The intellectualism. The nuance. The insight. It’s overwhelming me.
Isn’t this an interesting collection of folks right here. What does it take to get a Republican to be against an airstrike? What does it take a Republican to be against a war or confrontation? Correct me if I’m wrong, folks, you can do it on Twitter — don’t the Republicans always run on the foreign policy that they are the experts? That the Democrats are weak, and that they are the ones that are so concerned about America’s security? You know, as the evidence comes in about the use of chemical weapons, how can they oppose the president? And a growing number of far right-wing Republicans are coming out and opposing an airstrike on Syria? Believe it or not, the righties like Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio and Michele Bachmann. And then, of course, there’s Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Expert. They are saying no to an airstrike on Syria — and I agree with them. But for, of course, completely different reasons folks. The Republicans, they don’t hate war. They hate this guy: Barack Hussein Obama. They just cannot stomach the fact that they might be agreeing with him, ’cause they’d have a lot of trouble back home. They have fought this president, obstructed this president, their whole focus is to make him a failure. How in the world can they support him on going up against Syria? The level of spite in conservative hearts for this president is the only reason they are against war for the first time ever.
Yes, because as all of us here know, Republicans are unabashedly for war in and of itself, and not actually for the long-term goals and careful military reasoning behind war (which, by the way, the president is very much lacking in this case). Duh.