I don't know. I think it was strategic. Everyone knows it is unpopular and probably won't pass the house. By "supporting the president" our leadership is not a target for the rats who want to vote this down, only Obama is.

Quote: Justme wrote in post #2

---

I don't know. I think it was strategic. Everyone knows it is unpopular and probably won't pass the house. By "supporting the president" our leadership is not a target for the rats who want to vote this down, only Obama is.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #2

---

I don't know. I think it was strategic. Everyone knows it is unpopular and probably won't pass the house. By "supporting the president" our leadership is not a target for the rats who want to vote this down, only Obama is.

---

Yeah right. Because Pelosi Reid and Zero are not going to slam the GOP anyway? That is silly. If Boner would have gone to the caucus and said what he thought they should do, he may have been tipped off that the base, and Americans in general do not want this turd. Instead, we have him on the record backing this stupidity. Bad move and poorly thought out. Typical of Drunk Johnny.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #6

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #2

---

I don't know. I think it was strategic. Everyone knows it is unpopular and probably won't pass the house. By "supporting the president" our leadership is not a target for the rats who want to vote this down, only Obama is.

---

Yeah right. Because Pelosi Reid and Zero are not going to slam the GOP anyway? That is silly. If Boner would have gone to the caucus and said what he thought they should do, he may have been tipped off that the base, and Americans in general do not want this turd. Instead, we have him on the record backing this stupidity. Bad move and poorly thought out. Typical of Drunk Johnny.

---

Agreed.

Boehner could have played off the fact most Americans, including many Democrats and Independents do not want War with Syria.

He could have pointed out the lack of evidence as to who was responsible for the chemical attacks, pointed out Amnesty International's condemnation of both sides being 'war criminals', pointed out the use of chemical weapons was not a threat to US national security, and pointed out Russia's 100 page report which presented a chemical analysis that yielded a high index of suspicion that the 'rebels' were responsible.

Finally Boehner could have pointed out here was an instance in which the R's were not playing partisan politics (one of most American's pet peeves) but were joining the D's in representing the will of the American people. Being for the will of the American people would have been a shrewd end run around the false choice of being for for against Obama.

---