President Obama may be having a hard time rallying the House to vote for war in Syria, but he's got some help with William Kristol's latest piece in the Weekly Standard.
=
Our friend begins with an obligatory statement of no confidence in President Obama, just to make absolutely clear that he's not some dirty liberal. He goes on to reason that if Republicans vote 'Yes', they will actually have higher ground to criticize the war when things go wrong later:
But voting Yes doesn’t preclude criticizing—indeed, it makes it easier to constructively criticize—much of what President Obama has done and will do in Syria and in the Middle East.
Hmm. That's some interesting reasoning. Sort of like those who voted for the Iraq war got all the credit for opposing it later? Moving right along, Kristol proceeds to play the 'if you vote No you love Rand Paul' card (hey, I think I've seen that one played here, too!), and then gives us this gem about how he thinks GOP representatives feel about this vote:
But they do believe the politics of this vote is awful. They believe, perhaps correctly, that President Obama has cynically thrown this ball into the lap of Congress in order to get Republican fingerprints on an action that may not succeed. They believe, correctly, that their constituents are against intervention. They believe, therefore, that the politically prudent vote is No.
They’re wrong.
Fuck representative democracy, am I right? Kristol goes on to explain that if Republicans vote Yes, Obama will still get the blame if things go wrong (probably true), but that they'll get the credit if things go right. Then he pulls an interesting maneuver, probably one of the fanciest leaps of logic I've read in a while, explaining why congressmen and women whose constituents are firmly against the war should vote for it anyway:
A Yes vote seems to be statesmanlike. (Actually, it happens also to be statesmanlike, but we’re now talking politics.) Establishment foreign policy voices, including conservative ones, may not move voters—but they do have some pull in the media and with influentials across the country. Casting a “tough” political vote is a way for members of Congress to appear to be rising above mere party politics. In fact, many voters do like to think they’re voting for someone who has at least a touch of statesmanship, and so casting what appears superficially to be a politically perilous vote could well help the stature of Republicans with many of their constituents back home.
Okay, so the first part of this is a not-so-thinly veiled "fuck the average voter, what do the big military-industrial complex donors want?", but then he tries to backtrack and say that this will be seen as 'statesmanlike' and actually help with average voters back home, too. Kristol goes on to explain that yes, a vote for the war may be very damaging with your Republican constituents, BUT there's plenty of time to be an asshole before 2014's elections:
What’s more, primary elections are more than half a year away. Republican senators and congressmen will have plenty of time to reestablish their anti-Obama credentials by fighting Obama on Obama-care, immigration, the debt ceiling, and a host of other issues.
Lovely. But we're not done yet, this next bit is the most amazingly out of touch paragraph I've read in years.
A Yes vote can also be explained as a vote to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Syria is an Iranian proxy. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons is a proxy for Iran’s ability to move ahead unimpeded in its acquisition of nuclear weapons. To bring this point home, soon after voting to authorize the use of force against the Assad regime, Republicans might consider moving an authorization for the use of force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
(Emphasis mine). That's right folks, Americans aren't tired of wars in the middle east, we just think this particular war is too small, we've gotta think big and invade Iran!
I don't know, folks. Sounds like a slam-dunk to me, I'm consistently impressed by Bill Kristol's ability to keep up with the pulse of the average American. To sell this war, we just need to promise an even bigger war after it with Iran. It's so logical now that I have it laid out in front of me like this.
What do you think? Can we expect the Republican house members to start flooding in those 'Yes' votes now?