They always disappoint ...

Is there anything more depressing or dispiriting than doing a compare and contrast of John Kerry in 1971, as shown above, taking a stand against the United States' ongoing efforts in Vietnam?

Especially when contemplating his recent war mongering speech explaining why there was a need for action in Syria, with nine reasons laid out, as you can read and watch in John Kerry's nine reasons for action in Syria ...

Memories of a hapless Colin Powell surged to mind. Memories of decisions made before the UN inspectors even got to file a report ...

And as expected, without any explanation of what might be the intended or unintended consequences of a limited intervention which seems impelled by the logic that we should bomb the Syrians to teach them a lesson about being careful the way they bomb people ...

Back in the day Kerry took a view on the United States being a prime user of chemical weapons, what with the estimated 20 million (US) gallons dropped on the country producing estimates of 400,000 killed or maimed, and 500,000 children with birth defects, not to mention the damage also done to US military personnel who came into contact with the chemical.

It makes it hard for the United States to sound righteous about the use of chemical weapons, all the more so because of the use of white phosphorous in Iraq, and that's before we get on to the indiscriminate mayhem in civilian populations arising from the use of cluster bombs or drones striking from the skies.

And certainly before we get on to the damage done the use of depleted uranium in weaponry deployed in Iraq, with full consequences still uncertain but the cost of the clean up put at a minimum of $30 million. (Depleted uranium clean up). With British and American forces defiantly asserting their right to keep using the stuff ...

Let's not even get into the nod and the wink that the US gave to Saddam Hussein when he used mustard gas against Iran, because in those days they were on side with him:

Oh yes. Back in the day ...

Things haven't gone quite so smoothly this time around, because the memories of war criminal Tony Blair falling into line with George W. Bush were perhaps a bit too fresh for the British.

(more British newspaper headlines here).

Meanwhile, back in Iraq ... car bomb kills 12 and wounds at least 20 in Iraq city of Ramadi ...

Meanwhile, off in Afghanistan ... Attacks in Southern Afghanistan Kill at Least 18

And then suddenly, following the British example, Obama remembered what he'd said in 2007:

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. 
He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.” 
“It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action,” Obama continued. (More in Obama and the power to go to war)

Domestically, the Ruddster managed to make a goose of himself by calling for a "robust response", while Tony Abbott - how it grieves the pond - almost sounded statesmanlike by calling for restraint.

Syria: Kevin Rudd backs 'robust response' over chemical weapons

Syria: Tony Abbott urges caution

Coalition leader Tony Abbott took a very cautious approach towards international action against Syria on Friday, saying it was advisable to "be very careful about getting involved in a civil war between two deeply unsavoury sides".

Amazing scenes.

So here's the Ruddster, allegedly Labor, wanting to seem at one with the American alliance, and the British, and join with a Conservative PM in wanting to rush off to join in another American adventure, without any sign of an understanding of what the objectives might be or what a limited strike might achieve - which could range from a change of heart by Assad to an assault on Israel - and Tony Abbott is the one urging caution ...

Now who knows what is actually going on in Syria, or who did what to whom, except that it's been going on for two years, and Obama seems only to have paid any attention when he said chemical warfare would be stepping across a red line, and now he finds himself caught out, as pointed out in the NY Times in Tripping on His Own Red Line?

The point was surely to wait for the UN inspectors report, and see what it says, and how much blame can be allocated to Assad and his forces, and use that to browbeat Russia and China, and then work out a sensible plan of action ...

The irony? It was Rudd who claimed Abbott would be out of his depth in foreign affairs, and it was Rudd who misread the situation, hoping for a little reflected glory by sounding tough ...

The result of all this farce and ambivalence?

Assad encouraged and a lot of dithering by inept politicians, including David Cameron, who now more than ever more closely resembles a cooked goose, or a loon ... a loon the Ruddster chose for company ...

They always disappoint, closer you get, the more you look, all of them, Royce's ec-chief of staff Coleman Parker once said to Norman in The Wire about politicians, and it's true today as it was when it first hit the air ...

(Below: more Guardian cartoons like the one by Chris Riddell here, and below it a golden oldie from Martin Rowson)