So you want to bomb Syria? Say you need to bomb it in order to prevent further use of chemical weapons?
We criticized you for months (even years) for failing to militarily intervene in Syria and to bomb, but now that you want to do so for some silly reason other than manliness, we oppose you, cause you're Barack Obama, you're black and you won twice. Yes, we love to whistle Dixie in the Republican Party! Now if Romney were President, we'd bomb, bomb, bomb and send in troops. Lot of money to be made by our pals in the MIC with a good quagmire. But you ain't the white guy, so we oppose you.
But we can make a deal. How bad do you want to "deter" use of chemical weapons? Well?
Republicans on Sunday sought to tie recent military funding cuts to the current debate over authorizing military force in Syria in response to that government’s alleged use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.
“The president in the last couple years has done the surge in Afghanistan while cutting the military budget, flew missions over Libya while cutting the military budget, changed to a Pacific strategy while cutting the military budget and now this,” House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’re asking them to do more with less.”
Congress’s inability to agree to a budget deal last year set in motion the across-the-board spending cuts under sequestration that have affected many agencies as well as the Defense Department.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) echoed McKeon’s argument on CNN, saying “repeatedly this president is saying do more with less even to the point that the day before he starts saying let’s go to war with Syria, he cuts their pay.”
Washington Monthly
President Obama could gain support for his plan to attack Syria if he were to strike a deal with Republicans who want him to end defense spending cuts, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Sunday.
Wash. Times: Rep. ‘Buck’ McKeon: Obama can win Syria votes by undoing sequester cuts
Now they are openly floating ending the sequester on defense spending for a vote to bomb. Can defunding Obamacare be far behind? Cutting food stamps? This is the "principled" Republican opposition.
There are many good reasons not to engage in military action. At a minimum, a last attempt at diplomacy with the Russians may be worthwhile.
There certainly is no reason to give in to Republican demands for tradeoffs. The vote should be on its merits.