(NOTE--I’m not asking the other side, because they’ll likely, predictably support whatever President Obama decides, even though, should it involve military action, would be counter to what they’ve always preached in the past. Hypocrisy is rampant among both sides, in case you hadn’t noticed.)
My question, then, is this: what would President Obama do or say tonight on Syria that would be “good” in the eyes of conservatives/republicans?Because I’m thinking he’s stuck between Iraq and a hard place. If he bombs, he’s doing it against the will of the people, at least according to some reports. If he thinks about it more or tries to use diplomacy, he’s indecisive. If he does nothing, he’s a wimp.
So I ask again, what would you have him do?
Don’t answer yet. First, consider, what would Mitt Romney have done? What would one of the Bushes have done? And would you have supported it, if it involved military action?
You might say “no,” but wouldn’t you at least have said, you have to admire him for being decisive, doing what he thought was right? Isn’t that a lot of what was said after no WMD’s were found in Iraq, by the staunchest Bush defenders?
And does that same logic apply to a Democratic president you hate?
Now, with regard to Syria, and what Obama should do, I’ll ask one last question that I’ll wager we all already know the answer to: what would Reagan have done?
I'll tell you:
Reagan would have gone on television a week ago, given us a serious turn to his folksy countenance, and then convinced us that it was time to be decisive, and act on the side of morality. And then he would have bombed the ever-lovin’ shit out of them— the bombers probably would have been in the air before the TV lights in the Oval Office cooled following the address.So, what should Obama do?
Beats me. But whatever he does, he’s going to get skewered by FOX News, even if he does the exact precise thing that St. Ronald of Tampico would have done.