Eric Cantor | John Boehner | John McCain | Lindsey Graham | News | Syria

John Boehner, Eric Cantor Support Military Strikes Against Syria: VIDEO


GOP House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are getting behind President Obama's plan for military strikes against Syria, following a White House meeting on Tuesday.

Said Boehner outside the White House: "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...I am going to support the president's call for action,” he told reporters. I believe my colleagues should support this call for action."

Said Cantor in a statement following Boehner's press conference: "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."

Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain have also thrown their support behind military action:

McCain said U.S. credibility would be "shredded" internationally if Congress thwarts a president after he has already committed to military action.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who also took part in the meeting, said he and McCain would like to see a more sustained military effort but that he intended to support the authorization plan that emerges.

Graham said "a pretty solid plan" was emerging from the administration "upgrade the opposition" and to "degrade" Assad's regime. "We don't want endless war... We want sustainable security. And Syria is a cancer that's growing in the region."

Watch Boehner speak to reporters, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. that pretty much says it all, doesn't it. as if i hadn't had my mind made up already.

    Posted by: bandanajack | Sep 3, 2013 2:04:35 PM

  2. Well that was obvious, because Republicans are warmongers. The real disappointment here is Obama. Having seen him veer so far into the wrong direction after such a promising start as president has been almost painful.

    Posted by: Chris K | Sep 3, 2013 2:27:56 PM

  3. as a citizen.

    I say "no thank you to war."

    How about we spend OUR money on US?

    Just sayin...

    Posted by: Truthiness | Sep 3, 2013 2:32:02 PM

  4. Boehner will join in any pissing contest that's up for consideration, it seems.

    Posted by: Jack M | Sep 3, 2013 2:36:52 PM

  5. Oh great, here we go — truthiness, you hit the nail on the proverbial head…

    Posted by: tinkerbelle | Sep 3, 2013 2:37:52 PM

  6. I wonder what's in it for them?

    Posted by: Will | Sep 3, 2013 2:40:12 PM

  7. ummmm can we afford this$$

    Posted by: Johnny | Sep 3, 2013 2:54:15 PM

  8. To the Baggers - Boner, Cantor and Miz Graham have just become red-hot turds! Surprised? Nope.

    Posted by: Geoff | Sep 3, 2013 3:15:11 PM

  9. Wow, a complete turn-around from 2 weeks ago when he said he would not support a strike.

    Did someone get a happy ending as incentive?

    This is such B.S... and yet another military engagement this country can't afford financially, mentally, psychically or physically. National interest my ass.

    Posted by: johnny | Sep 3, 2013 3:18:22 PM

  10. It's unfortunate that the previous administration made such a mockery of legitimized military action. Had Iraq II never happened, and a staggering trillion dollars and change not been added to the debt, I'm sure a majority of Americans would see this differently.

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Sep 3, 2013 3:18:38 PM

  11. I can't remember any other time that these 4 bone-heads supported Obama. I don't think even one of them has ever come out and agreed with an Obama suggestion or decision. Doesn't this concern us?

    Posted by: PAUL B. | Sep 3, 2013 3:19:37 PM

  12. Of course they do: Republicans have never met a war (and the very fat profit margins to arms manufacturers and military contractors) they didn't like.

    Posted by: Gregory In Seattle | Sep 3, 2013 3:27:06 PM

  13. If they are to dump some cruise missiles which cost millions of dollars, at least they should order them from China. They may also get the support of China in the Security Council as bonus. The reason they won't do it is because GOP don't want to alienate their supporters i.e. the military industry.

    Posted by: simon | Sep 3, 2013 3:36:44 PM

  14. I cannot see how anything positive is gained by any kind of response. Unless Assad is killed. Its time for the U.S. to stop being the worlds policeman. Lord knows the Arab states are drowning in dollars. Let them or somebody else step up to the plate for a change.

    Posted by: Tom | Sep 3, 2013 3:43:38 PM

  15. Is it how the Roman Empire ended by over-extending itself according to Gibbon?

    Posted by: simon | Sep 3, 2013 3:52:08 PM

  16. Uh, I believe that certain weapons are off bounds. You think chemical weapons are just something that happens there? Well let's see how you feel about it in the NYC subway or the middle of Ohio.

    By NOT punishing Syria for using chemical weapons aren't we implicitly approving their use? You don't think the US should have that responsibility? Isn't it a bit late to abdicate the role we've played for so long?

    What would it take before intervention is needed? Putting poison in the food? Well breathing air is even more basic than that. I am the furthest thing from a warhawk, but the use of chemical weapons can't be left unchecked.

    Posted by: Caliban | Sep 3, 2013 7:33:40 PM

  17. Look guys, the Syrian military dropped an incendiary bomb on school over the weekend. Last week, they dropped lethal gas on a suburb in Damascus. This is a civil war that has already killed around 100,000 Syrians. We have been staying out of it, it is their civil war. However, don't you think that a departure from conventional arms should be discouraged? At least for the sake of the innocent? Warfare is awful, chemical warfare is worse.

    Posted by: lessthan | Sep 3, 2013 7:46:16 PM

  18. England didn't seem to mind. The 100,000 are gone. This is all politics.

    Posted by: Mike | Sep 3, 2013 7:48:40 PM

  19. So, all McCain cares about is our "credibility." Lives don't matter. It doesn't matter that already hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died. It only matters when it involves gas. I get it (no, I don't.)

    Posted by: Joseph Singer | Sep 3, 2013 8:54:08 PM

  20. War! The Republicans finally found one thing they can agree on with the Kenyan Socialist, Nobel Peach Prize-winner in the White House. This will not end well, other than for arms contractors and the politicians who serve them.

    Posted by: SoLeftImRight | Sep 3, 2013 10:48:04 PM

  21. More proof that politicians are controlled by the corporations.

    Posted by: Ed | Sep 4, 2013 1:21:25 AM

  22. Here we go again! If Americans do not want to set forth on another ill-conceived, poorly-thought-out and foolish adventure in the Middle East, they need to contact their Senators and Congressmen and tell them to vote "No" on military action in Syria. Tell them to, "Just Say No!"

    Posted by: RonCharles | Sep 4, 2013 1:45:24 AM

Post a comment


« «Second Gay Couple Files Suit to Have Ohio Recognize Their Marriage« «