From yesterday, “backpedaling” is officially called “making a second decision”; or so does the Gay President believe.
Methinks, the evidence of the Syrian government having carried out the attack is rather thin; and the Gay President, being, erm, gay, has decided to
back make a second decision. It appears after the defeat of the Gay PM in the UK other allies have become more cautious, or more probably a sustained bombing campaign without the support of the still special ally wouldn't look very much “hope and change”.
What a Christian notices is that the dangers for the Syrian Christians have not played any role. It is probable that attacks will be carried out in the end, and the Syrian regime (our sons of a bitch, remember…) will be more or less weakened, and perhaps crushed, by way of the attacks. Or it can be that Obama will only order “cosmetic” attacks to show he really cares for humaniteee, but these attacks will result in nothing more than an embarrassment for the Syrian government. In all cases, Christians in the area will not play any role. Obama calls himself a Christian only for reasons of political convenience, but is a fully secularised atheist with an emotional link to the Islam he grew up with.
I can only imagine that here two interests have converged: Obama's desire to appear the human rights angel, and the desire of the Pentagon to give a sound thrashing to Hizbollah and, indirectly, Iran. If this is so, the British stance has not changed anything in the second motive but it has radically changed the first: you can't play “hope and change” and the humanitarian paladin when your closest ally clearly indicates you are a cowboy.
Still, I wanted to share with you my discovery of the new way of saying “backpedaling”.