The Politics of an American Attack on Syria

You know the main reason why some Democrats support a potential strike on Syria is because the president ordering the attack is a Democrat. If it were a Republican president the likes of Bush or McCain, they’d be up-in-arms about it. Likewise, the only reason why some Republicans oppose such a strike is because it’s a Democratic president at the helm and they have the opportunity to use is as a stick to chip away at Democrats’ legitimacy in preparation for the next election. But my hat goes off to those from the same party as the president, such Congressman Grayson, who went against their party leader. He couldn’t be more on point here.

This entry was posted in Syria. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Politics of an American Attack on Syria

  1. PB says:

    Obama’s presidency ended this week.
    He looks absolutely terrible if he does not attack.
    He will look even worse if he does attack.
    He will lose all credibility with the congress and his second term will be spent eating ice cream at the 1600 Pennsylvania ave.

    Having said that, I think Obama realized that a strike on Syria was going to unleash the dogs of war and he would not be able to control it. So, before taking the nation to Syria then to Lebanon and onto Iran, Obama decided to put the issue to congress and let AIPAC and other dogs fight their battles. He made the right call, but the consequences to his Presidency are final.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>