Rachel Maddow's show Thursday took another turn.

[No Elephants]

I thought this show was very useful in presenting courses of action affecting Syria other than war.

For one thing, nations supplying both sides with arms, etc. could stop, because they've only inflamed the situation.

There is diplomacy, of course.

Sanctions.

There were more suggestions along those lines from a rep of Amnesty International and others.

Again, we have no indisputable proof that Assad was responsible. We also have no indisputable proof that bombing is going to teach anyone a lesson.

[Enthusiast]

1. I want war to be the LAST resort.

War should always be the last resort.

Unfortunately the Neo-Cons want war to be the first choice. And they will lie their asses off to make it so. I didn't know the President was a Neo-Con. This illustrates how much we don't know.

Too bad about Rachel. She lost me forever. She insisted that anyone who harbored doubts about the official 911 story was an irredeemable conspiracy theorist. They cannot hide building seven. No matter what they do, the Neo-Cons cannot hide building seven. Their strategy is to tell us to stop speaking of it.

If you wonder why the nation is in such disarray. Why we have problems with the most mundane things like the debt ceiling and such. Look no further than to the Neo-Cons. These are the ones in control of your nation. They are the ones that allowed the banks to rob us blind. If they would attack their own nation they would do ANYTHING. I expect them to do something very bad before it is over. Some fabulous false flag operation. It could come any day.

[No Elephants]

2. I don't think Obama is a necon. I think he is a chameleon.

I think his principles and his politics adhere firmly to the principle of "I wanted to be President and I wanted to be re-elected. Now, I want a library and a legacy and I want to be as rich, popular and influential in my post-Presidency as Bubba."

I also think Obama is a persistently deceptive President, whether by technical truth, but nonetheless misleading, or half truth, or even demeanor. Or outright falsehood, though that does not seem to be his method of deception of choice, maybe because it's easier to get caught in a flat footed lie.

His red line statement, for example. His red line was going to be if bunches of chemical weapons were being moved around or used. Well, according to some sources, chemical weapons were used several times in Syria-culprits unnamed--before Obama said he'd bomb. But, since none of us can pin down what Obama meant by "bunches," Obama's original "red line" words were not necessarily a lie technically.

Indeed, for all we know, chemical weapons were used in Syrian by someone before Obama drew his red line and he knew it. Maybe the red line was his way of preserving his "right" to bomb Syria if and when he was ready to bomb Syria and "bunches" was his way of protecting himself, just in case anyone later pointed out that the chemicals had been used before his red line comments.

That's the problem with crying "wolf" and "go back and read my exact words" so often. I've been taught by him to take nothing he says at face value.