OK, everybody switch sides, and let all the hypocrisies cancel each other out:
The White House faces a tough task in convincing a majority in the House and Senate to approve authorization for a military strike against Syria.
The administration is pulling out all the stops to convince Congress, but Democrats and Republicans alike are seeking more answers from the White House on the U.S. mission in Syria.
Everybody who decried Bush going into Iraq, by all means praise the president's resolve and humanitraian impulses. All those who supported Bush, be sure to be out there early and often saying the president is passing the buck to Congress. May the hawks lie down with the doves, and let there be peace, amen.
I'm as skeptical of this intervention as I have been of most -- I don't think he's made a very good case that there's a reason to strike Syria or even that he has a strategic purpose in mind. But I've complained often on the editorial page about presidents committing this country to military action without bothering to seek congressional approval, so I must say that I at least appreciate Obama putting the matter up for a vote. Yes, I understand that he is first and foremost a politician and undoubedly has some brazen motive for the move, but the case for a strike still needs to be argued on its merits, in open congressional hearings with an informed electorate the ultimate objective.