The Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt tries to find the bright spots in race relations, 50 years after the March on Washington; examines the increasing political role-reversal as we approach war with Syria; notes some bad news for Pennsylvania Republicans; and then gives some thoughts on the big question:

What Should We Do in Syria? If We’re Going to Strike, Strike the Right Way.
Push is coming to shove on Syria.
The editors:
After Assad’s last chemical attack, President Obama said he would arm more moderate elements among the rebels, but didn’t follow through. We should have covert forces on the ground arming, training, and advising the rebels with whom we can work, so we aren’t leaving the field to Arab governments with their own interests in influencing the nature of the rebellion.
Ramesh disagrees:
This is not a military action that we are undertaking to defend ourselves from attack or to protect a core interest. The congressional power to declare war, if it is not to be a dead letter, has to apply here. And it seems to me exceedingly unlikely that Congress would vote to commit us in Syria, because the public manifestly opposes it. This is a war with no clear objective, thus no strategy to attain it, no legal basis, and no public support. I dissent.
Speaker of the House John Boehner:
[Mr. President,] I respectfully request that you, as our country’s commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy. In addition, it is essential you address on what basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the exclusive authority of Congressional authorization under Article I of the Constitution.
A congressional resolution authorizing force would force the wishy-washy to come off the fence.
What would I recommend to the president? The world — meaning everybody, in every country, in peaceful places and in tense, brink-of-war places — needs dire, lethal consequences for using chemical weapons. Without those consequences, the temptation for other regimes and leaders will be too great. And as bad as bullets and bombs are, we do not want our kids growing up in a world where Sarin, VX, and mustard gas become commonplace weapons of war.
So, if we are certain that Assad’s regime used the chemical weapons . . .
“If [the rebels] have overrun an arms dump which had some of the agent, if a defector brought a limited amount with him, then it would explain why some of the signs and symptoms showed less toxicity than we expected,” said [Gwyn Winfield, the editorial director of CBRNe World, a magazine that covers biological and chemical weapons for the industry]. “That is a lot of ‘ifs,’ though.”
. . . and if we are certain that Assad authorized or ordered the use of chemical weapons (see above and below) . . .
U.S. intelligence officials were able to confirm that chemical weapons were used in Syria last week in part because they intercepted panicked phone calls in which a Syrian defense official demanded an explanation for the attack from an official in a chemical weapons unit, according to a new report.
. . . then it is in the national security interest for the United States to ensure that Assad pays a heavy price for using those weapons.
Of course, a good president isn’t afraid to go to Congress, making the case for his preferred course of military action, and a good president isn’t afraid to go to the American public to make the same case. A really good president isn’t afraid to do something that he knows is right, even though it might make him less popular.
Going to Congress and making the case to the nation would hopefully resolve Ramesh’s concerns about the lack of a legal basis and public support. (And if Congress refuses to authorize military force, the president shouldn’t pursue it. The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” — a threshold Syria simply does not meet.)
Presuming Congress signed on, I would urge the President and the Pentagon to look for something that mattered to Assad personally and bomb the crap out of it.
Someplace like, say, this:
Somewhere in there he’s got a Rolls-Royce or Ferrari he adores. The palace overlooks the city of Damascus — seeing the palace of the glorious, untouchable leader reduced to a pile of smoking rubble would indeed send a signal to everyone around the globe.