Jonathan Chait takes a look at the Syria Congressional Authorization situation from an aspect that I had not considered:
Imagine that Congress votes not to authorize Obama’s plan. Then further imagine that Bashar al-Assad, emboldened, carries out another chemical attack. The media coverage would be far more intense. And members of Congress who voted no will have to answer for the carnage that will appear on television screens across the world. If the first vote lost by a relatively narrow margin, Obama would probably then call for a second vote and stand a good chance of winning.
The prospect of that happening may itself deter Assad. And when Republicans complain that Obama’s gambit of asking for a congressional vote is a way of shifting responsibility onto Congress, they are, in a sense, correct. Obama will own the consequences of action with or without Congress’s approval. But if it disapproves, Congress will own the consequences of inaction. And those might ultimately prove higher than it is willing to bear.
Interesting. If you think Assad cannot be stupid enough to use them again, you ignore the fact that he was stupid enough to use them the first time.
Peace in our time? The Klan and the NAACP have a meeting. Next up, Israelis and Palestinians. Cats and Dogs.
Dana Milbank: “As [Sen. James] Inhofe’s conversion on the road to Damascus indicates, Republicans don’t like what Obama is doing in Syria — whatever it is.”
A Wyoming Republican U.S. Senate candidate has announced that if she were in the Senate today, she would not vote to attack Syria. The reason why? President Obama “has failed to develop a plan for intervention with defined goals.” The candidate’s name is Liz Cheney. My head just exploded. Peak Irony achieved.