Today’s Wall Street Journal features and article by Norman Podhoretz entitled, “Obama’s Successful Foreign Failure.” In this article Mr. Podhoretz puts forth the theory that President Obama is following an agenda designed to reduce the influence of America around the world.

The article states:

But foreign policy was another matter. As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country’s power and influence. And just as he had to fend off the still-toxic socialist label at home, so he had to take care not to be stuck with the equally toxic “isolationist” label abroad.

This he did by camouflaging his retreats from the responsibilities bred by foreign entanglements as a new form of “engagement.” At the same time, he relied on the war-weariness of the American people and the rise of isolationist sentiment (which, to be sure, dared not speak its name) on the left and right to get away with drastic cuts in the defense budget, with exiting entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan, and with “leading from behind” or using drones instead of troops whenever he was politically forced into military action.

How does this relate to the current question of whether or not we should intervene in Syria? I question whether President Obama is depending on Congress to vote ‘no’ on military intervention on Syria and let him off the hook for his reckless statement. The fact that Susan Rice is being sent out to make the case for military intervention in Syria causes me to wonder if he really wants to make the case.

The Weekly Standard posted an article today stating:

“The White House has had quite enough of the controversy over ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, the misleading talking points she used in TV interviews about the jihadist attacks in Benghazi, and the Obama administration’s contradictory narrative about those attacks,” Steve Hayes reported in December. 

But today, Rice will be called upon again to make a public case for the White House — this time, she’ll be talking about Syria. Except now Rice is the national security adviser, a promotion she received in the last year.

There are two options here for President Obama. First of all, if Congress votes ‘no,’ he can ignore the wishes of Congress, attack anyway, and cause a Constitutional crisis. That will deflect from the problems with ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, unemployment, etc. Politically that could work toward his advantage since Congress is not likely to call him on the Constitutional question. Secondly, if Congress votes ‘no,’ he could not attack and blame the Republicans in Congress for refusing to support him. He might gain a few political points from that approach also. I am not mentioning an option where Congress votes ‘yes’ because I can’t imagine that happening. There is not a lot of support in Congress for an attack on Syria. Oddly enough, I suspect there is more support from Republicans on an attack than from Democrats. Blaming the Republicans for a ‘no’ vote would only work if the news media played along.