Image 01 Image 03

Syria – Boehner on board and other developments

Syria – Boehner on board and other developments

There are many developments on the Syria front, some in Congress, some on the ground.

We will update this throughout the day, and as usual, have the Legal Insurrection and #Syria hashtag Twitter feeds at the bottom of the post. Update are in reverse chronological order, with most recent on top.

Media Benjamin of Code Pink being dragged (screaming) out of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing as John Kerry was concluding his prepared statement.

Code Pink Senate Foreign Relations Hearing

Legal Insurrection’s Syria Twitter Feed:

#Syria Hashtag Feed::


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



The Congress should vote against attacking Syria. This would be interpreted as an insult to Obama. Obama never had any intention to attack Syria; he was just playing the tough guy. Hopefully, he would resign in order to save face.

It’s not clear to me that the Republican caucus will go along with Boehner. I actually wonder if this might split the caucus sufficiently to cause them to replace the man.

    thorleywinston in reply to stevewhitemd. | September 3, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    I rather doubt it. Boehner’s been a disappointment since he took a dive on the deficit ceiling issue when he publicly announced that he was willing to settle for a smaller amount of “cuts” (read: reductions in the rate of growth) than he promised to get when Republicans took back the House in 2010. The problem is that as bad as Boehner and Cantor are, there doesn’t seem to be anybody competent ready to take their place. I think that’s in large part because the House Republican caucus is just as shy about making the actual tough choices as their leadership (look at how many of them abandoned pushing for actual cuts when they had to make specific choices on the transportation bill) and it could be that what passes for “leadership” is really the best that we could do. I think it’s also because we keep getting closer to the point where we simply won’t be able to put off making tough choices about things like entitlement programs and there aren’t too many good candidates who are willing to step up and take responsibility for making those decisions.

      Not that it’s germane to Syria, but .. one of the knives in Gingrich’s back, back in the day, had Boehner’s prints on it.

      I don’t see anything in Boehner’s career since – or Santorum’s for that matter – to indicate they’re anything other than crabs trying to crawl out of a box by climbing higher-up crabs.


We now know everything that goes on in Syria but still don’t have any idea what took place in our Embassy in Benghazi.

    GrumpyOne in reply to Musson. | September 3, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    Yeah but this whole Syrian brouhaha is sure taking the spotlight off of Benghazi. “Tail wagging the dog” and our politicos are going to sell us out right before our eyes.

    Consider my stomach thoroughly turned sour…

Did O answer Boehner’s 14 questions and if so what were they?

    thorleywinston in reply to MarkS. | September 3, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    I have it on good authority that Boehner’s fourteen questions to Obama consisted of the latter’s draft picks for the Chicago Bulls and a request for Beyonce’s autograph.

      I figure that Boehner’s answer was the same answer that the Chief Justice got when he challenged Obama on ObamaCare:

      Here is the NSA file on you, your wife and your family along with the recorded phone conversations and the emails.
      Go along with me or else.

>>”Speaker Boehner: “I’m going to support the president’s call for action.””

Big surprise from the shadow democrat.

And I wouldn’t doubt that he, like Obama, smells an opportunity in a crisis. In this case, to smuggle in amnesty through all the commotion over Syria. You KNOW he wants to.

Rand Paul suggested that if Boehner passed Amnesty that it would cost him his speakership.

I suggest that if he votes yes to authorized President Obama to strike Syria, that it will cost him his speakership.

Boehner has been a HUGE disappointment as House Majority “Leader”.

    thorleywinston in reply to Paul. | September 3, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    The thing is Boehner has been a weak leader for quite some time now and he was overwhelmingly reelected by his colleagues as their leader. I doubt that Syria is going to be the final straw because (a) he’s leading a caucus that’s just as weak as he is and (b) no one else seriously wants to be in his seat when it comes time to have to make really tough choices which we are still kicking down the road.

Is this just one giant Kubuki show? There is virtually NO reason for the USA to attack Syria & Assad.

After all the criticism of Bush, Obamessiah now seeks to carry out anonymous missile and bomb strikes? The hypocrisy of it all alone should gag the Washington DC maggots of both parties.

Unless of course we wish to support the same fine sectarian political group who flew planes in to the World Trade Center.

Dear god, please PLEASE somebody primary Boehner.

Sold out by the republican leadership again. When will we strike back?

Boehner, McCain, and Graham all on board. That’s enough reason to vote no right there.

Weapons of mass destruction? Two airplanes took down the towers, killed 3,000. Bomb every Middle East country with airplanes! Bomb the Boeing factory! For the children!

Weapons of mass destruction? The Boston bombers killed 3 and horribly maimed over 200 others with gunpowder taken from fireworks. Bomb Chinese fireworks factories! Bomb South Of The Border! Save the kittens!

Weapons of mass destruction? I have access to both airplanes and fireworks. Bomb me! Protect America from my WMDs!

Politicians are cheapening the meaning of ‘WMD’ the same way terms like ‘racism’ have been rendered meaningless.

Spoke with my nephew, an active USMC Staff Sgt with one Iraq tour and two Afghanistan tours, and his brother, an active US Army 2nd Lt with two tours in Afghanistan. Gung ho, these boys, but neither sees the point in attacking Syria. Two wives and three kids between them.

This article sums it up nicely:

On top of this, it is a good opportunity to send a no confidence vote to a third rate President.

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

    stevewhitemd in reply to 18-1. | September 3, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    By George, that gives me an idea:

    Have Boehner extend an invitation for Obama to address the Congress. Do it in prime time with all the pomp and formality that the occasion demands.

    After all, FDR addressed the Congress to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Why not have Champ address the Congress to make his case for an authorization for the use of force?

    A fair segment of the American people, and a good part of the rest of the world, can already predict the result if he does: an empty speech with lots of “let me be clear” but few specifics, and no clear strategy.

    Have the man make his case in front of the American people, and vote accordingly.

Nope. There is no rational reason to support a “strike” on Syria.

We’ve KNOWN they had WMD. Using them is what people do when they have munitions and are pushed. They will NOT forswear the HAVING of WMD by any stretch, and Russia will do everything they can to prop them up.

Nor am I sanguine that Assad used the WMD. I can readily accept his opposition did it.

If you believe Obama wants to bomb Syria for political cover..

If you believe Obama involved Congress for political cover..

If you believe Obama already looks weak, and bombing Syria, or anyone else will not change that…

If you believe there are so many tangled alliances in the Syrian conflict that we cannot possibly know who we are helping, hurting, or what the repercussions will be…

How could a person in good conscience support Obama’s bombing mission?

We have no national interest in Syria. A strike on Syria is a strike in favor of the Sunnis, and Obama will do everything to rescue Sunni Muslims and nothing to rescue Americans under attack by Sunnis. FYI, Al Qaeda is Sunni. Why are we going to arm Al Qaeda? Why will we fight for Al Qaeda? Why will we bomb Shi’ites for Al Qaeda? Where are we getting the money for the missiles from? Where will we get the money to replace them? The Saudis? They believe our money spent on behalf of Muslims is jizya, a poll tax “infidels” must pay so Muslims won’t attack.

The GOP leadership is despicable; they listen to the Democrats and not to their voters. Man, as much as I’ve got issues with her, I wish Michelle Bachmann were the SOH right now!

[…] Supporters of authority for Peace Prize Putz Prez, like Boner and Pelousy, who applaud Obama’s “limited” attack dream to “punish” Assad should answer the points we raise below (like why Assad will be strengthened by “surviving” an American attack) and some of those raised by Obama adorer Al Hunt: […]

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 3, 2013 at 1:53 pm

Why are all these ruling class Republicans so eager to authorize force before there’s a debate on the floor of the people’s House or before their constituents have had a chance to weigh in? It’s almost as if they don’t really care about a debate. They just wan to shut down the opposition before it even has a chance to have its voice heard.

I was a daily reader of Legal Insurrection, but I can no longer, in good conscience, support Mr. Jacobson and his pro war stance on Syria. You side with Boehner, Cantor and a war that serves no purpose other than to preserve the dignity of an executive that is out of his league on the world stage.

Ask yourself, when is the last time a liberal sided with a Republican on any major policy issue? They’re devoutly liberal. Disingenuously liberal. Militantly anti-conservative. Learn to fight like a liberal. Bipartisanship is dead.

My absence will register nary a blip on the site meter, but boycotting this site feels right to me. The only thing worse than a liberal is an obsequious conservative who supports liberalism in any capacity.

    You’re going to take your ball and go home?

    Well, bless your heart.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to RightHandPath. | September 3, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Aw, c’mon. We supported Newt Gingrich in 2012 too. Loosen up your truss and catch your breath. When everybody who writes for or reads this blog become of the same opinion, it’s time to end it.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to RightHandPath. | September 3, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    People should do what they feel is best for them.

    My real sympathies are for he serving embers of any nation that will be forced to do the devil’s work.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | September 3, 2013 at 6:49 pm

      Embers = members . Accidentally apt perhaps . I remember the invocations that the US army padres summoned when going into Fallujah . They said that Satan was in there.

      Now they have been silenced . Just when it might be true.

Subotai Bahadur | September 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm

There is no longer any reason to be a member of, or support, the Republican Party. By blackmail, extortion, bribery, or sense of noblesse without any sense of oblige they are nothing but extensions of the Democrats. When Boehner goes over to the Democrats, and we have history, about 40 of his minions do also. Which gives victory to the Democrats.

They said that we had to give up on the 2011 Budget, so we could fight for the Ryan Plan.

They said that we had to give up on the Ryan Plan, so we could fight for the 2012 Budget.

They said that we had to give up on the 2012 Budget, so we could fight for the Debt Ceiling.

They said we had to give up on the Debt Ceiling Plan, so we can concentrate on fighting the 2012 elections.

They said we had to nominate the designer of what became Obamacare to win the 2012 elections.

After we lost the 2012 elections, they said we had to give up on the Fiscal Cliff so we could fight for the Continuing Resolution.

They said we had to give up on the Continuing Resolution so we could have the Sequester, which it turned out only cut the military.

They said we had to give up on Open Borders and Amnesty, because otherwise the people who always vote against us [illegally] would vote against us.

Now they say that we have to support a lying sack of excrement president and give him unlimited power to attack Syria, support Al Quada and the Muslim Brotherhood [who are at war with us], and start a regional war [possibly nuclear]; because ….????

Anyone else see a freaking pattern here?

Subotai Bahadur

I’ve got a great idea! Let’s bomb Assad’s assets in Syria and degrade his ability to fight a civil war. With any luck, the mostly al-Qaeda rebels will take over the country – and grab up all of Assad’s chemical weapons! Problem solved and American security assured! Awesome, huh?


    When does the promise of no boots on the ground mean I will change my mind once you sign on to my fiasco?

    John Kerry, just thinking out loud: I can’t rule out boots on the ground if Syria implodes

    But “In the event Syria imploded for instance or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies — all of us, the British, the French, and others,” Kerry said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the President of the United States to secure our country.”

    For the liberals reading consider carefully our warnings because this foreign policy failure has boots on the ground and us embroiled in yet another civil war already baked into the cake. So what’s your favorite cake liberals? Because Obama and Kerry will tell you anything you want to hear with the commensurate heaping of tears and self righteous indignation to demand your support. All you need know is Obama is a Democrat and Black and if you oppose his desire you are a turncoat and racist.

    This is not about chemical weapons, this is about goosing the price of oil because the Green Lobby isn’t doing so well right now. Their fortunes are directly tied to the price of oil and any blow up in the M.E. puts money in their pockets for another quarterly income statement. This is the real blood for oil story.

thorleywinston | September 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm

Just so we’re clear – President Obama wants to expend more time and effort on rescuing Syrian “rebels” who may or may not be part of Al-Qaeda then he was willing to exert in helping four of our own in Benghazi?

No to Obama’s Syrian War!
No to Boehner’s support of Obama’s War!
No to Cantor’s support of Obama’s War!

There is no good reason to be involved. I’ve never been an isolationist and am not now, but this is a war too far, for too little, with no strategy, no objective, no clue how to fight, no money, and no support.

Only winner is for Congress to shut this sucker down!

After hearing Nancy Pelosi’s pathetic rationalization to support Obama’s decision, Obama is a Democrat otherwise he will look bad, I can’t see any real justification for attacking Syria. The point of attacking Syria may have some rationale to Obama, i.e. deflecting public attention from the various scandals at the NSA and IRS but all of them are self serving and not for the public’s benefit.

Attacking Syria ranks right up there with attacking Libya and helping to overthrow Egypt’s government. There is no benefit to US strategic interests but only benefits radical Islamist Terrorists.

Is anyone asking the question of consequences? So Assad seeing no hope in a future might just decide he will go out in a blaze of glory of suicide by US military. Then what? He has terrorists attacking everyone all over the world killing people. The Iranians via their end time cult of the Mahdi may see this as their “sign” to salt the planet with nuclear material to cause worldwide chaos. NO, you don’t need to nuclear material to blow up things, you can use it in a powder form to contaminate whole square miles. You don’t need big bombs to kill millions, when several well placed mini nukes like the Davy Crockett the size of artillery shells can do the same thing to spread chaos and EMP effects.

If you must do something, then you shouldn’t do the wrong thing or at least not hinder the right thing.

This really isn’t a well thought out strategy here by Obama since these are not rational people by our culture’s definition. When you devise a strategy of punishment you have to know the intended target’s definition of punishment otherwise you risk supporting their cause. What does Assad and what do the Iranian Mullahs fear the most? A Sunni led insurgency (al Qaeda) as is happing now in Syria and then spreading to Iran. All we will do is interfere with the natural progression of things by responding in such an overt manner.

You want to punish Assad for a desperation move? Show him you intend to make his situation more desperate by giving Stinger missiles to the rebels (the ones we trust) making all of Syrian airspace a no fly zone. The PR move here is to publicly tell Assad for every person who dies in a chemical attack, we will give the rebels one stinger missile. See how fast he backpedals!!! Then tell the Iranian Mullahs to butt out of Syria otherwise we will arm the Kurds with Stingers as well using the same count as they are equally guilty of those deaths because they actively support Assad. NOW THAT WILL INDUCE FEAR!

To any congressional staffers monitoring Legal Insurrection .. please encourage your boss to vote “Present”.


Obama has stepped in this Syrian mess with both feet and it isn’t Boehner’s job to give him a free path of retreat by refusing congressional authorization. Obama needs no such authorization just to launch a few Tomahawks, but it sure looks as though he lost his nerve once he realized he was standing alone. At this point time is not an ally to Obama.

Republican leadership can claim support all while delaying action on a resolution for a week… or two… or three. Say all the right words, but don’t do a damn thing. Give the already dismal polling numbers a chance to solidify, the anti-war libs a chance to get wound up and the MSM time to ask a few questions. Let Obama completely own any quick action without debate or deliberation.

Obama painted himself into this corner and Boehner shouldn’t let him out unless he gets something tangibly significant in return. Very significant.

I keep seeing the false dichotomy of Interventionism (attack!) vs Isolationism (no attack!).

One may be an interventionist who simply doesn’t agree to *this* particular intervention, while every isolationist has a scenario in which intervention is acceptable.

As for me, I eschew false choices and prefer to take each instance on its own particular merits. Regarding Syria, I say NO attack and anyone who disagrees is either a baby-killing racist or a Jets fan.

You know what really sucks about the Syria situation? I find I’m on the same side as Code Pink.

First Boehner’s statement, then Cantor jumps on board. I’ve had enough. So today I visited my Town Hall and changed my party affiliation from Republican to Unenrolled

I know it didn’t fix anything, but I feel better having done that. On second thought, maybe it will have an effect if enough people register their disapproval by changing parties.

    MaryB in reply to fmc. | September 3, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    I’m doing the same thing tomorrow and when the GOP calls me for $$$, I’m going to tell them in exquisite detail why they will not get as much as a farthing from me as long as Boehner et al are in leadership roles. And I’m not happy with the local GOP either.

BannedbytheGuardian | September 3, 2013 at 6:10 pm

I see the above tweet -American Jewish group urge Obama to attack Syria.

I have just read the archbishop of the Eastern Rites Church in Syria put out out an opposing plea.

Who am I to choose . Let me see , a man on the ground speaking up for 1.5 million of his people across the Levant or American Jews with historical Syrian hatreds?

Ummm let me think.

BannedbytheGuardian | September 3, 2013 at 6:26 pm

Tweets aside – this is a very big splitter.

It is in Antioch not Jerusalem that the Christian movement began it’s rise among humanity. Things have been ‘described On the Road To Damascus’ for reasons that cover 2000 years of history .

Now Obama will be taking that road. I don’t know how it will turn out but I suspect it will be the end of Christianity.

Get it over with Obama – just co ordinate Antioch & blast it out of existence. The irony of the world’s most loudly belligerent Christian nation wipes out Christianity in its homeland & splits the movement world wide.

Congress — over to you. Let’s see your mettle.

When the Obama administration says it has evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, why, you just have to believe them, especially after they’ve been so forthcoming on Obamacare, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and the rest. No way they’d lie, right? Right?

The GOP leadership is like the guy who dumps $500 into a rigged carnie game at the fair, just knowing he’ll win that stuffed bear sooner or later.

Who would believe the Obama administration on anything, and why?

Two comments: Bahadur said it best and I’ve been thinking it for some time. No reason to be a Republican with current leaders making terrible choices for our country and our party. Second, don’t the capital police know media benjamin by site? How does she get in time after time? Isn’t a protection order called for by congress?

If Congress gives Obama the authority to attack Syria, it will be as “successful” as in Libya. Libya is now in ruins, local Muslim militias murder at will and there is no economy as the former Obama-backed rebels have seized the oil fields for themselves.

And that place called Benghazi is a no man’s land.

Well done, Obama. Let’s do it again.

Time to take a stand!

No one should vote for any republican running for the House of Representatives if the current leadership is not removed

Just vote for republican senators in order to take back the Senate and forfeit the house. Even the rino’s will get the message.

No money whatsoever to the republican party.

Ef ’em. that’s what they are doing to us, the American public.

Shooting off missiles to protect Obama’s ass? Shoot a missile up his ass!

To borrow from HotAir:

In the Middle East Obama has been playing checkers.

Most of the leaders in that region have been playing chess.

Vlad Putin has been playing 3-D chess and beating Spock.

BannedbytheGuardian | September 4, 2013 at 12:31 am

I have given It some thought.

Life is short & we can’t control everything. I am not wishing to be associated with al Quaeda supporting persons .

One has to have a bottom line.


New and disturbing information on the Chemical Attack in Syria:

AUDIO: Rush Limbaugh: What If Assad Was Framed By The Rebels And The Obama Administration

“There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition. The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the ‘horror’ of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.”

IF and I say IF this is true, Obama has become complicit in a loathsome deception for political purposes. “Firing through the lines” is long practiced strategy in the M.E. This raises the question of Obama’s involvement in such a despicable deed. We all know Assad is a dictator bent on keeping power, we all know he has no qualms about killing people and we all know he has WMD. The best lie is one told with the facts… After Hillary Clinton’s cynical statement regarding Benghazi, “what does it matter anymore” and the Obama’s Administration covering for her it begs the question: Which is more probable? Assad ordering the chemical attack or the al Nursa perpetrating the attack? What does it matter who fired the chemical round and who ordered it?

I can see the WH using an al Nursa chemical attack as a convenient means to step up the US involvement after the fact. Do I believe Obama to be so monstrous as to before hand collude with al Nursa to engage in a chemical attack? NO. But I do believe it is well within the realm of probability that Obama would pin an al Nursa chemical attack on Assad as a pretext. YES. Let’s face it, Obama needs to deflect attention away from the scandals so what better means than to get everyone debating an attack on Syria all the while breast beating the faux self righteousness Obama is so well known to do. As long as everyone is debating and arguing the merits of a military option, the MSM has the space to shut down and smother any stories about Benghazi, IRS, NSA, Fast & Furious, etc.

BTW- The whole quoted/recorded conversation between a Syrian commander and a Syrian artillery commander ordering a chemical attack would be easily explained by an al Nursa operative impersonating a commander over a captured secure line to deceive the artillery commander into firing a chemical weapons shell. Of course, we should recognize and question why would the Syrians even have the chemical weapons shell available to be used. A perfect frame if there ever was one.