MSNBC's Chris Matthews made some revealing statements on Morning Joe Wednesday morning. In order for President Obama to save face over his military strike in Syria, Matthews told host Joe Scarborough that "Democrats are going to be forced to sacrifice men and women who really, really don't want to vote for this" in order to "save the president's hide."
Evan McMurry of Mediaite reported on Matthews' comments, which were idiotic, but were at least honest. Syria is an issue that has finally rallied the parties together, united in opposition over the military strike. As the amazing Karen from the Lonely Conservative wrote sarcastically today,
"What a great reason to vote to go to war."
The emotional argument for military strikes have been made ad nauseum during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday on Syria, where John McCain was caught playing video poker. John Kerry "evoked images of innocent civilians suffering under Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons program," as observed yesterday at Liberty Unyielding. If the emotional argument is to be evoked, then wouldn't military strikes be justified wherever injustices occur?
At the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing today on Syria, there will likely be more of the same.
The plight of Coptic Christians, women and homosexuals in the Middle East are all but ignored. Christians who have been displaced in Nigeria by Boko Haram are barely reported. If chemical weapons alone are the "red line," where is the outrage over the disabled people and political "enemies" in North Korea, who are being subjected to "testing" with chemical weapons?
The issue is not whether or not one agrees that a dictator should use chemical weapons, as any sane person should agree that the murdering of innocent civilians is an outrage. But why is it that the indiscriminate murder by bombing or shooting is not just as bad as murder by chemical weapon?
The valid concerns that are shared by responsible members of both parties is surrounding the strategy and the goal of such an attack. How is it that advocates for a military strike on Syria have such confidence that militants do not already have access to these weapons? What happens after the military strike? If the end goal is that all chemical weapons are indeed destroyed, what will America do if Bashar al-Assad doubles down on the murder of innocent civilians using other weapons?
Is Chris Matthews' concern for President Obama's "hide" shared by Democrats who may vote for a military strike on Syria despite their valid concerns about the wisdom of such an action? In a rare moment of honesty, Matthews continues,
"When you hear Barbara Boxer, when you hear Jim Moran, you have to wonder what they would have said had it been a Republican president..."
President Obama famously made a speech in 2009 about Iraq being a "dumb war", saying in part that it was a "war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." How is Syria any different?
Watch the exchange here:
Image Source: Mediaite [screenshot]