Well, of course, Obama is the party leader and I expect all the sycophants to line up and support the president.
They have to fall in line. He’s got the goods on all of his opponents.
I Think many here are being too hard on Boehner over this issue. I am no Boehner fan and hope he gets a viable primary challenger in 2014 because of his lack of a backbone and willingness to fight over the truly important issues like Obamacre and the debt ceiling. However, there are two valid sides to the Syria wmd argument.
Pro attack:
1. US credibility is on the line and that really matters in the Middle east (It was naive of Obama to draw a red line in the sand, but that boat sailed a year ago)
2. Iran may become emboldened if we fail to act.
3. Assad is a petty dictator, human rights violator and war criminal. He deserves anything we do to him.
Con attack:
1.It could cause a wider war in the region. The US could be more deeply drawn in and forced to put American lives on the line.
2. There may be no good guys in the Middle East to support. We don’t want to be AL Qaeda’s air force.
3. The attack will cost US taxpayers money and strain an already strained US Military.
These are just a few of the pros and cons, but the issue is hardly a clear cut one from a Conservative point of view. It is more clear if you are a Libertarian. Of course some would argue it is a ruse and the rebels may have launched the attack. If the intelligence reports are accurate, that issue has been settled.