John Boehner: I Will Support Obama’s “Call for Action” on Syria

oped: Congress needs to remove Boehner as Speaker...he is not doing the peoples work...he is attending to his own agenda a progressive  in RINO clothing...!



by Philip Hodges 
The Speaker of the House said recently that he can’t take a stand, because that would make his job more difficult. He said his job is to act as sort of a debate moderator. A facilitator of discussion. He can’t be taking stands on principle or trying to lead the House to do the right thing. That’s not his job.
But he feels perfectly comfortable taking a stand with Obama. A couple days ago, he and Eric Cantor both came out in favor of Obama’s desire for a “limited action” against Syria. Not a war. Just a few cruise missiles here and there to weaken Assad’s capacity to use chemical weapons again. And if more Syrian civilians are killed in the process, well that’s collateral damage. But it’s not a war.

Here’s Boehner:

“The United States, for our entire history, has stood up for Democracy and freedom for people around the world.”

Let’s stop right there for a sec. We’ve been fighting in the Middle East for decades, deposing dictators that don’t play by our rules and installing our own, all in the name of “promoting Democracy” and “free elections.” The people of Syria democratically elected Assad. They’re stuck with him. Just like we’re stuck with Obama, even though many make the argument that he wasn’t lawfully elected; that he was selected. But we still have to live with him. We pretend to keep President Wilson’s 100-year-old dream alive of “making the world safe for Democracy,” while we drone strike, occupy, “nation-build,” engage in “regime change,” and support terrorists who want to overthrow dictators we don’t like. Those things don’t make the world safe or more “democratic.”

Back to Boehner:

“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 going to be tolerated. I appreciate the President reaching out to me and my colleagues in the Congress over the last couple of weeks. I also appreciate the President asking the Congress to support him in this action. This is something that the United States as a country needs to do. I’m going to support the President’s call for action. I believe that my colleagues should support this call for action. We have enemies around the world that need to understand that we’re not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it’s necessary.” 

I frankly don’t understand. We’re supposed to be outraged that some Middle Eastern dictator has launched chemical attacks on his own people. As for the evidence, well, we’re just supposed to trust what our government tells us. Questioning government officials and asking for evidence is an act of treason. And remember, Benghazi was all about a stupid YouTube video.
But these same government officials, namely John Kerry, don’t bat an eye regarding Obama’s drone strike policy. What is the difference between drone strikes that have killed thousands of people, many or most of whom have been innocent civilians (men, women and children), and chemical weapons attacks? Why is it OK for us to kill civilians in foreign countries, but not for others to do the same in their own country? And I’m not justifying a leader using chemical weapons on his own people. We should condemn both equally.
Our government fires Hellfire missiles from armed drones in Pakistan to kill people that our government says are “terrorists,” and in the process kills hundreds of innocent civilians. If we go out on a limb and assume that John Kerry, Barack Obama, et al. are telling the truth about Assad, then maybe he was only going after those that he had declared terrorists, and in the process killed innocent people. And that’s “collateral damage,” right?

Why is it that we’re only supposed to be outraged by particular Middle Eastern dictators’ acts of terror, but not those acts perpetrated by the U.S. government or the governments of our economic allies in the Middle East?