Skip to comments.Breaking: Majority Leader Cantor & Speaker Boehner Will Vote For Use of Military Force in Syria
Posted on 09/03/2013 3:12:32 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Rep. Eric Cantor released a statement today supporting the use of military force in Syria and believes it is in our best interest to respond to the use of WMD.
I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria. While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States.
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.
Bashar Assads Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, is the epitome of a rogue state, and it has long posed a direct threat to American interests and to our partners. The ongoing civil war in Syria has enlarged this threat.
The Syrian conflict is not merely a civil war; it is a sectarian proxy war that is exacerbating tensions throughout the Muslim world. It is clear Iran is a principal combatant in this conflict, and its direct involvement is an integral part of Irans bid to establish regional hegemony. Were Assad and his Iranian patrons to come out on top it would be a strategic victory for Iran, embolden Hizballah, and convince our allies that we cannot be trusted.
Furthermore, sectarian tensions and extremist terrorism are already spilling over beyond Syrias borders, with terrorist attacks and assassinations on the rise in neighboring countries. It is not just an abstract theory that the Syrian conflict threatens the stability of key American partners in the region. It is a reality.
Beyond the obvious regional interests, a failure to adequately respond to the use of chemical weapons and compel the end of this conflict on terms beneficial to America and our partners only increases the likelihood of future WMD use by the regime, transfer to Hizballah, or acquisition by Al Qaeda. No one wants to be asking why we failed to act if the next time Sarin is used it is in the Paris or New York subway.
The United States broader policy goal, as articulated by the President, is that Assad should go, and President Obamas 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 Americas credibility is on the line. A failure to act when acting is in Americas 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.
Today, House Speaker John Boehner also gave his support to the Presidents plan saying, something the country needs to do.
Broken; doing the will of their master.
That, My FRieend, is what "immigration reform" is all about. The purpose of "immigration reform" is not to get Mexican laborers over here. It is to get muslims over here and that includes members of the muslim brotherhood and Al Quida.
I don’t know who I loathe more!! Obama or Boehner!!
“what about mccain and graham?”
Read my posts I write about them too. Since you asked, they are establishment, war-enthusiastic interventionists who are itching to set the world on fire.
Cantor is the one who told Bibi he would seek to make congress work for Israel’s interest.
Perhaps it’s possible.. just possible.. that your wrong and the people in power have more info than you do. Perhaps the Russians are not appealing to our government but to our people, hoping to create another Vietnam.
Let me just say I’m not totally convinced this isn’t some master plan by Obama to allow the terrorists to win, but Russia is old old enemy run by someone who hates America with every fiber of his being. Putin is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, wanting, waiting to destroy us. Terrorism is not our greatest enemy. It is, always has, and always will be Russia, at least until the Chinese get another 25-30 years to catch up and don’t somehow implode with their super bubble economy that would put all of our past bubbles to shame. I wouldn’t mind pounding Syria into dust just to remind Putin he still runs a 2nd rate country even if that means another play ground for terrorism, Israel will have fun with them once the S-300’s are gone anyways.
Like Mark Levin said earlier, "opposition to Syria has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Syria having nothing to do with our national security interests."
Bought and sold. Probably for season tickets to the Kennedy Center, box seats.
What happens if we topple Assad and al Qaeda takes over? Is anyone thinking about that at all.
Weve spent the better part of a decade fighting al Qaeda, and now were going to start giving then nationhood?
If Assad’s regime is toppled that will mean the end of the Alawites. They will be killed along with Christians. There will be NOBODY left in Syria to oppose AQ and the radical Jihadists - nobody. There is no question of “what if AQ takes over.” Their takeover would be all but guaranteed so one has to ask what will Russia do to protect it’s own interest (their port)and allies? What will Israel do to protect their nation given that AQ will have their hands on lots of WMD? What will Turkey do to protect itself from AQ and WMD?
Obama is playing with fire and there won’t be any way to reset the board in Syria. The potential ramifications for the region go far beyond any sins of Assad.
All you self-proclaimed conservatives that didn’t vote for the Republican in the last election effectively put Obama back into office.
You wouldn’t be talking about me. I voted for that weasel McCain and Mitt. And I still like Mitt.
And if some clown like McCain is the next nominee, I won’t be voting for him. If it’s Rubio, NO! I wouldn’t vote for Lindsey Graham, McCain, Lamar Alexander, Boeher, or any clown like that. They’re not much different than Obama.
Screw them! If you want us to support the al Qaeda and the muslim brotherhood, have at it. It’s not for me.
“If we had ONLY voted for Romney, none of this would be!!”
Wonder how Romney would have handled this.
It would be nice if it turned out that Assad had an idiot attack and used the CBR agents.
But Assad not being an idiot, knows better than to use chem agents.
So like previous chem usage, this latest, if real, was 99 percent odds that the rebels and terrorist groups opposing Assad did the chem attack. Unlike Assad, the Al Q’s and associated Obama-supported terrorist groups have everything to gain and nothing to lose with doing a chem attack and then claining Assad did it.
Carter lost the US, Iran.
Obaba will lose the rest of the Middle East.
Truly random lottery would give us better leadership than our “democracy” has now.
The Dems seek to make the USA into the USSA (and we are almost there).
The Repubs job seems to be to bend over and spread their legs for the Dems, other than some of the rank and file.
Toss them all out.
Wave a $20 bill in a trailor park and the USA would have better people in DC than now.
We truly are a dead Republic.
The Constitution is used as T.P.
The Police State is almost complete.
There is no noticeable opposition to the Dems by the Repub leadership.
We are toast as a Country.
The Repubs don’t even have the guts to defund Obaba’s Cr*pCare. And can’t even all oppose Obaba’s amnesty which will make the USA a One Party Socialist Fascist State forever.
The sad thing is not that the USA leadership is cr*p, but that the electorate has a voting majority of people dumber than a box of rocks. People happy to sell their freedom for a handout and a phone.
It is a sad day when one can look at Putin and Obaba and easily see that Putin would be a better leader.
- Saddle up - and you go
Let us know how it works out -
Amen. If this is only about smacking Assad for using Chem weapons on his enemies in this civil war, then what about the other times they’ve been used? Where, exactly is our vital national security interest here? There isn’t one besides “don’t use chemical weapons”?
Since we are going to be the world’s policeman when it comes to chemical weapons, we better think about what we’d do if other nations use them, like Iran and Iraq did during that nasty little war they fought during the 80’s.
This whole concept is pretty crazy. Bush was absolutely crucified by the left for going after Saddam after years and years of sanctions, UN resolutions, and embargoes. Obama says GO! and it looks like “our” guys will salute after making a little noise.
As to what happened to Saddam, looks like he passed his collection of slime on to Syria. Who will the Syrians pass them to? Will they just stay in place so the rebels get them?
At what point does one of these crazy dictators look at the track record of the other crazy dictators who have either given up WMD (Libya) or moved them (Iraq) and say, “screw it, I’m a dead man anyway, use ‘em or give ‘em to Al Queda!”?
There are a lot of questions that aren’t getting asked here. What’s the hidden agenda?
IKE and our Founders are right
- Avoid foreign entanglements
- This all about EGO, CONTROL, POWER, MONEY, and CYA -
Do we see Putin throwing his troops into every squabble?
Remember MAD Magazine?
SPY Vs SPY
- no blood for the rodeo clown
The United States broader policy goal, as articulated by the President, is that Assad should go, and President Obamas 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 Americas credibility is on the line. A failure to act when acting is in Americas 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.”
So using military force is “action,” but economic pressure and diplomacy are not. OK.
Sorry about that!
Let me put some meat on the bones of your “stealth” attacks on Rand and Ted.
Rand is against all this foreign involvement including all the millions in foreign aid. That does NOT mean he is for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He’s just doing what libertarian types do. He also points out hypocrisy at every turn where he sees it, and it IS hypocritical of Obama to keep the Egyptian aid flowing to the Army wipeout of its enemies, while saying we have to get involved in Syria on the side that is taking the beating right now in Egypt. The whole thing is a monstrous MESS.
Ted has made clear that HIS objection to Obama on Egyptian aid is that an act of Congress says if there is a military coup against an elected government the aid must be cut off. He’s made clear he wants the law straightened out, instead of allowing Obama to violate the law. Change the law, so that if we want to continue aiding Egypt under their military rule it would not be illegal, which is what it is NOW.
Why must you show up to attack Rand and Ted? What does THAT do? Nothing good, that’s for sure.
They are both against what Obama and his GOP E toadies are doing about Syria. And that’s not all of the good they do, for instance against Obamacare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.