Boehner supports military action in Syria...

[Billo_Really]

Who would've thunk it?

Obama Shaken by Boehner’s Support

Aides to President Obama said today that he was “visibly shaken” after receiving support from House Speaker John Boehner for his Syria campaign, adding that the Speaker’s vote of confidence was “making him rethink the whole thing.”

An aide to Mr. Obama, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that he was in the Oval Office with the President when he got the call from Mr. Boehner: “As it became clear that Boehner was going to support him on this, he looked more and more stunned. He was trying to stay calm and all but you could see that he was really taken aback.”

After putting down the phone with Mr. Boehner, the President reportedly told aides, “Boehner’s supporting it. That’s so weird. This is still a good idea, right?”

Moments after the President had “seemed to settle down,” the aide said, he received a phone call from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who also offered his support for the Syria plan.

“That one really rattled him,” the aide said. “He was like, ‘I think I need to take a long walk.’”

The calls from Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor have created what the aide called “the biggest crisis of confidence this President has ever experienced.”

“I checked in on him later in the day, just to see if he was O.K.,” the aide said. “He was cradling his head in his hands saying, ‘I just don’t know. I just don’t know anymore.’”

While the President’s plan to attack Syria remains on the table, the aide indicated that the situation is very fluid: “If Rand Paul calls today and says he’s in, the whole thing goes away.”

 

[candycorn]

Only symbolically. Go peddle that shit to some naïve fucker. Americans don't want this.

Both of you are right.

What shocks me is that 14 months from now, 80+ percent of those who vote for this misadventure in Syria will be returned to their seats.

If you're not going to vote them out for financial mismanagement, and you're not going to vote them out for foreign policy mismanagement, what is these people have to do to get voted out?

The limited strikes advocated by the Administration hardly constitute a ‘misadventure.’

Iraq/Afghanistan was a misadventure.

‘Worst case’ with regard to the limited strikes is they’ll have no effect. If Assad refrains from using chemical weapons on his people again then the action realized its goal. But it won’t tip the advantage toward the rebels and the outcome in Syria will be the same whether the limited strikes are launched or not.

In light of the Libyan precedent, the only reasonable basis to object to the limited strikes is they won’t change anything, resulting in only a waste of ordnance.

I disagree.

We bomb them, they aren't going to leave office, then what? Bomb them again?

Or...

We bomb them, they leave office, then what? We have an even more unstable theocracy?

Where is our trophy?

But the notion that the limited strikes will result in some ‘dire, cataclysmic disaster’ on the same scale as Iraq/Afghanistan is partisan idiocy.

Nobody knows the outcome of a war once you open the door.

Consequently, advocating ‘voting out’ members of Congress because they supported the limited strikes in good faith is hardly justifiable; there are far better reasons to ‘vote out’ a given member of Congress.

I do agree with this. The point I was making (poorly) is that We the People seem, for some reason, totally unwilling to vote out members of Congress regardless of how they perform.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Assad does not use gas munitions again, the bombing stops.

If he continues, the missiles continue.

 

[Billo_Really]

If Assad does not use gas munitions again, the bombing stops.

If he continues, the missiles continue.

And if Russia decides to send missles our way...

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Assad does not use gas munitions again, the bombing stops.

If he continues, the missiles continue.

And if Russia decides to send missles our way...

Then you don't understand Putin if you think that.

The sun could explode tomorrow.