Boehner: I support Obama’s call for action in Syria

posted at 12:41 pm on September 3, 2013 by Allahpundit

Not just Boehner but Cantor too. Proof that the GOP establishment is still deeply hawkish, or proof simply that this is the safe political play? Obama’s bumbled Syria so badly that he’s sure to be blamed if things go wrong post-intervention, whether Republicans back him or not. If Boehner backs him and the predictable clusterfark ensues, well, that’s O’s problem. If Boehner and the GOP oppose him and block the use of force, and then Assad gasses another 10,000 Syrians, the White House will inevitably accuse Republicans of being accomplices to mass murder. (As Michael Goldfarb put it to the Times, “Voting to let an Iranian proxy keep killing his own people with weapons of mass destruction may be as risky as it sounds.”) Evidently Boehner’s decided he’d rather risk a minor share of culpability for backing a foolhardy intervention than be scapegoated by Democrats and their media allies for whatever happens in Syria if the U.S. doesn’t act.

Key question: Does the Hastert Rule apply to AUMFs? Seems highly questionable that there’s a majority of the GOP caucus onboard for this.

“I am going to support the president’s call for action,” he told reporters. “I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.”

As some Republicans signal their reluctance to approve Obama’s request for authority to intervene in Syria, Boehner’s endorsement could be influential. The GOP speaker is often hesitant to get out in front of his unruly Republican conference on major issues, giving Boehner’s pronouncement on Tuesday all the more weight.

Following the meeting, Boehner’s deputy, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., backed the use of force, as well.

“The use of these weapons has to be responded to,” Boehner said.

Pelosi’s also supporting the White House against her old friend Bashar, which means we’re set for another fascinating split-caucus vote like the one in July that nearly defunded the NSA. You’ll probably see a majority of House Democrats back O for mindless partisan reasons, especially with Pelosi and her team whipping them, but there’ll be dozens of liberal no votes that’ll need to be replaced with Republican yeses. Figure 120 Dems plus 100 GOPers, nudged by Boehner and Cantor, to get to a majority. Or maybe Boehner expects (hopes?) that the AUMF is doomed in the House due to Republican opposition and he’s using his moment in the spotlight today to hedge against that. It’ll be easy for Obama to blame Republicans for blocking the use of force if the caucus is united, but if the top Republican in the House is willing to stand at the podium outside the White House and say that he supports the president, it’s harder.

This bit from Cantor’s statement is incorrect, though:

“The United States’ broader policy goal, as articulated by the President, is that Assad should go, and President Obama’s redline is consistent with that goal and with the goal of deterring the use of weapons of mass destruction. It is the type of redline virtually any American President would draw. Now America’s credibility is on the line. A failure to act when acting is in America’s interests and when a red line has been so clearly crossed will only weaken our ability to use diplomacy, economic pressure, and other non-lethal tools to remove Assad and deter Iran and other aggressors.

It’s true, Obama has said that Assad must go, but as with everything else he’s said about Syria, he doesn’t really mean it. America’s broader policy goal at this point isn’t to replace Assad, it’s to strengthen the rebels to the point of parity with Syria’s military. That, in theory, will force both sides into negotiations where they can broker a settlement; total victory of one side over the other would be a disaster because it would likely lead to sectarian cleansing. Here, as in Egypt, equilibrium is the White House’s goal. But don’t take my word for it:

Allied rebel commanders in Syria and congressional proponents of a more aggressive military response instead blame a White House that wants to be seen as responsive to allies’ needs but fundamentally doesn’t want to get pulled any deeper into the country’s grinding conflict…

Pentagon planners were instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive Mr. Assad from power: “The big concern is the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take advantage of it,” a senior military officer said. The CIA declined to comment…

Many rebel commanders say the aim of U.S. policy in Syria appears to be a prolonged stalemate that would buy the U.S. and its allies more time to empower moderates and choose whom to support.

Kill Assad and there’s a chance that the regime falls apart, which would create a power vacuum to be filled either by jihadis on one side or Iran and Hezbollah on the other (to the extent that they haven’t already assumed power in Syria). Killing him would also probably force reprisals of some kind. A regime spokesman threatened to unleash Hezbollah if the U.S. attacks, but maybe they’d be willing to look the other way at a few targeted strikes aimed at discrete Syrian military units. Kill the guy at the top, though, and then it’s the other side’s credibility that’s on the line.

Exit question: If this is really about U.S. credibility, not about punishing the use of chemical weapons, what’s the stopping point on American escalation after further acts of defiance by Assad? Let’s say we bomb a few Syrian units and destroy his presidential palace. Two weeks later, Hezbollah attacks an American warship a la the U.S.S. Cole and another gas attack hits Damascus. What’s O’s move then? He told reporters today that “this is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan,” but rather a “limited, proportional step” to send a message. The extent to which it remains limited depends on Assad’s willingness to retaliate, though, and then in turn on Obama’s willingness to sacrifice further credibility by not retaliating against the retaliation. It’s not that there’s no strategy here, as many critics have claimed, it’s more that it’s the opposite of strategy — there’s nothing we’re trying to do in terms of U.S. national security, we’re simply trying to punch a guy hard enough in the face that he decides it’s worth his while not to punch back. What if he does?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

If this fiasco and amnesty pass, Pelosi deserves to take the hammer back in 2015.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I bet Boner will not use the Hastert rule on Syria.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM

If the House GOP caucus revolts (a big if), who will replace Boehner as Speaker?

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Bohener is the worst. He is a greater threat to this nation than Obama.

He is worse than useless.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Operation Egofark

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Face palm.

Take down the stars and stripes fly the black flag of Al-Queda

We need to tar and feather congress.

Oil Can on September 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM

If the House GOP caucus revolts (a big if), who will replace Boehner as Speaker?
steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Who cares?

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM

The extent to which it remains limited depends on Assad’s willingness to retaliate

Assad’s willingness, and Iran’s willingness, and Hezbollah’s willingness, and Russia’s willingness, etc.

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM

i support Boehner’s recall.

rbj on September 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Who cares?

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM

I’m thinking about placing a bet to make a little extra cash. Gotta pay for my Obamacare premiums somehow.

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Anyone who believes that there’s any real difference between the establishments of the two parties hasn’t been paying attention for the past decade.

Boehner and Cantor can both go take a long walk off of short pier. I’ll be supporting Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and other ACTUAL conservatives who understand the basic fact that we shouldn’t spend American lives and treasure fighting a war for al Qaeda.

What idiots these “hawks” are!

Inkblots on September 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM

If the House GOP caucus revolts (a big if), who will replace Boehner as Speaker?

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM

One of the two other weasels of the US: Cantor or Ryan…so, no point. Give it to Nancy Pelosi. She at least stands for what she believes in, even if it’s 180 degrees from what I do.

I respect Kucinich more than Boehner, McCain, Ms. Lindsey, Peter King, Cantor and the other buffoons of the land.

In Syria all are the enemies of the USA and want you dead.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM

The Republican leadership is as much of a problem as the Democrats are.

Obama hasn’t made a case for the war to the public, and he hasn’t offered the Republicans a reason to support him.

Boehner should be saying, consistently, that Congress MUST vote before Obama can start a war, and that he will not schedule a vote until Obama make his case to the public.

Instead Boehner is already ready to kow tow to Obama

18-1 on September 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM

So the GOP leadership backs Obama on Syria, backs Obama on Amnesty, backs Obama on funding obamacare, and backs Obama on raising the debt ceiling. Awesome.

Jack_Burton on September 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Nancy Pelosi mustn’t become Speaker! The Republicans are soooooo much better at representing us!!!

*sigh…

aryeung on September 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM

epic fail….

cmsinaz on September 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM

What do you expect from a weak sister ?
Besides , I’m pretty sure he’s owned lock , stock and barrel .

Lucano on September 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I’m thinking about placing a bet to make a little extra cash. Gotta pay for my Obamacare premiums somehow.
steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Just give Pelosi that giant gavel again. Maybe she could finally give us single payer!

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Well, we’ve reached Zulu land here in the good ol US of A.

Rep Alan Greyson, (yes the Turgid Tool from FL) has spoken out
about Syria, and his comments actually make more sense than
anything coming from supposed Leaders of the Republican Party
in DC…..congratulations House Republican leaders…

you’ve made Grayson sound Sane.

ToddPA on September 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Boehner: Obama’s butt monkey.

Oil Can on September 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM

The Republican Establishment is now looking to follow the lead of the Whig Party.

ajacksonian on September 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM

John Boehner modeling the new GOP logo

Anti-Control on September 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM

There are no representatives of the interests of the American People in DC. Wall it off.

Murphy9 on September 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM

At this point I’m hoping for a complete Democrat takeover in 2014.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Goodbye Republicans.

aquaviva on September 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM

This is more proof that Boehner is a sucker, and incapable of independent and/or strategic thought.

Obama is being suckered into aiding Al Quaeda, and the only benefit to the US if we bomb Syria is that we save face for Obama…by killing innocent people and risking American lives.

Boehner needs to be replaced ASAP.

landlines on September 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Asaad will NOT go, per obama’s plans…obama will soon negotiate with Asaad, even having blundered all for the past few years.

Among all the terrorists, Asaad, the dictator, will be obama’s ‘best choice’ to keep…just watch…it’ll first cost the US lots of treasure and some blood too.

Hillary and obama have lots of blood on their hands, and way more to flow. They are two foreign policy utter failures, for the US and for the free world.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Why do the rubes in Boehner’s district keep sending that orange-hued clown back to Congress? God have mercy on us!

Inkblots on September 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM

[Assad]: So let me get this straight. You going to let me stay in power and continue to kill thousands of my people just as long as I don’t use chemical weapons?

[Obama]: Let…umm…me be…ahh..clear…..that’s what I’m sayin.

[Assad]: America, what a country!

WisRich on September 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM

John Boehner modeling the new GOP logo

Anti-Control on September 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Indeed – one party gov’t…and its results, in front of our very eyes.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM

WWIII…For the Ratings

workingclass artist on September 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Why do the rubes in Boehner’s district keep sending that orange-hued clown back to Congress? God have mercy on us!

Inkblots on September 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM

He ran unopposed in 2012.

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Seriously, have enough R’s show up for Quorum and let the dems pass it. Thats all they have to do. Obama doesn’t get blocked and can’t blame republicans if Assad actually gases someone and the GOP gets an even smaller share of the blame the media will surely try to tie to them.

Zaggs on September 3, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Smart politics by Boehner, but bad for the country. The good thing is that his support won’t help the hawks much.

Cantor is reflexively pro-Israel, so no surprise there.

bobs1196 on September 3, 2013 at 12:53 PM

and then Assad gasses another 10,000 Syrians, the White House will inevitably accuse Republicans of being accomplices to mass murder.

And yet the WH knew Syria had gas last year. So, again, who is complicit? Ain’t the Republicans, but they’ll still get the blame.

conservative pilgrim on September 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

One more reason to seek his replacement as Speaker. Who gets blamed for the latest debacle is all that matters to this chump.

michaelo on September 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Before we all run around with our hair on fire, keep in mind what ever authority is given to Obama will be watered down to get both GOP and Dem support it will be meaningless. I say give Obama some room to run with this (since he really doesn’t need Congressional approval) and make sure any screw ups are on him.

Tater Salad on September 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

there’s nothing we’re trying to do in terms of U.S. national security, we’re simply trying to punch a guy hard enough in the face that he decides it’s worth his while not to punch back. What if he does?

obama assumes the opposition is as dumb as he is…erroneous assumption…and why all the leaks from the Pentagon and obama’s own aids, who see clearly and don’t want this fiasco.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

The photo for this post is quite accurate. Nary a shade of difference between the two.

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Boehner: I support Obama’s call for action in Syria

Boehner: I support Obama’s call for action in Syria

Fixed!

rickv404 on September 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Before we all run around with our hair on fire, keep in mind what ever authority is given to Obama will be watered down to get both GOP and Dem support it will be meaningless. I say give Obama some room to run with this (since he really doesn’t need Congressional approval) and make sure any screw ups are on him.
Tater Salad on September 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

I’m sorry to sound so rude, but what are you talking about? Obama’s never been blamed for anything, ever. Why would this be different?

There is absolutely no upside to bombing Syria. It is a horrible idea with only downsides.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM

there’s nothing we’re trying to do in terms of U.S. national security, we’re simply trying to punch a guy hard enough in the face that he decides it’s worth his while not to punch back. What if he does?

God help us. It’s WW3.

The ME nations should be leading this “coalition” and pushback. It’s their issue, not ours. This will not end well.

conservative pilgrim on September 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Pelosi’s strategy

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Vichy Republicans.
What part of the fact that 80% of Americans do not want us to get involved in the Syrian Civil War, Don’t they understand?

kingsjester on September 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM

obama assumes the opposition is as dumb as he is…erroneous assumption…and why all the leaks from the Pentagon and obama’s own aids, who see clearly and don’t want this fiasco.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM

It WILL be a fiasco, so Boehner and Cantor have taken the “it’s on you” approach to Obama.

Tater Salad on September 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Pass the buck back to Obama, kill amnesty.

El_Terrible on September 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Anyone who believes that there’s any real difference between the establishments of the two parties hasn’t been paying attention for the past decade.

When I see you voting Dem I’ll believe you.

lostmotherland on September 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM

There is absolutely nothing we can do there that is in the United States best interest.
If it’s a crime against humanity, let the UN deal with it. And unless Assad is brought to justice, the operation is a failure.
If the US acts, it should be with such overwhelming destructive force that even the opposition will fear ever provoking us.

redshirt on September 3, 2013 at 12:59 PM

When I see you voting Dem I’ll believe you.
lostmotherland on September 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM

When Christie is our nominee consider it done.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM

“Yes, Master.”

-Speaker Boehner

portlandon on September 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Boehner: Further suppressing the GOP vote every time he speaks.

This is crazy. Risking war on iffy intelligence and stupid comments. Let the Middle East solve its own problems.

No blood for EGO.

Whitewolf7070 on September 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM

If Boehner and the GOP oppose him and block the use of force, and then Assad gasses another 10,000 Syrians, the White House will inevitably accuse Republicans of being accomplices to mass murder

Except that there is no definitive proof that Assad gassed anybody, certainly not the 1500 for which our rat-eared tyrant says is the red line that must be addressed.

I’d feel a lot better about any military action if there were more conclusive proof and if THE UNITED STATES WERE NOT ACTING AS AL QAEDA’S AIR FORCE AND NAVY.

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Puhlease.

“Bipartisan support” will be the watch phrase if the vote passes.

Any problems will be blamed on the Rs for not giving enough support.

Which in the same breath will be muttered with, “but the Republicans supported it too.”

WitchDoctor on September 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM

This is too funny and proves how irrelevant obama will be at the G20.

Putin will upstage him and show who is ‘emperor of the world’. The two thugs deserve each other so.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Democrats. Republicans.

They only keep the American people fighting amongst each other to keep the focus off the FACT they they are just ONE big Government party that never wants to lose power to an outside group.

Politricks on September 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Geez….this is a f*&k-up of Biblical proportions….

HomeoftheBrave on September 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM

The photo for this post is quite accurate. Nary a shade of difference between the two.

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Orange is the new black.

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM

He told reporters today that “this is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan,”

He is quite right, as those countries are in a different part of the world./

All kidding aside, it will devolve into an Iraq or Afghanistan situation if he goes ahead with this bone-headed idea. But I see it turning more into a Libya, than those other two. It has all the makings of a terrorist melting pot. And they can get some great training being right next to Israel!

Gee, Obama sure would be a swell guy for doing that!/

The bigger implications will be China and Russia. What will their response be? What will the administration’s response be to the Russians and Chinese? We aren’t sure what either of those two responses are, as The One most likely hasn’t thought that far ahead. Why should he, he is the smartest one ever!

Jugears should also worry about Iran. They may not be able to do anything to the US specifically, but they sure can cause quite a bit of chaos in the ME. They can aggravate the shipping lanes, harass shippers by doing “inspections” for pirate activities.

And what about the other ME Islamic countries who have kept their mouths shut about this? Saudi Arabia has said squat about the massacre. Qatar is the same. UAE is also silent.

Rand Paul had the most sane course of action, with the highest possibility of success. He called for the US talking with China and Russia and getting them to put pressure on Assad, and hopefully getting him to step down. It avoids the strikes and possible collateral damage of civilians that will be pushed as the “big, bad USA” killing innocents indiscriminately. But we know that that will most likely never happen with Obama. He isn’t diplomatic, and he holds grudges.

This is what you get when you have someone who has never been in the military trying to make military decisions.

Patriot Vet on September 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM

What if it was AQ or some other group that conducted the chemical attacks so as to frame Assad and draw the US into the war? If congress doesn’t go along with Obama on the attack and he doesn’t attack, you can bet he will blame the Republicans when (not if) the next chemical attack occurs, which could do some serious damage to them in 2014.

Now, what if Obama, et al., were in on the chemical attacks themselves to set up the rationale for our attack and, ultimately, the deposing of Assad which will pave the way for a Muslim Brotherhood type take over of Syria, a la Egypt and Libya?

I put nothing past this administration, nothing.

TXUS on September 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Both are fakes.

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM

When I see you voting Dem I’ll believe you.

lostmotherland on September 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Still at work on your ditch I see.

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 1:06 PM

On who’s behalf are we fighting?

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

From Rush Limbaugh today…chilling.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542

ziggyville on September 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

What happens if this “limited, proportional attack” doesn’t do anything to prevent any further use of chemical weapons but instead only stirs up more radicals in the region?

If there is any backlash against Israel or US interests in the region, then what happens?

I’m in Baghdad and I’d really like to be assured that this has been thought out completely and there is, in fact a solid contingency plan somewhere. ….and NOT the Benghazi plan.

JetBlast on September 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Don’t be surprised when the GOP loses the House.

Panther on September 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

I thought the GOP controlled the House. Apparently, I was wrong.

Wino on September 3, 2013 at 1:08 PM

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

The Syrian Rebels, aka, al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

kingsjester on September 3, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Anyone who believes that there’s any real difference between the establishments of the two parties hasn’t been paying attention for the past decade.

When I see you voting Dem I’ll believe you.

lostmotherland on September 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Fool, it meant that both are leftards.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM

…link probably won’t work at the moment…..website has crashed.

ziggyville on September 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Did he cry when he made his tweet?

Key West Reader on September 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Not just Boehner but Cantor too

Boehner and Cantor are Obama yes men, do you expect anything else?

paulsur on September 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Has there been any polling of how Americans feel about getting involved in this mess? I can’t believe there’s much support for it–not that our opinion matters to them. We’re just noise in the background.

SheVee on September 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Way to go guys. If I am not mistaken, does not Syria have Russians on the ground working with them?? Lets kill a few ruskies while we are atit, not to mention all the other political intrigue going on over there. I subscribe to the Palin Doctrine,”Let allah sort it out”

retiredeagle on September 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Key West Reader on September 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM

No. But, Lady Liberty did.

kingsjester on September 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM

If you don’t want the USAF and USN to serve as Al Qaeda’s Air Force, you’re an isolationist, or something.

besser tot als rot on September 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM

At least Britain has an opposition party.

retiredeagle on September 3, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Anything that goes wrong will be placed on the GOP, so why not do the right thing and vote no on this? Obama will ignore the outcome anyway for crying out loud. The american people do not want this. They don’t want obamacare, they don’t want amnesty, so why the hell give obama everything he wants?

Jack_Burton on September 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM

As Michael Goldfarb put it to the Times, “Voting to let an Iranian proxy keep killing his own people with weapons of mass destruction may be as risky as it sounds.”

How risky is it to fight on behalf of Al Qaeda, and what may result from that?

besser tot als rot on September 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM

And it better pass, or Boner will cry.

Ward Cleaver on September 3, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Don’t be surprised when the GOP loses the House.

Panther on September 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

If they pass this and amnesty they deserve to lose.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Assume this all plays out poorly for the U.S. (not an unwarranted assumption) and we end up in a quasi- or outright war with Iran and/or Russia and/or China.

Who rallies to our side?

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

The problem isn’t Boehner, it’s that Obama has been so indecisive and weak over Syria the last couple of years. Stuff is coming apart left and right, and we need to deal with it the best we can. We’d be a lot better off if things were handled better early on, and if we had a stronger, more experienced, confident president. If, if, if.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

obama is the most transparent president in history, just not the way fools assume that he is (not) – he declared that he wants to diminish the US. He’s succeeding, apace.

The Rs enable him and are, thus, more culpable.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I think this is going to be a huge inflection point when Boehner and the corrupt ruling class, in the service of foreign cronies and foreign special interests, try to lead the nation where the American people will refuse to follow. I don’t think that the MSM will be able to overcome alternative media on the Internet on this one. If Boehner and the rest of the corruptocrats decide to carry forward serving their cronies in spite of the American people they will have to crack down on free speech on the Internet or else just ignore the American people and make their coup official, open and transparent for the majority of Americans to see. This has the potential, if the tea party and liberty movements are smart, to finally ‘wake up’ a majority of the American people that foreign interests have taken over the United States government.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Won’t providing direct military aid and comfort to al Qaeda in Syria strengthen their hands in Iraq and Afghanistan and directly result in endangering U.S. military personnel who have no involvement in Syria whatsoever?

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM

The problem isn’t Boehner,

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

If only we only had one problem, how glorious things would be. Unfortunately, we have a great multitude of problems, one of them being Boehner. A worse one being Cantor.

besser tot als rot on September 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Pieces in our time.

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM

There is absolutely no upside to bombing Syria. It is a horrible idea with only downsides.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM

That may be but it’s Obama’s call. He’s the CiC. That’s just the fact.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Vichy Republicans.
What part of the fact that 80% of Americans do not want us to get involved in the Syrian Civil War, Don’t they understand?

kingsjester on September 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM

They understand perfectly. That 80% as well as the rest of the US don’t matter. What matters only is what Barry’s Cabal and our Imperial Congressional and Senate elitists do for themselves and their corporate cronies.

Getting militarily involved in Syria is just another fallen domino cascading our Republic to its eventual end. That end looks like its coming soon, or so it seems.

hawkeye54 on September 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM

In this case the foreign power that has taken over our federal government seems to be Saudi Arabia and their Al Qaeda forces in Syria.

And Fox News watchers please take notice that one of Fox News’ big investors is a Saudi foreign national.

FloatingRock on September 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM

If your Boehner speakership lasts more than 3 years, please consult a physician.

steebo77 on September 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM

I support the immediate call for a new Speaker of the House.

Athos on September 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Don’t ignore this.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM

That may be but it’s Obama’s call. He’s the CiC. That’s just the fact.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM

A lot of things are the President’s call (although, I think your “fact” is of questionable legality), but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a better choice and a worse choice. Nor does it change the fact that we can voice our opinions on which choice we believe to be the best. Does your inane comment have a point?

besser tot als rot on September 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Boehner: I support Obama’s call for action in Syria

Then you, Mr. Boehner, are a brainless twit.

coldwarrior on September 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM

If this was such a dire emergency Obama would have called congress back immediately instead of letting them finish their vacation and then jetting off to the golf course.

Jack_Burton on September 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I think the NSA has a treasure trove of info on our dear speaker and his 2nd in command. That is why we haven’t had a special committee for the IRS or Benghazi. Issa too probably has some embarrassing stuff that they are holding over his head.

Or, they are just stupid as usual.

JAM on September 3, 2013 at 1:21 PM

The problem isn’t Boehner, it’s that Obama has been so indecisive and weak over Syria the last couple of years. Stuff is coming apart left and right, and we need to deal with it the best we can. We’d be a lot better off if things were handled better early on, and if we had a stronger, more experienced, confident president. If, if, if.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

No, Boehner is part of the problem. He’s rolled over more than a few times when Congress should have weighed in and demanded the stupid lazy bastard in the White House consult with Congress before he puts on his superman underwear and cape and run around the Oval Office as Captain Kickass.

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4