Originally Posted by Taco John
Even if I was a hawk on Syria, I can't imagine what kind of Republican would be so foolish as to want to give this president any more rope to hang ourselves with by authorizing him to intervene in this civil war. Anyone who supports or votes thier approval on this ends up sitting in the boat next to what is easily one of, if not THE worst commander in chief in American history.
I would think even a Syria hawk would want to put this guy on the sidelines as much as possible and hope for the best, rather than giving him authorization and expecting the worst.
The counter argument is that for someone who thinks it's absolutely in our interest to remove Assad and prevent his WMD from falling into the hands of either Hezbollah or al Qaeda, a vote to support action at least preserves the chance that Obama can achieve these strategic goals whereas a vote against him almost certainly eliminates that possibility.
I'm not convinced by that argument because I have zero faith in Obama as a leader or a strategic thinker and because Obama himself has promised to limit his involvement to a shot across the bow or just enough to avoid being mocked and I'm not interested in supporting that nonsense. I vote no confidence, not because I think non-intervention is best for our interests but because Obama is a failure.
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will