A GOLF COURSE OUTSIDE WASHINGTON, DC — President Obama said today that he was ready to take military action against the University of California at Davis in retaliation for its alleged use of chemical weapons, but that he will seek the approval of Congress before carrying out any military strike.

Obama says congressional leaders have agreed to schedule a debate and vote when they return to session. They are scheduled to return from their summer recess on Sept. 9.

The president did not say whether he’d forgo a strike if Congress rejects his call to action.

“After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against UC targets, including Lieutenant John Pike,” Obama said. “This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.

“This attack is an assault on human dignity,” Obama said of the alleged Nov. 18, 2011 chemical assault against Occupy Wall Street protesters, which the U.S. intelligence community has linked to UC campus security. “It also presents a serious danger to our national security.”

American propaganda, especially during the build up to a military conflict, is always laughably simplistic. Today I would like to discuss the trope that American officials have of using the word regime to refer to any government with which it disagrees and has decided to target for war. No doubt you have noticed that the Obama administration now refers to the government of Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad as the “Assad regime.”

George W. Bush (who was not even legitimately elected, thus would properly be referred to as the head of “the Bush regime”) used the same linguistic construction when he wanted to attack Iraq after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

When a government is the enemy or foe or adversary of the United States, it becomes a regime. Which is also interesting because this used to be a left-wing construction. When it is an allied government, no matter how monstrous, it is a government.

So it is not the regime of Uzbekistani Pres. Islam Karimov, but rather the government of Islam Karimov. Silly but well worth noting. America relies on these Orwellian linguistic constructions almost as much as it relies on brute force to exercise its bullying ways throughout the world.

Gaping plot holes don’t prevent this nearly current espionage thriller from grabbing its audience and keeping them hooked all the way to its socially volatile ending. As the title hints, England’s CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) method of public [and private] surveillance comes into play during a case involving the terrorist bombing of Burough Market in central London. The trial of a foreign suspect plays out in a secret London court where romantically-linked defense attorneys (played by Eric Bana and Rebecca Hall) struggle to find the truth beneath a thick stack of government-propagated deceptions.

An interesting yet mostly unremarked upon consequence of Obama’s surprise decision to seek congressional authorization for attacking Syria is that it perversely has the effect of delegitimizing the role of Congress in making war as well as the separation of powers.

Let me explain.

If the legislative branch has equal weight with the executive – you know, the way the founding fathers intended, what you learned in school – then Obama’s statement that he has the right to attack Syria without congressional approval but is simply asking in order to have a vigorous debate makes him the head of a parliamentary monarchy, not a president. Students of history will recall that King Louis XVI recalled the monarchal French parliament, the Estates-General, in 1789 in order to propose solutions to his government’s financial problems. They were a consultative body. But they served at the pleasure of the king and could be disbanded by him.

The former University of Chicago law professor is essentially arguing that Congress exists as a consultative body, not one with equal powers to him. In fact, under the United States Constitution, Congress has far more warmaking powers than the president, and the oft-talked-about term “commander-in-chief”, under the meaning of the 18th century when it was written, was a largely ceremonial position.

It is true that many presidents, going back to the early 19th century, have usurped Congress’ role. However, that doesn’t make it legal. What Obama is doing goes even further than presidents who ignored or bypassed Congress. He is in effect saying that whether Congress is consulted or not is up to him. It is amazing that nobody sees this.

Bear in mind, the fact that Obama claims that he is doing this in order to respect democracy is belied by his attempt to get his British allies to ram through approval, only to have it turned down by Parliament. He wanted to do this without Congress, but he can’t do it without the British or any significant popular support among the American people. So in a sense, he is allowing the Republicans to take the blame for whatever happens or doesn’t happen in Syria due to action or inaction. It’s just another cynical move.

By attempting to rush the American people into a war in under a week, and undermining the basic separation of powers to an unprecedented extent, President Obama may well be the most dangerous chief executive who has led United States of America.

Obama says that the chemical weapons attack allegedly launched by the Syrian government is an attack upon human dignity and, if unpunished, would make a mockery of the international conventions against chemical weapons. I don’t understand. Don’t drone strikes (one killed at least three innocent Pakistanis yeaterday) consist of an attack upon human dignity? What about international conventions against torture, to which the United States is a signatory? Why doesn’t Guantánamo qualify as cause for international military action? He says we have to do something. Wouldn’t diplomacy qualify as more than doing nothing?

However, it is mighty white of him to grant permission to Congress to weigh in, thus getting their hands as dirty as his. The funny thing is, he is willing to wait for them to come back into session in September. Clearly, this is not an imminent threat against United States or Congress’ vacation would have to be cut short.

An unprovoked — remember, they’re no threat to us — U.S. attack against Syria seems inevitable. When will it happen? What form will it take? What happens next? Here are my bets.

Second answer first: I agree with everyone else that it will probably be a series of cruise missile strikes against Syrian military bases, radar facilities and government offices. There can and probably will be unforeseen secondary explosions, as when fuel supplies and arms depots blow up, and fire travels through gas lines under streets to destroy whole blocks. Civilian casualties will be substantial, in the hundreds. Not that Syrian army personnel deserve to be blown up for Obama’s ego, but the Western media doesn’t care about them.

First answer: Sunday East Coast time. Gives the UN time to withdraw their inspectors, who are leaving today, and takes advantage of the media blackout over the long holiday weekend here in the States. Belligerents typically take the weekend attack approach, especially when there is little support for the war they’re about to start.

As for next steps, Western “experts” are constantly predicting retaliatory attacks by U.S. victims and their allies. Though blowback is inevitable, it won’t come in such an obvious or immediate form. Nothing much will happen to the U.S. as a result. But it does take the U.S. down a dark yet familiar road of escalation. If cruise missiles attacks fail to deter Assad from using chemical weapons (which we don’t know that he did), then maybe we need to use greater force? If the rebels fail to gain an advantage, hawks will repeat the Libya argument that we need to do more to help them. And if the Qaeda-affiliated insurgents win, then we can attack them. More likely, this will further inflame anti-Americanism around the world, hasten a Talibanized Syria and turn the Middle East not into a fireball, but a series of increasingly sporadic wildfires. Good fun, just the way Washington policymakers like it.

Polls currently have war against Syria running about 50-50. Here’s everything you need to know about the American media: how many antiwar “experts” are we hearing from on CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews? I still haven’t seen a single one. Even Barbara Lee went on MSNBC yesterday to say that the case for bombing Syria was compelling, but she thought Congress should vote on it.

If history serves as precedent, Obama could use the long news blackout of the Labor Day weekend to launch an air war against Syria. Seems like a good time to look back at some cartoons that anticipated this moment – work about American intentions to attack Syria, and about militarism in general.

The U.S. is supporting Islamist rebels in Syria who are terribly reminiscent of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan:

As in the 1980s, we support them enough to win, not enough to make them like us:

Bush wanted to attack Syria in 2003:

And of course, there’s the bigger issue: