I have a number of links on this GD thread re Syria

[karynnj]

29. I suspect it is because Obama should not be there

and Kerry is the most coherent person in the administration on this. Dempsey would be a good choice as well. We saw that Susan Rice really did a poor job with the talk shows on Benghazi. Samantha Powers may be seen as more likely to say something that will get them in trouble than Kerry would.

Kerry did look exhausted, but his speech was as focused as any I have ever heard, while keeping open how the country would or should respond. I hope that he has taken today to catch up on some sleep, because it is when he exhausted that he (like most of us) misspeaks. (The saving grace may be that it is Labor Day weekend - but it's true any misstatement will be the new content of the echo chamber.) I do think that JK is better at this than he is given credit for - the media has been hostile since 2003 (if not before).

I think he has the moral high ground - and that is a good place for him. What is trickier is the more important question of whether it makes sense for us to strike in a limited way. (It is interesting that there are people saying he should go all in -- and others against doing anything. )

There is also likely no one who better understands the dynamics in that region.