Obama seeks Congressional approval to attack Syria, and ultra-liberal Bill Maher happily proclaims that Obama “restored the Constitution.” Yes, but isn’t Obama the one who broke the Constitution repeatedly ad nausea? Obama and “restoring the Constitution” appears to be an oxymoron. Antique shops post signs that read, “If you break it, you bought it” – except Obama’s response is always, “It’s not my fault.”

President Obama holds that a failure to respond puts America’s credibility on the line. In truth, it’s Obama’s credibility that is on the line. Obama campaigned against Syria with a continually changing “red line.” Now that it’s been crossed, Obama wants the US to bail him out by doing another failed preemptive war.

Been there, done that. Both Bush presidents preemptively attacked Iraq. The first attack was to protect disputed oil fields and Saudi Arabia. The second was for possession of weapons of mass destruction and retaliation for Iraq’s participation in the terroristic plane attacks against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

President Bill Clinton, the presumed greatest politician, chimed in with his own preemptive attacks in Kosovo and Africa. CIA and individual intelligence was lacking. They claim that the Sudan Factory was the wrong target for US cruise missile – the demolished plant allegedly manufactured aspirin and pharmaceuticals, not chemical weapons. US Intelligence claimed the plant was financed by bin Laden, who was responsible for embassy bombings.

Obama has always touted the Afghanistan War as the “Good War.” Redundantly speaking, Benjamin Franklin, a week after the Revolutionary War wrote to a friend, “There never has been a good war or a bad peace.” But what does America do but turn it on its head as it is always “good wars and bad peace.”

Good, bad, or indifferent results in Afghanistan and Iraq have now turned back 180 degrees to conditions that existed prior to US attempts at revenge and democratization. Twelve years and $6 trillion later, there have been over 6,000 US military deaths and near 50,000 serious injuries – yet the US is back to square one in this morass.

But President Barack apparently does not see or understand the rule of unforeseen consequences and makes every effort to do more of the same insanity. Obama seeks Congressional approval for his proposed attack on Syria, countermanding his modus operandi of issuing Executive Orders and other run-arounds without seeking Congressional approval.

Obama, without Congressional approval, involved himself to unseat Egyptian President Muhammad Hosni El Sayed Mubarak. From there, Obama supported NATO attacks against Libya – without Congress. But now with Syria, after the UK refused to participate, Obama needs an accomplice, and – voila – Congress comes to mind for authorization, though he insists he doesn’t need Congress.

Evidently America has not learned from history and keeps repeating the erroneous wars that followed the end of WWII. Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again but expecting different results” – as in the case of getting involved in debilitating wars that have not been in response to attacks against the US, but based on attacks within Islamic sects of Sunni versus Shiite.

American leadership is sorely lacking and none is coming from the Obama administration. Recall the semantic blunders of Secretary of State John Kerry who recently asserted, “This wouldn’t be a war in the ‘classic sense.’ Except, maybe it would – he also said, "There might be ‘boots on the ground’ if it turns into a disaster,” then flip-flopped by stating, “There absolutely won’t be any boots on the ground.”

Asked if anyone in the intelligence community doubted the Assad regime’s culpability in deploying chemical weapons, Kerry replied: “I have no knowledge of any agency that was a dissenter.” Politicians take double-speak to embarrassing extremes.

President Obama followed up by claiming he did not draw those infamous “red lines.” Blatantly ignored is the tradition of serial liars who deny, though there is overwhelming audio and visual evidence of Obama delivering the actual “red line” words.

The full Senate has yet to take up the issue but with midget-mind dictator Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulls the Democrat war strings while fervent war-happy Republicans are eager to get on board. Republican members are egged-on by GOP Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and reinforced by Senator Bob Corker, ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who sided with Committee Chairman Bob Menendez as they agreed to authorize use of military force against the Assad regime in Syria.

But what a difference a day and change of controlling political party makes, as Senator Menendez said, “I voted against the war in Iraq and strongly support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. But today, I support the President’s decision to use military force in the face of this horrific crime against humanity.” Disingenuous to say the least.

House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor already expressed support for military action in Syria as Boehner urged Republicans to support Obama: “Assad’s Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, is the epitome of a rogue state, and it has long posed a direct threat to American interests and to our partners.”

Democratic Senators have always been against the Bush wars but are in the tank for Obama and his wars in Egypt and Libya. But with the House GOP joining Democrats pushing for action in Syria, it appears America is in the tank and in the middle of perpetual violence of Muslim against Muslim.

FDR made a similar mistake in WWII when he invaded Germany, diverting Nazi resources from a head-to-head death struggle of evil dictator Hitler against evil dictator Stalin. Admittedly, the consensus is that neither the US nor any other Western Power can differentiate the so-called good guys from the bad guys. In that scenario, “Discretion is the better part of valor.”

Charles Payne writes, “The Obama Doctrine is clear; we will not fight protracted wars or put boots on the ground but will sway and manipulate outcomes by lobbing bombs from destroyers or using drones. You rack up a lot of kills that way but don’t win wars. Moreover, it’s very haphazard, creating excessive civilian casualties but that’s for people like the Nobel committee to consider, not bleeding heart Americans who apparently go into hiding when there isn’t a Republican in the White House. We are simply going to teach Assad a lesson.”

Some lessons are learned the hard way, and that unfortunately is the American way since at least the 1940s. Unforeseen consequences include unknown but certain reaction from Syria, Iran, Russia, and perhaps China as well. Not to be ignored is the reaction toward Israel who will face attacks from all sides, including Palestinians within and without Israel. Too bad this is not simply a science fiction movie with all related sound and visual effects and $15 popcorn.