The Debate On Whether To Attack Syria Is Essentially Over (With Update)

All that is left now is the actual launching of the missiles (via Politico):

The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC is planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, sources said Thursday.

Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon. They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that “barbarism” by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would “send a message” to Tehran that the U.S. won’t stand up to hostile countries’ efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group.

Everybody knows that pretty much every Republican in Congress -- excluding perhaps some of the more radicalized members of the Bagger contingent -- would fully support an attack on Syria except for one thing:  President Blackenstein currently occupies the White House and he not only supports strikes against Syria but is actively pushing for them.

What this means is that, prior to today, there would have been no way in hell that a majority of Republicans in Congress would vote to strike Syria because that would be doing what Obama wants and there is no way Republicans would ever support Obama on anything, even on ideas that the GOP had previously supported (i.e., Pay-Go, the Bipartisan Deficit Commission, the Individual Health Care Mandate, Cap and Trade, trying terrorism suspects in federal court, and on and on and on).

But today's AIPAC announcement changes everything.  Prior to today, one of the biggest gripes from Republicans with regard to Obama's foreign policy is the President's intense hatred of Israel.  Even the Idiot Palin has weighed in on this issue.  But now we have a situation where Israel agrees with Obama on an issue, and the only way the GOP can oppose Obama on his desire to attack Syria is if Republicans also oppose Israel on the very same issue.

And that just ain't gonna happen.

UPDATE:  Here are examples of two Republicans who were for striking Syria before they were against our first black president's plan to attack that country:

In another example of the pressures facing Republican congressmen, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) is backing off an earlier public statement of support for limited military action in Syria. Coffman’s initial support for the plan, which came before President Barack Obama asked for congressional approval, unequivocally supported a limited military strike in retaliation for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons, but now Coffman says he’s undecided as the vote approaches. ***

Coffman isn’t the only House member to back away from supporting an attack. Also on Thursday, Roll Call reported that Rep. Michael G. Grimm (R-NY) was withdrawing his support from Obama’s plan to attack Syria.

Don't get me wrong -- racism is a really bad thing.  But sometimes it causes incredibly hilarious things to happen, and this is one of them.  Both these guys are going to have to flip-flop again now that Israel supports Obama's plan to attack Syria.  At the very least, the Congressman from New York will have to re-change his position.