one thing's for sure: if a republican president proposed targeted strikes on syria,

[unblock]

not a single republican in congress would dream of voting against it.

moreover, they'd be calling anyone opposed to it an unamerican, dictator-loving traitor who supports gassing children.


but as usual, if obama is for something, republicans are against it.


the state of governance and political discourse in this country is abysmal.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. Agreed. It is sick.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Interesting how the vites was going to be andchow they blamed Obama for failing to convince

Americans of the need to strike Syria but jumped on invading Iraq, a bunch of cowards.

[Wilms]

3. We'd have fewer logic-challenged posts, too.

[Fumesucker]

8. Good point n/t

[markpkessinger]

4. That is true; but conversely . . .

. . . if it were a Republican proposing a missile strike against Syria, the opposition to it here on DU would be damn near universal.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. Right!

[MADem]

5. I think it's kind of amusing, how some GOP bozos will wipe their own asses with their

"Strong on defense" cred in order to dis the black guy in the WH.

It's like shooting a family member in the home of your enemy in order to ruin their white shag carpet, or something.

It's a thing they can't really walk back from!

[Fumesucker]

6. They did the same thing to Clinton and had no trouble walking that back all the way into Iraq

You might recall Wag the Dog.

[MADem]

11. Not really--the quality and focus were very different indeed. nt

[B Calm]

9. Republicans wrote the book on hypocrisy!

[RandiFan1290]

10. We'll have another publicon soon enough

You will hear them blame Obama for not taking Assad out for "gassing his own people"
Then the neo-con script can continue and it will be Iraq all over again. All publicons will vote for it and the same idiot dems will give them permission.