Will Obama Really Get the Blame for a Syrian War?


McCainSyria2

That’s the argument that Bill Kristol makes and it’s credible enough as far as that goes.

A Yes vote is in fact the easy vote. It’s actually close to risk-free. After all, it’s President Obama who is seeking the authorization to use force and who will order and preside over the use of force. It’s fundamentally his policy. Lots of Democrats voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war. When that war ran into trouble, it was President Bush and Republicans who paid the price. If the Syria effort goes badly, the public will blame President Obama, who dithered for two years, and who seems inclined to a halfhearted execution of any military campaign. If it goes well, Republicans can take credit for pushing him to act decisively, and for casting a tough vote supporting him when he asked for authorization to act. . .

Sure that’s politics as usual. But there are a few things worth remembering…

When the Democratic Party turned on the war, it also turned on some of its more prominent senators who had supported it. The left seized the opportunity to carry out a purge of the party that twisted it to the left resulting in the Obama Reign of Error.

A Republican version of this might well be a successful resurgence of the Tea Party. All that assumes a prolonged and disastrous Syrian War with American casualties. But I still wouldn’t push expediency that far even if gains like these were assured.

But I think the suspect assumption is that politics as usual will operate.

Obama has yet to get the blame for anything in a way that sticks. He could invade Iraq a second time and the media would spend every hour of airtime insisting that it was Bush’s fault.

Senator McCain has made their work easy for them by repeatedly denouncing Obama for not going big enough. All those criticisms make it easy to blame the war on Republicans.

The more McCain acts like he wants a bigger war, the easier the media will find it to explain that it was all the fault of the Republicans. And a surprising chunk of the public will buy it.

Bush couldn’t have gotten away with blaming Hillary Clinton, but Obama could easily get away with blaming McCain.

  • Aizino Smith

    “When the Democratic Party turned on the war, it also turned on some of its more prominent senators who had supported it.’

    Please provide the names. I try to keep up, but obviously I have not. I would like to know which senators lost primaries or elections because the left went after them or withdrew support.

  • Veracious_one

    Obama who is seeking the authorization to use force and who will order
    and preside over the use of force. It’s fundamentally his policy

    any failures will be blamed on Bush and/or a Jewish conspiracy….

  • EarlyBird

    “…But I still wouldn’t push expediency that far even if gains like these were assured.”

    Oh sure you would, Danny. You are such an ugly, mean-spirited zealot, you would be fine with any tragedy which befalls the United States as long as you can blame it on Obama or the Democrats. You’re that hateful and sick.

    But what you miss is that such a debacle in Syria, whether it is blamed on Obama or anyone else, would make it far less likely for Americans and the next president, regardless of party, to strike Iran for your preferred nation of choice, Israel.

    Added bonus: Putin has rushed in to save Obama from himself on Syria, thereby taking the bloody, rancid mess of Syria off American hands. It may be that Obama is smart enough to let him, saving America from the debacle you’d love to pin on Obama.

    So either way, you lose.