By Jove..

...I think she's got it.

Kathleen Parker is antsy for this "pre-war chitchat" to wrap up, so we can get the men in the world-protecting business back to work already...

There is certainly merit to discussing military action carefully in advance of deployment, but such lengthy, often confusing, verbal perambulations as we’ve witnessed the past several weeks — stressing the urgency of taking action while repeatedly postponing action pending fill-in-the-blank — do create fresh sets of problems.

The debate of late has most closely resembled a busy mom’s calendaring challenge: Let’s see, we can’t vote to strike until after Labor Day vacation — and the president’s speech can’t be on Monday because the Redskins are playing and, no, not Wednesday either because 9/11 is too fraught.

But she's catching on...

The sense created by so much clearing of throats has been that one is not quite certain of one’s intentions, and, therefore, one’s rationale for war. President Obama’s reticence is understandable but also disconcerting. Creating and then moving a “red line” is inherently problematic and otherwise lacking in, shall we say, clarity. Another hitch, commensurate with the preceding, is a rising trust deficit among the American people, not to mention the world, followed by a lack of will. If war is not urgent, as this one seems not to be, then perhaps war is not necessary.

...and mama is not happy. Feel the snark, people:

If war is not urgent, as this one seems not to be, then perhaps war is not necessary.

Imagine, as a dead poet once crooned.

Oh, ouch. *sting.* Back at it:

Then there is this appealing thought: Once nations reach the point of talking a war to death, rather than fighting one to the death — a coalition of the unwilling — aren’t they participants in some sort of tipping point? We talk ourselves out of things all the time. Why not talk ourselves out of war?

She does get a few things right, sprinkling in these bon mots to her sour-candy party*:

Despite assurances to the contrary, no one really believes that our engagement with Syria will consist of a few strategic, limited strikes, especially given Assad’s promise to (counter)retaliate.

Yes, there seems to be a tiring tit-for-tat pattern of destruction developing in this continual state-of-war region, with very few winners and plenty of displaced 'losers'...

And America keeps shaking its head. No.

Again, she's spot on...

The trust deficit is not a new problem, and it certainly can’t be blamed entirely on Obama.

*Ding, ding, ding*...

Can intelligence ever be trusted again when rationalizing military action against a sovereign nation?

We are so close to a win here, I can smell the chicken dinner in the air...

The clamor for support from all quarters, including Moscow and Damascus, has been somewhat breathtaking. Was that all it took?

Good faith negotiations -- working with those willing to work with you, aboveboard -- can work wonders... Weally.

It is too soon to declare war avoided, but there is reason to hope.

And, some find, to have faith and believe.

God Bless America, again...