“Can Obama go to war in Syria without Congress?”
I’m assuming, after Libya, this is meant as a rhetorical question.
Because really, who’s going to stop him? The anti-war left isn’t really an anti-war left, save for a few fart-dusting sixties throwbacks. Instead, they are a progressive lockstep political movement that relies on antifoundationalism to bracket its own hypocrisies and rationalize its own ends-justify-the-means policies.
Here, Obama needs to save face. And to do so, he needs to lob a few missiles at Syria — though nothing too damaging — to show that he’s willing to do so. But not so much that he’ll do Syria any real harm, as he’s already made publicly clear, in one of the most ridiculous bits of political maneuvering I think I’ve ever seen or heard.
So the left will stand behind him.
And the right — save for people like John McCain and his cabal of statist frauds, who cheer on such a lawless departure from the check on warmaking power — will belly ache and grouse and grumble, but they’ll allow the funding, and then fund raise on the President’s imperialist penchant.
It’s all a dance. A puppet show. A farce.
There are no checks on government corruption save a public uprising or a return of virtue to the arena of politics.
So to answer the headline’s question, yes. So stop asking the question and let’s get on with doing something about what we all know the answer to be.