However unlikely that actually is, some of them still might get their chance.

The "strange bedfellows" part of this story are indeed strange.

The GOP hawks are drooling to throw bombs at anyone, so Syria is next on their list...even if it means they have to support Obama. Boehner, Cantor, McCain, and many others are on this list.

There's the TeaBaggers who wouldn't care if Assad was killing and eating babies, they don't give twoshits about anyone who's not white and stupid...Rand Paul leading the charge on opposing intervention for this squad.

The last group for the GOP is the one who is waiting for Obama to act...or not act...so they can advocate afterwards for whichever one Obama didn't do. This is probably the majority of Congressional Republicans.

On the Democratic side we've got those who will support Obama no matter what he does. We've also got the peaceniks who will oppose intervention for any reason...and lastly we've got those who will wait and see what their constituents say after the case and go with that.

The actual question of whether we should do anything there or not will rarely be discussed in any real terms.

A few observations from the last few days...if you are someone who supported a war in Iraq and now is against this, shut the fuckup. Shutthefuck up loudly. You are the worst kind of hypocrite. There are a ton of you on facebook flapping your jaws...STFU.

If you compare tossing cruise missiles at Syria with Vietnam or Iraq, then also you should STFU, because those comparisons are ridiculous on their face.

My position is that I oppose any acts of war of choice, or at least any war actions that do not have widespread international support (moral and financial)...that's why going into Iraq was stupid, and why doing this would be stupid, too.

Fish on...

Todd