Boehner’s Syria Surrender

1377991382000-AP-BoehnerHouse Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated yesterday he trusts President Obama to carry out military strikes against Syrian government targets as punishment for that government’s alleged use of poison gas against its own citizens.

“The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the U.S. has the capability,” Boehner said after President Obama feted him at the White House. “I’m going to support the president’s call for action and I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.”

Boehner’s decision is already hurting his standing in his own political party, further embittering rank-and-file conservatives who accuse him of being a weak leader. Boehner’s action amounts to siding with the same administration that lied its way into war in Libya, tried to cover up the deadly fiasco in Benghazi, Libya, and that even now sides with the Islamofascist terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

On Aug. 31, with his approval ratings and second-term agenda in tatters, President Obama said “after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.”

It will not be “an open-ended intervention” and there would be no “boots on the ground,” he said. “I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.”

“What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”

After Obama described himself inaccurately as “president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy” –the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy– he said he would ask Congress for authorization to use force overseas.

Although Obama said he believes he already possesses “the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

“We should have this debate,” he said, “because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy. ”

After months of heel-dragging, the administration said several weeks ago that Syria’s government crossed the much-vaunted “red line” President Obama laid down for U.S. action in that regime’s two year war against opposition forces. Obama said last summer that if Syria used chemical weapons such an action would be a “game-changer” for the United States.

Pundit Charles Krauthammer said Obama isn’t seeking congressional approval now because he holds lofty principles:

His respect for the separation of powers and for the role of Congress is rather minimal, as he showed with suspension of provisions of health care, the creation of the DREAM Act and one executive fiat by suspending half of the immigration laws.

Look, this isn’t a sudden stroke of constitutionalism. This is simply expediency and delay. The problem is not that he’s not selling his strategy. It’s that he doesn’t have a strategy. And that’s the reason everybody, left, right, and center, has no idea what he’s doing. He zigzagged left and right. He telegraphs he’s going to strike, he does nothing. He calls on the Congress and then goes off and plays golf when his secretary of state had given a speech the day before with remarkable urgency and passion.

More likely Obama is trying to divide the Republican Party internally and get the GOP associated with what promises to be a disastrous foreign policy move.

As Obama adviser David Axelrod gloated on Twitter, “Big move by [president of the United States]. Consistent with his principles. Congress is now the dog that caught the car. Should be a fascinating week!” Obama knows that throwing the issue to Congress should take the GOP’s focus off the much more important legislative battles of the weeks ahead.

Obama and his advisers also know they can count on friendly media outlets to spin whatever transpires overseas in the administration’s favor.

Obama’s determination to win congressional approval comes after British Prime Minister David Cameron’s government suffered a humiliating defeat in the House of Commons. Considering how badly Obama has treated the British since taking office, it’s not all that surprising that a resolution authorizing the use of British military might in the proposed U.S.-led Syrian adventure was defeated in Parliament last week in a vote of 285 to 272.

Meanwhile, Obama’s plan to assault Syrian government targets was also embraced yesterday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

Despite the endorsements, Obama still faces an “uphill battle” for congressional support, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.

That there will be much of a battle in Congress is difficult to believe. According to Bloomberg News, “no U.S. president has ever been turned down by Congress when asking to use military force.”

Boehner’s entirely predictable move is just the latest in a long series of unnecessary capitulations by the famously conflict-averse lawmaker. It very likely foreshadows Boehner’s approaching cave-ins on raising the national debt ceiling, Obamacare funding, and immigration reform.

Some conservatives have offered half-hearted endorsements of the enterprise. Others say Obama must attack Syria to maintain U.S. prestige.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says the U.S. must hit Syria to remain credible as a superpower, an argument rejected by foreign policy veteran Andrew McCarthy. “No matter how wrong [McCain] is, the Republicans seem to line up behind him,” McCarthy said on Mark Levin’s radio show last night.

There are always going to be plenty of double-level, Realpolitik, chess-player justifications for intervening in a place like Syria but in the end it is unclear how attacking the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will serve America’s national interests.

Assad is aligned with the Islamists in Iran and the opposition to his regime consists largely of Islamists themselves. There is no silver lining to U.S. involvement in Syria. The Middle East is a mess as it more or less always has been.

And it is unclear how bombing government targets in Syria will serve any larger purpose — political, strategic, or humanitarian.

At a congressional hearing yesterday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey was unable to explain what the administration hoped to accomplish by attacking Syria.

“What is it you’re seeking?” asked Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

“I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking,” Dempsey said.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • truebearing

    Boehner bends over so often, I’m amazed he isn’t walking on all fours.

    • wildjew

      The first time he bent over for Obama by raising the obscene national debt ceiling he should have lost his gavel. What’s wrong with Congressional Republicans?

      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        He sits on a poopie ring!

      • truebearing

        I don’t think there is one answer as to what is wrong with some congressional Republicans. In Boehner’s case it is a combination of his liberal lite ideology and his fundamental weakness as a person. He can’t stand up.

    • John Allegro

      One has to wonder if the Hussein Obama regime has some serious dirt on him.

      • bsetaside

        Unfortunately, that just may be.

    • ziggy zoggy

      I’m surprised he can walk at all. Or sit.

  • Ron Livaudais

    There is no strategy, no plan, no mission…there isn’t even an enemy…this is a lose-lose situation and it is 100% Political Obama covering his ass for political expediency!!!

  • Icansee4miles

    Boehner is an American first, unlike this Tea-bagging rag.

    Isolationists have to look at the big picture. Syria is only a side show to the main event; Iran. It was an eye opener to learn of Iran’s sinister use of Hezbollah to subvert and subjugate Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Bahrain and Iraq to form the Shia Crescent; and all to distract the U.S. while they perfect the Imam Hussein Atomic Bomb. When Iran has their nuke, they will hold the World hostage by threatening the Arabian Gulf countries, which pump 60% of the World’s oil production; and is the key to Iran’s World Domination. And the end of the West as we know it!

    Educate yourselves and have a good read; Amazon Kindle’s new thriller The Bahrain Protocol.

    • maximo12

      well aren’t you a smarty? to bad you get most of your “facts” from a fiction novel. tea-bagging? do you even know what it means? sure you do, bob and you were doing some over the weekend. wipe your chin, obamaturd.

    • wildjew

      Obama, Boehner, McCain, Kerry, Hagel, Dempsey, etc., are not going to do a thing about Iran. What have you seen to date that indicates they will?

      • Icansee4miles

        The won’t; Israel will, supported by Saudi Arabia. They understand what is at stake; a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to their survival. That is the premise of The Bahrain Protocol..

      • visitor

        I am not a military stratagist nor, I gather, are you, but it is my understanding that Iran’s nuclear facilities are a lot more difficult to take out than the Syrian plant so ably removed by the Israelis: many facilities are dispersed, hidden, and deep underground. If the president concludes that it is both necessary and possible to bomb Iran to prevent the Islamic fascist-clerical regime from obtaining atomic weapons, I believe he will do so, even if the consequences would be unpredictable (e.g., Iran and its proxy Hezbollah ally launching thousands of conventional missiles at Tel Aviv). I believe that the president’s reluctance to take that step as quickly as you would like him to do reflects prudence and measured judgment, not his being a hidden Muslim Commie mole who is out to destroy America and Israel. Now it is possible that he is too prudent or that his judgment is mistaken; time will tell. But questioning his loyalty reflects what the late Richard Hofsteader called the “paranoid tendency in American politics” and is fit more for the tin-foil hat crowd than for reasonable politics. The ranters here are painting themselves into a corner but go ahead if it makes you feel better.

        • ziggy zoggy

          You admit you are not a military strategist and proceed to sling comment after comment offering up stupid military strategy. John Kerry is not a military strategist and he is Secretary of Defense in the Obama Administration. That says it all.

          Iran is an existential threat to America but Syria isn’t. Which country is your Obamessiah going to bomb? Just keep licking his balls all the way of the cliff.

    • Aizino Smith

      I would support the Tea party over Boehner any day of the week.

      Military action in Syria as currently presented is a choice between favoring the Muslim Brotherhood/ Al Qaeda on one side and Iran/Hezbollah/Assad on the other side. It would be better to ramp up our military and let our 2 adversaries bleed each other longer.

      An American president that runs down the American economy and
      the America military (see the budget) is not an American president to support. The President has studiously avoided doing anything about Iran except maybe the Stuxtnet virus. If the president takes action or does not take action in Syria, we expect him to do anything Iran besides say”Thank you sir may I have another?” Whether the President acts or not do we expect him to support the Persian Spring?

      Syria is not a side show. With this president these is no show period. He voted present. This is the minimal response he thinks that he “HAS” to do to survive.

  • Robbins Mitchell

    Well.they don’t call him “America’s #1 Alcoholic Crybaby” for nothing….always willing to fight, though…..for his next drink and for extra time under the sun lamp in the House gym

  • visitor

    You guys have such an easy job! If Obama doesn’t respond to the fascist Ba’athist use of chemical weapons (actual use of, not just suspected possession of, WMD) then you get to denounce him as a weakling, but if he does respond militarily, you can say that he supports the Islamic fascist jihadis. Is there anything this president could do that you would support?

    • wildjew

      Yes. Read my post.

    • tompro97

      His immediate resignation would be about the only thing I can see worthwhile.

    • ziggy zoggy

      This coming from the troll who blindly supports every mistake Obama makes and opposes everything conservative and Republican. Like all leftists, you are projecting your failings on your opponents.

      Are you thirteen years old?

  • wildjew

    Obama set a “red line” with Syria but he stubbornly refuses to set a red line on Iran’s nuclear program as Israelis have been pleading he do. Those like Bill O’Reilly are saying, if we don’t send a “message” (a shot over the bow) to Assad, Iran, Syria’s patron, will conclude the U.S. is weak. The Iranians will conclude the world will do nothing about its nuclear program. OK. Send a message to Syria and Iran, Syria’s patron. Destroy Iran’s nuclear sites. I would support that military action. Will Obama do it. No, because truth be known Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. Barack Hussein Obama wants genocidal Iran to become a nuclear power.

    • visitor

      The conspiratorial mindset at work: if Obama doesn’t go to war right now against Iran, that means he must want the mullahs to get nukes. Since you are obviously a military expert, please enlighten us as to just how easy it will be to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites. Incidentally, why is BHO tightening sanctions, launching computer worms, and doing a lot that isn’t visible to deter Iran if he wants them to get nukes? And won’t bringing down Iran’s client regime in Syria also deter Iran’s ambitions?

      • visitor

        And BTW, if BHO is so pro-jihadi, what’s up with killing OBL and a whole bunch of drone-slain al-Qaida honchos? Al-Awaki must also be thankful for the pro-jihadi US president. I mean, you should get a life already. It’s one thing to say that you disagree with the ideas of liberal Democrats; calling them traitors and terrorists is just nuts.

        • wildjew

          Obama orders a few high-profile jihadists dispatched (what would you expect him to do?) with the one hand, all the while he is furthering (or trying to further) the most extreme interpretation of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa with the the other hand. You and other Obama apologists are watching the one hand. I am watching the other hand, the one that is fundamentally transforming the region like he is fundamentally transforming this country. Obama tried to implant radical Muslim Brotherhood jihadism in Egypt. At present Egypt’s military is trying to suppress it, no thanks to Barack Hussein Obama.

        • TW of G 58

          No, look up the records and where the ‘democrats’ stand; do your research!

        • ziggy zoggy

          Bin Laden and the al Qaeda goons you mentioned we’re an embarrassment. They were hindering the cause of jihad with their stupid bomb plots. Obama backs the Muslim brotherhood and any other jihadis that seek to overthrow secular regimes. Like in Egypt, Libya, Mali, etc. he opposes the overthrow of theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

          There is no such thing as a liberal leftist or Democrat and both groups have been giving aid and comfort to our enemies for a very long time now.

      • wildjew

        All these things you mention are worthless, including sanctions. You think Obama is deterring Iran? Israel bombed what was believed to be a Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria, April 2011. No one said Israel went to war with Syria. Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. There was no war between Iraq and Israel. Why does the left couch bombing Iran’s nuclear sites in phraseology like “go to war with Iran, bomb Iran,” etc.? If Iran chooses war, isn’t that Iran’s decision? If the United States send’s a message, a “shot over the bow” to Assad, won’t it be Assad’s and Iran’s decision should they choose to escalate the conflict? Why has the left been insisting that Obama would need to go to Congress should he decide to “bomb Iran” but were silent when Obama said he did not need Congressional approval to “bomb” or “go to war with Syria?” Did Obama seek Congressional approval to “go to war with Lybia?” In your view, should Obama bomb Syria, is he “going to war with Syria?”

      • Fritz

        Why didn’t B.O give moral support to the uprising that took place in Iran after the rigged presidential election that reinstalled Ahmadinejad four years ago? Instead he said nothing, he didn’t even say anything as the regimes thugs went around beating protestors with clubs live on TV. Unlike the rest of the Middle East the opposition in Iran is fairly secular and small L liberal. Even if they weren’t the unrest would have at least disrupted or diverted resources away from the nuclear program and foreign policy projects carried out by the regime.
        As for Syria where is the U.S interest in this fight? What is the western interest in this fight? We have a stocking horse of Iran, basically the mid East’s version of North Korea, engaged in a civil war with puppets of the Muslim Brotherhood. Why the concern now about chemical weapons use in Syria, there was at least one similar attack a year ago and nothing was done then? So what is a “test bombing” going to accomplish now that if could not accomplish a year ago?

      • ziggy zoggy

        Yawn. Never heard those canards before. Iran’s nuclear program can easily be set back years or rendered radioactive. They don’t have to be destroyed, though bunker buster technology is s advanced now that they probably could be destroyed. And Israel could easily take ooh the ayatollah and his mullahs. Obama sure won’t.

        All the impotent sanctions and computer worms the Obamahdi uses on Iran weakens Ordinary Iranians who admire America but just makes the mullahs stronger.

    • Icansee4miles

      No, America is just tired of carrying the World’s load with next to no help; read this para from The Bahrain Protocol.

      However when the Reporter had taken his leave, and went back to his room to relax, he thought about their conversation. What the Shaikh had said was true, and more; the disintegration of the Middle East was really the breakup of the Islamic world, with instability expanding outward like a pebble thrown into a pond, with the ripples engulfing Egypt, which was in the throes of a power struggle; Yemen which seemed to be perpetually on the edge of chaos; Pakistan was unable to attain peace with the Taliban sapping its will; Afghanistan had its eternal war; and there was the looming specter of Iran. The Reporter uneasily sensed as well that the world was heading for the cliff at the worst possible time; for the United States had exhausted itself waging the war on terrorism, and its government was riven with poisonous partisan discord.

      Sound familiar?

      • wildjew

        When the United States ceases being an empire, like Rome ceased being an empire, she will no longer carry the world’s load. Isn’t that what a superpower does, carry the world’s load? Few Americans would argue, following the 9/11 attacks, that some kind of retaliation wasn’t in order. Who was behind those murderous attacks? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran? I think What Americans are tired of, is the occupation, nation building, implanting democracy, etc. A great world empire must look out for her interests. Does a great world empire have moral obligations, when dictators use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction such as chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? What should be our response? Do you think it conceivable given Iran’s apocalyptic and murderous ideology, given their state sponsorship of terror world-wide, given their threats to annihilate Israel and the United States, is it possible that Iran might make good on her threats one day should they possess many dozens, perhaps hundreds of nuclear devices? What should we do? Sit by and wait for that eventuality?

        • Icansee4miles

          No, I agree with you. Unfortunately, one man with a vision of truth is of no use in a gaggle of ostriches. What they don’t understand is that the good guys don’t always win.

          • wildjew

            Israel is looking for a green light from the Americans whereby the IDF will bomb Iran’s nuclear sites after the Iranians cross a certain threshold of uranium enrichment. The Israelis are not getting it. It might only delay Iran’s quest for nukes by a few years. Obama and Kerry are more worried that a Jew might build an apartment in Israel’s capital than anything else.

          • Lanna

            Yes, that could definitely be part of the plans, Iran is behind the whole mess and causing instability!

          • ziggy zoggy

            I think Obama is behind the whole mess. Iran is trying to help their client state Syria against the “Muslim Spring” Obama has done all in his power to help.

          • Lanna

            Very True, Iran is the center or the head, and sending missiles into Syria is going to do little to solve any problems. People are really sick of Obama sending the US military into these Islamic countries and using their blood and their expertise to oust Radical groups and replace them with other radicals. His interests are NOT supporting America, or Israel..He does not have our backs!

          • ziggy zoggy

            He ousts secular regimes and protects theocracies.

          • Lanna


        • Howard

          Not really. A superpower is defined not in terms of what it can create, but in terms of what it can destroy. Russia is still a superpower because Russia can still destroy us and all of Western civilization, assuming the Obama administration doesn’t do it first.

      • Aizino Smith

        I’ll look it up, but a link would be nice :)

        Your post is excellent and thought provoking.

      • Aizino Smith

        Omaha Dealz: The Bahrain Protocol (Front Seat To The Apocalypse)

        Sorry, the blog at has been removed.
        This address is not available for new blogs.

        Work of fiction based on current events and the novelists reading of history.

    • Carmichael

      He’s the Muslim Mole President.

  • Adheeb

    “Boehner’s decision is already hurting his standing in his own political party, further embittering rank-and-file conservatives who accuse him of being a weak leader.”

    He isn’t a ‘weak’ leader, he’s pathetic.

    • Lanna

      I think his Speakership is on the line.

      • Adheeb

        Let’s hope so.

    • BS77

      There is no effective opposition in Congress. It is a dismal situation. Besides, who made McCain the “spokesperson” for the Republicans?. He’s a total embarrassment.

      • Adheeb

        McCain will flip sides before his next election run.

  • WhiteHunter

    Here’s a question nobody thought to ask Kerry yesterday: “Exactly how does the current situation differ substantially from the opening stages of the Vietnam War in 1964 with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was also a limited, punitive, aerial strike, with no expectation, at the time, of a wider war?
    “What basis, if any at all, do you have to believe that Assad will be more compliant with our wishes and demands after receiving the ‘spanking’ you demand, than your good friends the Vietnamese Communists were? Give us hard facts and enforceable guarantees, Mr. Kerry, not merely your ungrounded opinion.”

  • Unc Remus

    Q: What is the difference between H. Reed, C Schumer and J Boehner and L Graham? A: Not a damn thing.

  • wildjew

    Netanyahu: Syria is Iran’s ‘testing ground’
    ‘Assad regime isn’t acting alone,’ PM says after meeting with French FM, who claims there’s ‘no doubt’ who’s behind chemical attack
    By AARON KALMAN and RAPHAEL AHREN August 25, 2013, 6:41 pm Updated: August 25, 2013, 8:11 pm 7

  • steve b


    • wildjew

      Whoever Karl Rove encourages you to vote for. Vote for the other guy.

  • RogerDane

    Few will take the time to ‘realize’ Boehner’s shortcomings… people vote a party line because it is easier than trying to comprehend the issues. I dropped my Republican association and went independent… numbers are the only motivation to most politicians. We are no longer a government for and by and of the people… professional pols only. Is it any wonder? Sound bites, iPhones and Fox Sunday Night Comic TV (not to mention American Idol, etc) are the level of education in America and we have lost our freedoms and will lose the Constitution in short order. Very sad for our Grandchildren…

    • wildjew

      I went No Party for a few days (because of something my party did I thought reprehensible) but I decided it is best to stay in the GOP and try to fight from within, no matter how bleak it looks. As an Independent here where I live, you cannot vote in a Republican primary. I’ve been urging my Congressman to vote to defund Obamacare. It’s better when I call saying I am a Republican voter in his district.

      • Carmichael

        Do you mean you will register Republican, but vote your conscience? That’s what I am doing. Haven’t had a chance to vote my conscience yet. Voted for Palin, voted for Romney — never again will I give a moderate Republican my vote — or, in the case of McCain, a screwball Republican.

        • wildjew

          You voted for Palin and Romney. Were you persuaded to vote for Romney in your primary? When you say, vote your conscience, you might want to define what that means. Even if I thought there were a conservative, pro-Second Amendment, strong national security, solid foreign policy, pro-life, pro-traditional family Democrat (is there such an animal?) running for national office how could I have any confidence he or she would not vote with and support his or her president, Barack Obama?

          • Carmichael

            There are no guarantees when it comes to political candidates.
            No, I did not vote for Romney in the primary. You are probably not looking for an essay on the concept of voting ones conscience. What I mean is voting for the candidate whose platform most closely represents my own convictions versus voting for the lesser evil who MIGHT have a better chance of winning and MIGHT be preferable to a known evil such as Obama. My next vote for president may be a write-in vote.

          • wildjew

            Too many Republican voters were persuaded to vote for Mitt Romney because “Establishment” / elite Republicans, pundits, radio talk show hosts and political activists argued Romney had a better chance of winning and would be preferable to a known evil such as Obama. I didn’t buy it. Millions did buy it. In the primary, I am going to vote for the candidate that I think is the most principled conservative.. Millions of Republicans voted for the guy they were persuaded had a better chance of winning and he (Romney) went down in flames as you might expect of a political chameleon / sell-out. What is the definition of insanity? Will Republicans voters be duped yet again in 2016 by our elites, Karl Rove, Charles Krathammer, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Jennifer Rubin, Elliot Abrams? We shall see.

          • Carmichael

            Well, I guess you just weren’t as terrified of Obama in a second term as us Republican dupes. I predict that Republican voters will continue to vote Republican and conservative voters will continue to hold their nose one way or another.

          • wildjew

            I think you are missing my point. I am not suicidal. I voted for Romney last November. What was my choice?
            The Na zi party or the Social Democrats? I did NOT take the bait and vote for Romney in our primary. I knew Romney was a disaster. I knew Romney a low life, lying SOB . But just a better SOB than Obama. Romney lied about Islam. Romeny lied about Israel. Didn’t you hear his dam-able lies? What was our choice last November? Just now I am listening to Limbaugh tell a caller why he is optimistic. He says: “I’m not going to be depressed. I’m not going to let (Obama and) the Democrats ruin my life.” In other words Obama hasn’t touched Limbaugh and Limbaugh is having fun and he is thoroughly enjoying life. Unlike Limbaugh, I am NOT optimistic for this country. Obama has hurt me. He’s hurt my business. He’s hurt my property value which is critical to my future. I’ve been depressed over Obama for five years, more so because the leadership of my party will not fight Barack Obama for whatever reason, because he is Black as Limbaugh surmises? I don’t know and Congressional Republicans will not get rid of these wimps; these RINOs (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell) and they push wimps like Romney on us. They assured us Romney was the only one who can defeat Obama which was a LIE.

          • Carmichael

            I must be missing your point because I don’t see how your point is different from mine. Boots on the ground — BOOTS — will, possibly, scare the SOBs, great masses of people yelling and screaming in DC and state capitals. How wild are you?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Romney said stupid things about Islam and Israel because he wanted to get elected. In his personal life things have always been different. Devout Mormons love Israel and hate Islam.

          • wildjew

            I don’t think so. Why did he fight so hard against conservative on our national platform writing committee for the Palestinians? Platforms are not all that public. And if he really supported God and Israel he would have said, “I am deferring to conservatives on Israel. I want to divide Israel in order to establish a Muslim-enemy state dedicated to Israel’s destruction, but my conservative base does not want to carve up Israel.”

            Romney is a fraud. I voted for him but I knew I was voting for a chameleon and a fraud.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Romney lost but he came close. No other candidate could have. And I think Romney was the best man for the job because of his fiscal skill and obvious desire to cut government agencies, programs etc. that are causing huge waste. He was much more conservative than he let on, as his private life attests.

          • wildjew

            Romney probably would have been good for the economy. Where he came short was on foreign policy. He was terrible on Islam, Israel, etc. Romney fought conservative Christians on our national platform writing committee for the two state solution. He fought for the Palestinians. It was nauseating to me.

          • ziggy zoggy

            And that is how Dems win elections. By voting straight along party lines and generally supporting the “strongest candidate,” which means whichever one the media support.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Yes, Independents are impotent. Supporting them hands victories to the Dems and makes Republicans stop working for your vote.

  • wildjew

    “Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich urged Congress Tuesday to “vote no” on a military strike against Syria and instead begin debate on what he described as even bigger strategic challenges for the United States and the world.

    “The most powerful nation in the world does not need a three- or four-week debate about a limited, symbolic, tactical use of power,” the Georgia Republican wrote Tuesday in an opinion piece for CNN, as he urged Congress to “vote no on a meaningless public relations use of military force against [Syrian President Bashar Assad].

    Urgent: Should U.S. Strike Syria? Vote Here

    “What we do need are three debates about very large strategic challenges,” he added, referring to Iran’s nuclear program, the spread of radical Islamism, and the vulnerabilities in the U.S. military being created by “budgetary drawdowns.”

    “Each of these challenges is massively bigger and vastly more important to our survival than the symbolic Syrian attack,” Gingrich said.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Boehner’s first line of business should be investigating the evidence that the criminal investigators have brought to Washington DC proving Barry Soetoro has been using fraudulent documents as a means to remain in office. I know for a fact that in recent days a number of Congresspersons have been presented with the evidence and it sits on their desks. Before they vote to allow this Fraud in Chief to send our military into action they need to confront him about this fraud and criminal activity. He was never vetted and thus he was allowed to get away with the use of fraudulent documents. This needs to be investigated before he drags us into World War III. If you don’t think that is possible than you are smoking your socks.

  • Lanna

    Cold hard facts say that we have people in Washington that want us to be part of the Islamic Caliphate…people have lost their minds!

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    The first time I saw the man I shook my head with sadness and I’m shaking it still. Poor America! It has no leaders. It is run by morons and racists and Communists and gangsters. I sent a question to Obama this morning and the New York Times actually published it – maybe they are starting to get religion. In the past any hint of criticism about the administration found my comments rejected. This is the sort of question the GOP should be asking Obama but they never will:

    I have a question for President Obama. Since you are as determined to oust Assad in Syria as you were to get rid of Mubarak in Egypt, who would you like to see running Syria in Assad’s place? The Muslim Brotherhood that you promoted in Egypt and that you seem to promote in America through its many front organizations?

  • JacksonPearson

    Tsk, tsk, and they call themselves republicans.

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    Why are the Republicans even talking about Syria? Iran is the controlling force behind Syria. What will American prestige mean when we get into another war that may be difficult to get out of? Obama’s purpose for drawing the U.S. into a war with Syria is to distract attention from Iran’s nuclear program; and prevent an Israeli strike on Iran; not to mention to continue to weaken the U.S. military. McCain should be pressuring Obama to support Israel; not carrying water for the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Howard

    The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

    – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

    – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

    – there must be serious prospects of success;

    – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

    These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.


    So I guess we are all expected to just ignore all that and drop bombs for fun.

    • visitor

      To your points:
      – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

      ***Is permitting the use of chemical weapons to massacre civilians not grave damage? What signal does it send to enemy regimes and their terrorist proxies if we permit the gassing of civilians?

      – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

      ***Assad has been warned repeatedly not to use these weapons; he has ignored these warnings. Diplomacy has proven ineffective; the only language he understands is force.

      – there must be serious prospects of success;

      ***The American military has sufficient capability to deter the Syrian military from using these weapons and the power to render them incapable of using them if need be.

      – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

      ***I don’t think we will target civilians. That’s how Assad wages war.

      • Howard

        When you really have to use question marks, it isn’t certain.

        Heck, it is not even certain WHO used chemical weapons. Both the rebels and the Assad regime are morally capable of it, and both sides may well have access to Sarin, which is easy to produce. Remember the gassing of the Tokyo subway in 1995? We know who BENEFITED from the use of gas — the rebels. So no, it is not certain.

        Nor for that matter, was it damage to this nation, nor is the response coming from a community of nations, but apparently just from one.

      • Howard

        “I don’t think we will target civilians. That’s how Assad wages war.”

        You must be too young to remember the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction, to say nothing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We sure as hell have targeted civilians in the past. Most of the drone strikes carried out today are also certainly not against the military; they are against people who may or may not be terrorists. Sometimes they are not.

        Yeah, yeah, here comes the argument about collateral damage and how these were mistakes. Assuming that the Assad regime was behind the gas attack, they no doubt have the same rationalizations: that the civilian casualties were an unfortunate consequence of an attack on a rebel position, and that the civilian casualties could have been foreseen but were not directly intended. If one side can make that claim, so can the other.

        But notice that the requirement that must be met says nothing about TARGETING civilians. It says, “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” That means, among other things, that we must be sure that the devil we don’t know is not worse than the devil we do know. That proposition is highly questionable, to say the least, and regardless of whether you mean worse for the international community or worse for the Syrian civilian population. But the evils of war certainly include “collateral damage”, regardless of whether Tommy Franks thinks we should count those or not.

      • ziggy zoggy

        You opposed every military action Bush undertook and support every harebrained one that Obama undertakes. Your motivation is clear, troll tard.

        And spare me any lies about how I don’t know that. Everybody on this thread knows it.

        • Howard

          Only if they’ve been smoking what you’ve been smoking. Apparently a lot of people who call themselves “conservatives” are do just that, but not all.

          Your feelings are apparently hurt because George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq could not be justified under Just War Theory. His attack against the Taliban almost certainly could, though. Al Qaeda, under Taliban protection, and attacked the US on multiple occasions — not just 9/11, but also the Cole attack and the earlier (and unspectacular) World Trade Center bombing. I normally worry about the need for a declaration of war, but precedent seems to indicate that this is only required if the action is against a recognized government — not, for example, the Barbary pirates or the Apaches. Really the only thing lacking was an end game — to have a “serious prospect of success”, one should really know what “success” would look like. That is debatable, though, in a situation where the previous Taliban leadership were killed or driven out of the country. So yes, I supported military action against Afghanistan.

          I don’t know why you want to draw the line with the 2000 election. I didn’t support the attack on Serbia under Clinton or “Operation Just Cause” under Bush senior; I thought (and still think) that the latter was primarily intended to show that there was a use for the military in a post-Cold War world. I did support Desert Storm, although the lack of a declaration of war bothered me then as it always does, and even then I knew that issuing a ultimatum was not really diplomacy.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Obama has been exposed as a weakling because of his red line statements about Syria and Iran. I notice he isn’t bombing Iran, which actually is an existential threat to America.

      • Howard

        Wow! You vastly overestimate Iran. China and Russia are infinitely bigger threats to the US. Heck, even the European Union probably is: they don’t have the animosity, but they do have the technology to compete with the US in many areas of modern warfare. North Korea has nukes and a much crazier dictator — unlike the Soviets of old, we can’t completely count on them not being suicidally stupid. About the only thing Iran has going for it is size — and the fact that most people in America and Europe are fed up with fighting in the Middle East.

        As for Obama: Yes. My problem with him is mostly due to his pro-abortion actions and the way in which he has pushed the gay agenda at every turn, followed by the way in which he continues to use racial divisiveness to drive his own power, country be damned.

        But if you want to say he was exposed as a weakling, you need look no farther than his first weeks in office, when piracy off the Horn of Africa was much in the news. All he needed to do to stop it was to keep a few destroyers off the coast (though a cruiser would be better). Let it be known that any vessel leaving Somalia and venturing more than 10 miles off shore would be assumed to be a pirate and sunk without further warning; legitimate merchants could apply for an exemption and be given instructions on a course they could keep without drawing fire. I really thought he would do something like that, because (a) it would be an achievable, low-risk engagement, (b) its moral justification was transparent, (c) it did not risk becoming a quagmire, and (d) it would give him some kind of credibility. As far as I can tell, though, he did absolutely nothing whatsoever, and although Somali piracy is not much in the news these days, it still seems to be a problem in the region.

  • John Davidson

    How can anyone trust Obama now? Are our reps shirking their duties once again?

  • A Z

    I defended Boehner when he cried. I said that that was inspired. The Democrats have 1/3 to 1/2 the population convinced that non-Democrats want dirty air, dirty water and grandma kicked out of her home. It made Boehner look “compassionate”.

    Well that bit of truth and that may have been inspired, but after this I see that Boehner does not have the backbone of a statesman. I am done with him.

    We owe Assad. Se owe to to to Assad to assassinate him using drones or Spec Ops, drive him from power or to bring him to a war crimes trial like Milosovich (which was a mistake). The Syrian military and intelligence services provided aid to Hezbollah in the 1980s and al Qaeda during the Iraq war. They actively aided and abetted groups killing Americans. So yeah we owe Assad big time.

    But now is not the time and this is not the way. Britain went to war against NAZI Germany. but before they drew their red line, which they drew before they wanted they were ramping up military production for 2 or 3 years before getting into the war. All stupid ___ Democrats can do is ramped down the military and then get us into conflict. Carter ramped down the military. He ramped it down for 2 years, the Soviet Union went on a rampage and then Carter belated started ramping it back up. Check the budgets.

    Then comes Mr Class President himself, (Hey Baby watcha doing?) Clinton. He ramped down the military. For one we had an air launched cruise missile deficit. We had to cut into our strategic stock and convert nuclear to conventional cruise missiles.

    Then comes Obama. Same deal cut the military, throw cruise missiles and ordinance around.

    Assad outside of supporting terrorists groups may not be able to respond. but Syria’s patrons, Russia and Iran will. And we know that Mr Class President Redux don’t wanna touch that.

    And those terrorists are here. It is just a matter of what they want to do and how many casualties they are willing to take.

    Watch ‘Dennis M. Lynch’s” film they come to America.

    If they only catch about a 1/3rd of illegals crossing the border, they are probably only catching about 1/3rd of the Other than Mexican (OTM) illegals.
    so yeah those terrorists are here. Will all of them strike if we hit Syria? Probably not. Some are sleeper cells waiting for a general war. Others are trying to make money illegally while corrupting and weakening America. It is an attritional strategy which keeps them alive and lets them wait for a general war. Remember many of those Senators and the President will live, work and arty in safe enclaves like Martha’s Vinyard, the Hamptons and Washington. They do not fear terrorists attack. That is the lot of little people.

    We hit Assad’s air force hard and pieces of military equipment, the Iranians will look to what they can do. they might surge, send in more troops. It will stretch them logistically and financially, but they would do it. It might leave them vulnerable to protest at home. but if they survive it they will regard it as worth it. They will then remember who made their life hard. Would Obama support protests in ran. He did not support the Green Revolution (Iranian Spring) in 2009. So why would he support it this time around?

    Obama should be rebuilding the American economy, the American military and bring Americans together. He does the opposite. Since he is doing that he should not go around telling willful people with real military muscle, real intelligence assets and multiple terrorists groups on the leash to hold still I am going to give you a bloody nose.

    A person would not do that on the playground at school why would they do it when they grew up and played for higher stakes?

    Oh yeah, Obama grew up as a privileged, spoiled upper class white life.
    He’s never been in a real fight. Private schools and privilege and all.

  • Walter Sieruk

    There is and old saying from the Far-East . Which is that “Nothing is so bad that action will not make it worse.” In the case of Obama wanting to send missles into Syria this ancient proverb just may be true.

  • Walter Sieruk

    With this conflict in Syra both sides are bad. Thre is no national or rational reason the for sake of the homeland security of America for the Untied States to get involved in that civil war in that country. America needs to keep out of it.


    It cracks me up that Kerry the very man that came home from Vietnam and testified in front of congress against the armed forces. Is now calling the shots to invade Syria. Has everyone forgotten what a douchebag he was in the early 70s. Old swift boat John. Then we have this knucklehead Boehner, was he drinking again? Obama speaks Boehner jumps!! Why would we want to invade Syria? I thought it brilliant, that the Syrian government was murdering these Jihadists. Keeps them occupied, why stop Bashar from doing our job?

  • James Foard

    Boehner to Obama: Will you be gentle? I’ll let you drive.

  • Willy Rho

    Boehner has become a Traitor. He is so sad, what a Boner.

  • Willy Rho

    So he is just a Traitor without a Bon Bon.

  • LindaRivera

    Anti-human rights, anti-freedom Western leaders ADORE Muslim Brotherhood-Al Qaeda and will commit ANY act in order to get the Muslim Brotherhood into power: Christians are ‘always the scapegoat’: Mideast church leaders reject war with Syria
    by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
    Thu Aug 29, 2013 15:16 EST

    ROME, August 29, 2013 ( – The head of the Maronite Catholic Church has accused the West of deliberately fomenting sectarian unrest in the Middle East for economic reasons and at the expense of millions of Christians.

    Speaking from Lebanon, where thousands of Syrians have fled the conflict in their country, Patriarch Cardinal Mar Bechara Boutros al-Rai, the Maronite (Lebanese Catholic) Patriarch of Antioch, went so far as to say that there is a plot originating in the West to destroy the Middle East.

    The patriarch told Vatican Radio of his fears of a plan to destroy the Arab world for what he said were “political and economic interests,” saying he had already written to the pope twice warning of this.

    The West, for reasons of economics, have contributed to the “wars without end” in the Middle East “by giving billions of dollars to the [Egyptian] Muslim Brotherhood, so that they could get into power.”

    He added that in such conflicts in the Middle East, it is always the indigenous Christian populations who suffer most, “as if they were always the scapegoat.”…..

  • johnnywood

    Every Republican in Congress should simply vote “Present” and leave it at that. It will be harder for the Democraps to blame them for the fiasco that follows.

  • newsel

    Money talks BS walks….the RNC etc can do without my money. Consider monthly subscription cancelled if this goes ahead. Sit on it and rotate including Rubio.

  • LindaRivera

    Please help! Christians are being specifically targeted for attacks and MURDER by the cruel U.S. backed Muslim terrorists.


    SAY NO! to U.S. Strikes Against Syria
    Send a Free ANCA Webmail to Your Legislators

    Send a free ANCA WebMail to your Senators and Representative NOW! Simply type in your name, address and email below and click “Send Message.”

    Then, take a moment to ask all your friends and family to contact their elected officials using the handy “Tell-a-Friend” feature. You can also share this action alert on your Facebook and Twitter pages.

  • edgineer

    What a weasel Boehner is. “Only the United States has the capability”. What BS. Ever hear of NATO Mr. Speaker? Why hasn’t our glorious leader, who promised to heal relations with our allies not been able to get them to pitch in? Because they no longer respect or care to support this country. Thanks Democrats.

  • Ellman48

    “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking,” Dempsey said.
    Nor can any of the other clowns who support this motion. The best reason offered is that hundreds of kids were killed. Since when is that enough to launch a major assault risking many more lives. Hundreds of kids die each year from terrorist acts in the Middle East. So Obama suddenly decides to have us play policemen, judge and jury when the damage is inflicted by WMD? His motivation has nothing to do with retribution for the death of children. It has everything to do, as do all of his actions and constant lecturing, which gaining political advantage and co-opting credit for what the military achieves to himself personally. He’s so predictable!!!

  • BenJabo1Machal

    Boehner = Bonehead
    The fool never learns

  • Mur

    Outrage at the use of chemical weapons by Assad (if indeed it was he that used them) is merely the pretext for Obama’s consistent goal of support for the MBH wherever and whenever they require it.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Figures. Assad never cared about any fake “red line” and Obambi doesn’t want people to know he’s a pu$$y, so he is going to make a big spectacle out of an impotent attack against Assad- after he can finally choose which of the plans his apparatchiks are coming up with that he wants to use. He wants to look butch but he’s scared wet and doesn’t know what to do. No sycophantic media can protect him from what Russia, China or Syria might do.

    Boehner doesn’t want to look like a pu$$y when The Girly Man In Chief orders an attack no matter what, so he is bending over again.

    America is a laughingstock. Worst of all, nobody can even prove a chemical attack occurred, much less who may have carried it out.