Reply With Quote
smh
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...7.html?hp=t1_3House leaders back Obama call for action in Syria
House Speaker John Boehner is on board with President Barack Obama’s call for military action in Syria.
“This is something that the United States as a country needs to do,” Boehner said Tuesday after a White House meeting with Obama. “I’m going to support the president’s call for action, and I believe my colleagues should support the president’s call for action.”
Boehner announced his position after a Tuesday morning meeting with congressional leadership in the Cabinet Room. In a 90-second statement to reporters, Boehner echoed Obama’s earlier sentiment that the United States has a unique responsibility and capability to enforce international law forbidding chemical weapons.
Boehner was joined in his support by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), putting the onus on House leadership to secure enough votes to pass a use-of-force resolution that remains unpopular among both the American public and rank-and-file members of both parties.
(Also on POLITICO: Syria a no-win for either party in 2014)
“The use of these weapons has to be responded to and only the United States has the capability and the capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not to be tolerated,” Boehner said.
Cantor (R-Va.) did not address reporters at the White House, but released a statement that backed authorizing Obama to use force against Syria.
“I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria,” Cantor said. “Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope he is successful in that endeavor.”
smh
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people my ass.
I been telling you people for years, we're all disenfranchised. Voting is a meaningless charade, a dog-and-pony show where the media corps sell your eyeballs to the advertisers and political orgs.
The country is owned and operated by the corporations, the 1%, the financial sector.
Yeah you 'have been telling us.':
And it's not that simple, dimwit. I know you want your neo-bourgeois but you have the subtlety of a toilet seat.
yes, IT'S THAT SIMPLE.Yeah you 'have been telling us.'
And it's not that simple, dimwit. I know you want your neo-bourgeois but you have the subtlety of a toilet seat.
You complicate it way beyond your ability to understand.
As a country we need to stand for something. Are we going to allow for anyone to use wmds against civilians without repurcussions? If we claim going forward that what happens in your backyard stays in your backyard then we stand for nothing. This would mena that any crackpopt would understand that the US would do nothing if they decided to gas a village.
Am I advocating starting liberation experiments? No, what I am for is our military stand up for the innocent and kick the crap out of leaders who won't abide be general decency standards.
yay world police!!!
Remember folks, if you aren't for killing everything that moves, you're an ISOLATIONIST who is going to be responsible for the deaths of everything that moves
"Are we going to allow for anyone to use wmds against civilians without repurcussions?"
yes, allow, encourage, ignore an ally (Iraq) who gassed an enemy(Iran).
I agree, we must stand up against Al Qaeda for using chemical weapons that we supplied them with and used against those children.
We must also stand up to Obamas murdering of children with his illegal drones and assasination of Americans with no due process.
You're right!! If you don't stand up against the US President for treason and war crimes, then we stand for nothing.
Why can't this be the that gets filibustered to death when it gets to the senate?
You beat me to it, I was going to mention, there is a huge rumor going around the Internets that Rand Paul might filibuster.
He won't. That dude's a fake. I will bet anyone here that loudmouth Pual will not filibuster . Mofo is all bark and no bite.
what standards was the US following when they helped Saddam gas thousands of Iranians?
or how about when US was bombing Iraq with bombs contaminated with Depleted Uranium?
And That filibuster accomplished what, exactly? Nothing more than theatrics.
he's not filibustering jack on Syria. Put your money where your mouth is or stfu.
Hey dumbass..I never said he was, I said there was a rumor that he might. And then you said he would never do it. All I did was show he has filibustered before.
And he got attention on drones on Americans, drones period, and made Obama give an answer. The answer is a lie, but don't lie and say he didn't accomplish anything. It's more than what any piece of fake liberal democrat did on the issue, that's for damn sure, whether for show or not lol
Hour 12
Paul won't filibuster . He's got a long career ahead of him and it would be a shame it came to an abrupt end by confronting the Jew, Oil, Bank and War lobbies head on
none of the spineless Congressmen besides a few will even vote against War. They all would hate to destroy their funding and promising political careers by upseting the major lobbies.
like some US politician was quoted weeks back "there is no rolling back the drums of war"
the war is going to go through. the Jews/Saudis/Oil Cos/Banks and Defense companies have already decided for us
oh and don't forget this.
Not only will the war happen in less than 10 days, but Lebanon will be dragged into it by Jews and Bin Satan. He's already ordered a few bombings there to stir the pot.
like a US general said years ago, these countries are in the list of the great Neocon Plan:
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and the head of the snake Iran
right before it's the head of the snake's turn, yall better have your food stockpiles ready, cause the apocalypse is coming
well unless the Russians can have some success:
Russia considering sending Peace mission to US Congress, also making Syria discussions top priority in G20 meeting
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europ...ton-over-Syria
Last edited by cheguevara; 09-03-2013 at 05:39 PM.
I agree that we have a moral need to help people from getting gassed by their own or someone else's government. To not do so leaves us vulnerable to charges that were reasonably laid against the Allied governments during the Holocaust.
Having said that, there is no convincing proof that I have seen that the rebels in Syria are NOT Al Qaeda-based, at least in part. I am not in favor of supporting Al Qaeda anywhere anytime. Anybody remember the U.S. supporting the rebels in Cuba overthrowing the evil dictator Batista? Yeah, Castro said all the right things at the time and stood in New York crossing himself to show the nation a 'good Catholic'. Then he got in power and became the harshest Communist dictator in the hemisphere (at least for a while).
Support the innocents who have been gassed? Yes. Support the rebels against their government? Not so sure about that.
I thought we were broke, we couldn't raise the debt ceiling anymore, and the deficit was going to crush us...
But, we have money for this?
Made him a national figure. Gave Cruz a platform. Brought in alot of money. Scaring alot of people about isolationism and the popularity of it.
Sounds like they would be strikes from the battleships.
The biggest groups using that talking point are against this btw.
I used to be ok with the "no boots on the ground" argument... but at this point there's no such thing as a short engagement in that region... and frankly, as I said, if we're going to waste that money, I rather we all get a fat check instead...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
