It now seems quite possible that the Syria resolution fails in the House of Representatives. If so, that would be the fault of unreasonable, obstructionist Republicans. (When was the last time a Presidential request to use force was denied by Congress?)
Now, I do understand that this would not be the best path to “not attacking Syria.” (If you doubt that, imagine how such a vote would change Israeli incentives and policy toward Iran.) Still, I can quite readily imagine that a “no” vote on the Syria resolution would be for the better, all things considered. Much could go wrong from an attack, nor would the Congressional vote, the way the process has been conducted, represent much of a victory for constitutionalism.
In any case the net effect of having unreasonable, obstructionist Republicans could well be welfare-improving on a massive global scale, all things considered.
You might prefer to “have your cake and eat it too,” namely by having “reasonable but wise on Syria” Republicans, but that was never on the menu. And you won’t find it among the Democrats, so you do seem to need the unreasonably obstructionist tendencies to get to…actual obstruction.
I still can imagine that the resolution will pass, in which case we could criticize Republicans for not being unreasonable and obstructionist enough.
The whole point of checks and balances is that sometimes the tendency to be unreasonable and obstructionist pays off big time. It’s worth a lot of gridlock to get those gains.