We welshed on the Peace Treaty and abandoned the Republic of Viet-nam and we left the Cambodians to their own devices. Not to mention Rwanda and Darfur. Those didn't turn out to be "catastrophic", so I don't see why turning our back on the victims of a (limited) gas attack in Syria would be [catastrophic].
What could turn out to be catastrophic would be us firing a hundred Cruise Missiles and Syria over their use of chemical weapons and then having Syria again use chemical weapons. What would we do then?
Regards — Cliff