WASHINGTON — In the annals of dishonest Washington debates, the question of whether to strike the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons is notable for its breathtaking incoherence. Nor is this dubious distinction confined to one side of the aisle; both Democrats and Republicans have resorted to distortions and lies to further their cases for and against a limited intervention of the kind proposed by President Barack Obama. Among those against the notion of any intervention in Syria, there have been a variety of rationales articulated.Among them, a U.S. missile strike against Syrian chemical weapons-related targets will ignite a larger war in the Middle East; intervention will inevitably involve the commitment of ground troops; chemical weapons were not used by Assad’s forces but by the rebels; and most credibly, we have no dog in this fight.