If there was any humor to be found in the Syrian situation (and really, there isn’t) it would come from congressional Republicans. Let’s hear from North Texas Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe (the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee) back on May 9th:

“At stake for U.S. national security, our partners in the region and for the future of the Syrian people are over 1,000 tons of chemical weapons that could end up in the hands of terrorists….  A solution to Syria will not be easy. Enforcing a no-fly zone, even a limited no fly zone, has many risks including ineffectiveness against low flying attack aircraft, misidentifying civilian aircraft, and the potential for escalation. Boots on the ground could accelerate the growth of extremist influence and create more support for Assad rather than hasten his removal. But just because the choices before us are hard doesn’t mean the United States has the luxury of sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing.

It’s more important now than ever that President Obama step up and exhibit the leadership required of the commander in chief. It’s time he clearly articulate a plan to help stem the violence, lead the international community, and demonstrate to Assad that his barbaric actions have consequences. Continued inaction by the president, after establishing a clear red line, will embolden Assad and his benefactors in Tehran to continue their brutal assault against the Syrian people…. Doing nothing encourages bad actors to take larger gambles in an unstable region. Assad, and the rest of the world, must clearly understand that crossing an American red line has consequences”

Damn that Obama, he just won’t step up to protect Syrian civilians and do what’s necessary for freedom.

Senator James Inhofe, Pro-Intervention Republican

Then, of course, President Obama started exhibiting “the leadership required of the commander in chief” just like Inhofe demanded. And since Obama was for intervention, then it clearly had to be not only the wrong thing to do, but also a reckless, dangerous, anti-freedom thing to do. Here’s Inhofe yesterday:

“We know that an attack on Syria could have repercussions on Israel, but no one is talking about the decimation of our military. Today, we can afford to launch 30 cruise missiles into Syria, but we cannot ignore that such an attack on another country is an act of war. The state of our military today cannot afford another war.”

Damn that Obama, he’s not willing to protect our fragile military and do what’s necessary for freedom.

Senator James Inhofe, Anti-Intervention Republican

Anybody can change their mind, of course. Sometimes, after consideration and reflection, a person might realize that their earlier position was flawed. So maybe Senator Inhofe simply had a change of heart; maybe his response wasn’t just a partisan attack on the president.

Senator James Inhofe, Uncomfortably Confused Republican

But nope. After supporting some sort of military action, Inhofe now opposes some sort of military action…except that he believes we have a responsibility to engage in some sort of military action.

“As a superpower, we have a responsibility to follow through on what we say and ensure the security of our allies and partners. We must also ensure our military has the means to fulfill those responsibilities. Our president has failed to live up to those responsibilities.”

Damn that Obama, he’s…he’s…damn him.

There are principled arguments to make against any military strike in Syria. There are principles arguments to make in favor of it as well. Then there’s the modern Republican argument, which makes up in passion what it lacks in principle. They are fervently, ardently, zealously opposed to anything Obama is for.