Tuesday's show was devoted in large part to whether Congress should endorse President Obama's request for a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF"), a Congressional action sought and received by President Bush just prior to launching the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Most of this week's and next week's programming will be on the same topic. This is one of those issues to which it is impossible to devote too much time.
Call this AUMF 2.0 and count me as a supporter for reasons I have discussed here and elsewhere. I think eventually a majority of both the House and Senate GOP caucuses will support the AUMF 2.0, but not all opponents of the resolution will be isolationists last seen holding signs for Ron Paul outside of the Tampa Bay GOP convention. Some, like my guest last night, Victor Davis Hanson, have worries about the "second order impacts" of a weak strike on Syria with such a weak president at the helm. To be sure, the "SMAERLs" --"the social media amplified extremists of right and left"-- are flooding every zone with their far right or far left views, but there are some legitimate arguments against voting for the feckless president's latest zig-zag, and VDH made them on my show last night. The snarls of the SMAERLs shouldn't obscure the need to answer the responsible critics and doubters of the action, and the House GOP should, if possible, make the AUMF 2.0 worth voting for in the eyes of these critics. Winning the support of folks like Hanson and Townhall's Kurt Schlichter is a crucial task ahead for the House GOP leadership, because by doing so they will be winning the key opinion leaders of the doubters.