Politico Really Concerned That The GOP Isn’t In Favor Of Bombing Syria

In fact, they think we’ve become downright Doveish

Hawkish GOP taking dovish stance on Syria

Of all the unexpected turns in the Syria debate, one stands out most: The GOP, the party of a muscular national defense, has gone the way of the dove.

A decade after leading the country into Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans have little appetite or energy for a strike aimed at punishing Bashar Assad for allegedly gassing his own people. To the contrary, many of the party’s lawmakers are lining up to sink President Barack Obama’s war authorization vote.

Of the 279 Republicans currently in the House and Senate, 83 were also serving in October 2002. All of them voted to give George W. Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Now, just 10 of those 83 have come out in support of striking Syria. Most of the others have expressed serious reservations or are leaning against voting for the authorization.

That the shift has many possible causes — the enormous toll of American lives and taxpayer dollars exacted by two faraway wars since 2001, the antagonism toward a Democratic president, the very different circumstances in Syria than Iraq — makes it no less remarkable. From the Vietnam War through the Cold War and into Afghanistan and Iraq, an aggressive foreign policy has been as much a part of the Republican Party’s identity as low taxes and opposition to abortion.

From there, Politico states that Syria really isn’t Iraq, but, hey, Republicans were all for that adventure, but must be big meanies for not wanting to engage in a super limited air strike on Syrian government property, with the targets having been leaked. I’m surprised that the raaaaacism meme didn’t rear its head.

But politics is also unquestionably at play. The GOP’s resistance has to do not just with the proposed mission but who’s leading the charge. Having Obama making the case instead of Bush, makes a difference.

Well, yeah, but not because Obama’s a Democrat, but because he’s a horrible Commander In Chief (among other things). How’d Libya work out? Not well. Not well at all. Syria has little to no impact on our national security, except in that Obama has made the U.S. look weaker. But, really, most world leaders understand that it’s Obama who is weak, not America. The GOP understands that the strikes will do virtually nothing.

But, notice that many of the memes in the media have been aimed at harming the GOP politically. Anyone want to bet that this is exactly what Obama wanted when he decided, at the last minute in a decision that surprised the heck out of all his advisers, to shuffle the responsibility over to Congress?

Crossed at Right Wing News, The Gateway Pundit, and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “Politico Really Concerned That The GOP Isn’t In Favor Of Bombing Syria”

  1. david7134 says:

    There is something to all this that we are not being told. Notice that the talking points all reference children being killed. Any time that the Dems start of the children, they are attempting to put something over on you. Then there is the concept of the use of toxic gases. These nuts in the Middle East have been using these gases for at least 50 years. I think that about 100,000 were killed in the Iraq/Iran war with gas alone. Now to suddenly be a concern for the US! It does not jive. Then, the new talking points and subliminal references have to do with Hitler using poison gases. Any time they start using the Hitler theme, it is the same as the children bull. Note that Hitler only use poisons in death chambers and only after his men tired of shooting people in the head, except for the use of carbon monoxide on the retarded before WWII. But the US was trying similar thinks at the same time.

    Now there is the concept of gas. It is a horrible weapon. Not because it is effective, but because it is ineffective, hard to deliver and frequently effects your own troops. Plus, the use of gas is easily avoided by the enemy. Then there is the emotional reaction to its use, which we see now. It does not make sense for a state to use this stuff, now for the rebels to use it, that makes sense.

    Then we have Assad and Putin appearing in public and talking. Both look stronger and more trustworthy than the big O. When O met Putin at the G20, I thought I was doing to be physically sick. Putin owned the guy and clearly dominated him. I suspect Putin bitch slapped him in the 20 minute meeting that they had. The US has come off looking very weak over this episode. But what bothers me is why they are doing this? It is much like the misdirection on the anti-Muslim video last year. Which reminds me, we are going to attack a country that is killing its own citizens, but we did nothing to an attack in Libya???

    Ralph Peters is a very good military analysis. He says that we should stay out of this civil war as it is Muslims killing Muslims, that is a perfect situation.

  2. Scared_Of_My_Gumballs says:

    How did Iran work out? How did Egypt work out? How did Nigeria? How did Mexico? How did Russia work out?

    And yeah, HUGE differences between Syria and Iraq. Syria never kidnapped or killed Americans. Syria never went decades violating hundreds of UN resolutions. Granted, Syria is harboring terrorists. But, Syria’s hardline islamic terrorists are attacking Syria. That’s not our fight.

    Iraq war was about fighting terrorism.
    Syria is about aiding, arming, and abetting terrorism.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8549 access attempts in the last 7 days.