Dana Milbank of The Washington Post now joins the New York Times and others who are trying to make the issue of whether to attack Syria a question of Republican support. Why should it be?
At some point the partisan press has to look reality in the face. The Democrats have a sizable majority in the Senate. It's up to them to find the votes there to support the policy of the President.
In the House the Democrats have a sizable minority, and there are at least 20 percent of the Republican House members willing to support a resolution in favor of a Syria attack. That 20 percent (40 some Congressmen) is plenty enough to assure passage--providing that the Democrats in the House support the President.
Get it? It's the Democrats' divisions that should be the focus of interest. It's the public heat the Democrats are feeling that is causing the President his heartburn.
Of course, if we had a bi-partisan foreign policy and Republicans and their insights had any purchase on this Administration's thinking--if they really were consulted--we'd be in a place where the President had a right to expect their help. The old saying is, if you don't want us on board for the take off, don't ask us on board for the crash landing.