Jay Leno on Syria and the REAL reason the unemployment rate has fallen

Leno's discussion about the reason for the drop in the unemployment rate is right on.

Latest numbers on how Congress will vote on Syria

This survey is current as of today (Sunday, September 8th) and it is from USA Today (available here).  It will be updated regularly. It looks as if the vote will be close in the Senate if there is a filibuster.  Yet, in the House the vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans will be voting against going to war.

Obama's changes in policies leave the few allies we have regarding Syria in the lurch

Will other allies be willing to agree to work with the US if they think that they will be embarrassed by sudden switches in policy?  Undoubtedly not.  From the Times of London:

President Hollande struggled to maintain French resolve for a strike against Syria last night after Washington’s retreat prompted dismay in his administration and stirred opposition demands for a parliamentary vote. 

Manuel Valls, the French Interior Minister, said that President Obama’s shift had “created a new situation”. He added: “France cannot go it alone. We need a coalition.” 

By backtracking on his agreement with Paris on an immediate offensive, Mr Obama has severely embarrassed the Socialist President. Already weakened by the defection of Britain, France now finds itself as the lone important ally and hostage to the US political tide. Some of the Hollande team voiced frustration over what they said was a letdown by Mr Obama which played into the hands of critics who accuse the French President of becoming a “poodle” to the United States. . . .

Military can't explain what the administration hopes to accomplish in Syria

The Obama administration might have been literally days away from attacking Syria last week, but the apparently the president hasn't thought it was necessary to explain to the military what exactly he wanted to accomplish.

DEMPSEY: The answer to whether I support additional support for the moderate opposition is yes. 

CORKER: And this authorization will support those activities in addition to responding to the weapons of mass destruction. 

DEMPSEY: I don’t know how the resolution will evolve, but I support – 

CORKER: What you’re seeking. What is it you’re seeking? 

DEMPSEY: I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.

Here is one of the many news stories from last week.

The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday. 

The State Department fed the growing drumbeat around the world for a military response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons against rebels Aug. 21 near Damascus, saying that while the U.S. intelligence community would release a formal assessment within the week, it was already "crystal clear" that Assad's government was responsible. 

Vice President Joe Biden went even further, bluntly telling an American Legion audience in Houston: "Chemical weapons have been used." . . . 

I found this article about the leaks and the motives behind them at Politico of interest.

Many of the leaks about U.S. strike plans for Syria, a copious flow of surprisingly specific information on ship dispositions and possible targets, have been authorized as a way for President Obama to signal the limited scope of operations to friends and foes. 

But a number of leaks have been decidedly unauthorized -- and, according to Obama administration sources, likely emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself. . . . 

Recently retired CENTCOM commander James Mattis had this to say about the undefined mission:

Mattis said the U.S. also needs to define what "end state" it is seeking in Syria, if further action is to be taken. "Otherwise, you invade a country and pull down a statue and then say: 'Now, what do we do?'….Know what I mean?" he said, in an obvious reference to the chaotic aftermath of the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. . . .