Did this picture just get retroactively less awkward? (Guneev Sergey/Getty Images) Did this picture just get retroactively less awkward? (Guneev Sergey/Getty Images)

Previously, on PostScript, things got incredibly weird. President Obama wanted to bomb Syria, Congress didn’t want to and somehow Vladimir Putin was saving the day with a diplomatic solution, if we can believe him. Now, PostScript just saw an Agence France-Presse tweet that Syria wanted to sign onto the chemical weapons ban treaty. Yes, we were warned the Syria situation was complicated, but not that it was located in…the Twilight Zone.

In other news, a prominent, conservative Texas politician takes to the oped page to argue that Syria isn’t a threat to America and it’s unclear what exactly a military strike would solve, so until we have a complete plan, as much as he supports the President, he won’t vote to authorize missiles and stuff.

In what seems like Bizarro 2003, Texas Senator Ted Cruz is now something of a pacifist, and Obama is planning to get us all to support military action tonight, though who knows what will change between now and then.

And the commenters say, “whaaaaat?”

Several commenters use a statement from Cruz in June to imply he’s being a hypocrite now:


Flip Ted Cruz, meet Flop Ted Cruz: In June, 2013: Sen. Cruz said, “We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”

But PostScript finds herself in the rare position of defending Ted Cruz. She doesn’t think those statements are inconsistent. Cruz says in his oped that Obama’s proposal isn’t the “clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out” that he said he wanted. He’s not saying he opposes all action in Syria and forevermore shall.

In fact, as he mentions in his piece, most Americans don’t favor Obama’s plan and many moderates have brought up the same points he does. This piece is consistent with mainstream criticism of the plan. Which again, freaks people out, Cruz having a reputation for not so much moderate mainstreamity.


Glory be! Cruz is a raving lunatic, but I have to agree with him regarding his views on Syrian intervention.


On the one hand, we have a conservative Republican suggesting that he’s afraid of provoking terrorists and we should just get a UN resolution to show Assad we mean business. On the other, we have Obama’s threat to ignore Russia’s objections prompting Russia to act or risk looking weak, which appears may result in Assad surrendering his chemical weapons.


Yes, another Freaky Friday remake.

And when chert throws shade on Cruz’s intelligence…

Ted Cruz is a total moron. Probably (no, definitely) one of the “We hate the UN; they’re useless!” crew now clamoring for UN involvement. Just another Republican nitwit. Query: why are all Republicans these days preposterous nitwits? Does this clown really have the gall to want to run for President??

BestandBrightest points to this Tea Party Senator’s Ivy-League academia cred:

Yes, a man who argued nine times in front of the Supreme Court and was one of the best students at Harvard Law ever is a total moron.

And Rowsdower says all the up-is-down happening in American politics is really twelve-dimensional long game chess played by 2009 Obama:

This is why Obama got a [Nobel] Peace Prize; he’s finding way to neutralize the warmonger GOP.

PostScript’s going to wait a few more entire-reversals-of-the-known-order before she responds to that one. Check back later this afternoon.