We saw the first solid signs of conservative resistance to the latest
Vichy Republican collaboration with the Obammunists when
Rep Matt Salmon (R-Az) said Wednesday that authorization for attacking Syria 'will fail by 20 votes' in the House. And although there's enough support in the Senate, even enthusiastic interventionist Marco Rubio wanted nothing to do with Obama's aimless shot-across-the-bow...
'too late' he declared.
Sounds too good to be true- but dispirited clingers, take hope: feeble support for Dear Leader's misbegotten adventure indeed seems to be withering before our eyes, and despite typically overconfident Obama trash-talk, he finds himself in quite a hole:
If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose- and lose big. That’s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.Defeat would be 'historic' If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week - which is no sure thing- the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it.That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited (as is the House Speaker's -RR).The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress in a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.
Several Republican leadership aides, who are counting votes but not encouraging a position, say that there are roughly one to two dozen 'yes' votes in favor of military action at this time.
The stunningly low number is expected to grow a bit. But senior aides say they expect, at most, between 50 and 60 Republicans to vote with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who support the president’s plan to bomb Syria to stop Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons on his people. That would amount to less than one-third of the House Republican Conference....
Of course we expected emerging conservative leadership -i.e.Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Trey Gowdy- to be fighting this tooth-and-nail, yet now we've got wide swathes of the GOP middle -along with some antiwar libs like Kucinich- who are unwilling to support Obama's
loudly-trumpeted war plans in Syria.
In the wake of how Iraq went, most thinking persons want to at least know why we're going in there, for how long, and what we possibly hope to accomplish... how ironic it is then that the unqualified clown that got himself elected by trashing GWB's management of Iraq is the one who never learned a damn thing.
International support couldn't be weaker: the UN was a non-starter,
then our traditional brother-in-arms Britain handed squishy David Cameron a big NO. It spread from there, with basically nobody listening to Obama at all- isn't this the same pompous BS artist who said he was going to get the world to love us?
Yet this political battle's not over yet- not at all: there's still a lot of fence sitters, and the GOP tends to break towards the president in matters of national security. On the Dem side, never underestimate Nancy Pelosi's ability to whip-up votes, either.
That's why we DO need to keep the pressure up to make this a reality: please take a few moments to call, write, or email your congress-critter today to ensure they hear the voice of the people loud-and-clear: WE DO NOT WANT THIS WAR... and we're voting you out if you dare acquiesce to this vile regime's self-serving, misguided agenda.