And the Guardian quote from the Mayor of Qaim was revealing. But I couldn’t work out whether he meant Syrian troops were surrounding Al Bukamal before or after the American visit.

Also, he has consistently been pretty supportive of Syria (possibly because of tribal connections with his Al Bukamal counterparts?).

Obama has said nothing about Sunday’s strikes in Syria (a silence that has rightly earned him taunting from the McCain campaign). On one level, this new policy conflicts with Obama’s stated desire for opening up diplomatic channels to places like Tehran and Damascus. On the other hand, this is precisely the type of policy that he has repeatedly promised at least for Pakistan, whose territory is believed to host Osama bin Laden: If America has actionable intelligence on al Qaeda leaders, and the country housing those terrorist sits on its hands, we will act. His campaign rhetoric has now become the official war policy he will inherit. Is this a development that pleases him?

Excellent as always. You place America's action in the proper perpective, something that the Western media almost never does. Their impulse is that American action is always justified until proven wrong.

With regards to Obama, you keep mentioning his statement about attacking Pakistan. I think you have to put this in the context of election propaganda. He was, after all, running against the uber-patriot-hero.

The is a good NYT profile of Obama's personality traits: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/weekinreview/26kantor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. It makes me hopeful that his actions as president will not include "spiteful" attacks like the one Bush-Cheney engage in.