Don’t you all remember in the buildup to the Iraq war when Republicans ran around fretting about poor George W. Bush facing shame and humiliation at the possibility of losing support? Yeah, neither do we. But now we have a so-called Commader-in-Chief with a spine of steel who is more concerned with saving face than he is about the possibility of drawing the United States into a wider conflict.
Curiously, President Me is suddenly all about sharing responsibility when he knows things could go disastrously wrong.
President Obama is struggling to convince lawmakers, foreign leaders and the public that military action in Syria isn’t about him.
Opponents of a military intervention in Syria say the president is trying to save face after declaring the use of chemical weapons a “red line” that should not be crossed.
The idea that Obama’s motives are political is taking hold on both the left and right, underscoring the challenge he faces in securing support for a risky military venture abroad.
“It sounds to me like saving face because he has made a promise, so he is going to follow through with his promise,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), an opponent of attacking Syria, told Fox News.
“That’s why you ought to be very careful about drawing lines in the sand, or red lines, because now he feels that he looks weak to both his colleagues in the United States as well as his international colleagues. I don’t think that is enough reason to go to war.”
The comedian Jon Stewart mocked Obama’s rationale for action in Syria this week, saying it boils down to, “We have to bomb Syria because we’re in 7th grade!”
Jokes aside, it’s strictly party loyalty and fealty to their Dear Leader why Democrats have overnight become bloodthirsty warmongers.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said that if a Syria resolution passes Congress, “it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats.”
“They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage,” Holmes Norton said on “The Bill Press Show.”