Are you effing kidding me?
As President Obama moves forward with plans to punish the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, the battle for war resolve in Congress is coming down to the American grassroots – in particular, a tea party movement emerging as arguably the country’s strongest anti-war voice. ...
The idea of right-wing conservatives heading up anti-war protests is eye-opening, though critics question whether it’s a genuine philosophical viewpoint or simply more political obstructionism of Obama’s agenda.
Critics question its legitimacy?
I don't stand with this anti-war movement. But given the complete absence of the Democratic "anti-war" movement in this war debate--indeed, its disappearance since January 2009--I'm not so sure that defenders of the president are on the strongest ground when they want to argue whether political opposition invalidates war opposition.
Good God, people, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama in launching air and missile strikes on a Baathist, WMD-using dictatorship! Where's the legitimacy question on that pivot?
Yeah, I'm sure opposing direct military intervention in Syria is racist, or something. To be fair, the media-Democratic complex is still trying to figure out the right angle to cover this debate. So this is a fine effort.
Just shut up, right?
UPDATE: There's Code Pink in action with the communists:
They ooze legitimacy, eh?
As for Republicans who oppose the President, is it really politics or--as some allege--racism that prompts opposition? Or even growing isolationism?
Couldn't it just be that these opponents of war just believe that President Obama couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel?
Seriously, just who has the legitimacy question in this crisis?
