Party Like It's 2003

 UPDATE:  Gotta love McClatchy which like other news outlets today cites in opening graf of story that Obama now deeply considering strikes on Syria, but unlike others, adds in 2nd graf:  "But any strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime would occur over the misgivings of a majority of Americans, according to a new poll, and with only limited support from Congress. The fallout from such action includes likely retaliation from Iran, Russia and the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah – Assad’s three chief foreign patrons – and could draw the United States deeply into a new Middle East conflict after years of entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/25...
Earlier: Repeat of Iraq 2003?  Syria today okays inspection of site of alleged chem attack by UN but U.S. racing to launch attack before inspectors can report?  Already were reports today from White House or military sources saying "too late."  And complaint that no firm date given.  Now (according to Richard Engel in a tweet) Syria says:  tomorrow.   So rockets may fly tonight.

Even some good people often critical of hasty moves have fallen into line on this--you know who you are.   We recall the self-proclaimed "liberal hawks" and (in Bill Keller's immortal phrase) "reluctant hawks" who backed Iraq invasion, to their and our shame.  You'll ID them now by their full cynicism about worth of UN inspections, "came to late," "won't have full access" etc.  Also references to Kosovo.  Maybe we'll attack before McClatchy has a chance for a few full reports.  Recall that UN inspectors were on ground in Iraq in 2003 and finding nothing (accurately) and we didn't care.

In the case of Syria, there is actually more seeming evidence, if no proof, simply because a top aid group said yesterday they'd treated 3000 with some sort of toxic symptoms, though from unknown cause and perps. But hey, let's rush to attack--after sitting by for months--without on-the-ground proof.