New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Boehner summarizes the GOP's incoherence on ISIS...

Bugsy McGurk

President
Give Obama what he wants, even though Obama is a shmuck, and his plan won't work....

;-)

Washington (CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner blasted President Barack Obama on Thursday for saying no U.S. combat troops would be placed on the ground in the fight against ISIS in Syria.

"An F-16 is not a strategy. Airstrikes alone will not accomplish what we're trying to accomplish," Boehner told reporters in his weekly media briefing.

"The President has made clear that he doesn't want U.S. boots on the ground. Well, somebody's boots have to be on the ground," he continued. "And so I do believe that what the President has asked for, as the commander in chief, he has this authority to train the Syrian rebels, and frankly we ought to give the President what he's asking for."

Obama announced Wednesday night that his plan includes airstrikes in Syria, as well as training moderate Syrian rebels who are also trying to combat the militant group. The latter action requires specific congressional approval, and Boehner said he supports giving the President that authorization.

Still, he blasted Obama's decision to draw a line on putting U.S. troops on the ground.
"I would never tell the enemy what I was willing to do or unwilling to do," Boehner said.
Congress has not passed any authorization. And while Boehner said it would be in the nation's interest to vote, he punted to the White House, complaining it had not presented Congress with the language for a resolution.


Pressed by CNN's Dana Bash on why Congress wouldn't just write its own language, Boehner reiterated that the White House has typically taken that initiative.

"That's not how this has happened," he said. "The President would make that request and the President would supply the language for the resolution."

While he said he would support the authorization, he still remained skeptical of the President's mission.

"I'm not sure that we're doing all that we can do to defeat this terrorist threat," he said. "If our goal is to eliminate ISIL, there's a lot of doubt whether the plan that was outlined by the President last night is enough to accomplish that mission."
 
of course, it's incoherent, but cons will only hear "Obama bad" and ignore the rest.

now one could make the case that Boehner's calling for US troops on the ground.

and Boehner doesn't really want to have a vote giving Pres Obama authorization. I wish Pres Obama would have said he'd have to halt all action until they do.
 
of course, it's incoherent, but cons will only hear "Obama bad" and ignore the rest.

now one could make the case that Boehner's calling for US troops on the ground.

and Boehner doesn't really want to have a vote giving Pres Obama authorization. I wish Pres Obama would have said he'd have to halt all action until they do.

Their doubletalk is amazing - they have it down to a science.

Just imagine the harshness of their Obama hate rhetoric if Obama proposed what they did NOT want to do.

;-)
 
Their doubletalk is amazing - they have it down to a science.

Just imagine the harshness of their Obama hate rhetoric if Obama proposed what they did NOT want to do.

;-)

Their doubletalk is amazing - they have it down to a science. that's how they're able to control the narrative. it's hard for sane people to counter and leaves most people just throwing up their hands. and if you do counter, they just accuse you of lying.
 
Give Obama what he wants, even though Obama is a shmuck, and his plan won't work....

;-)

Washington (CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner blasted President Barack Obama on Thursday for saying no U.S. combat troops would be placed on the ground in the fight against ISIS in Syria.

"An F-16 is not a strategy. Airstrikes alone will not accomplish what we're trying to accomplish," Boehner told reporters in his weekly media briefing.

"The President has made clear that he doesn't want U.S. boots on the ground. Well, somebody's boots have to be on the ground," he continued. "And so I do believe that what the President has asked for, as the commander in chief, he has this authority to train the Syrian rebels, and frankly we ought to give the President what he's asking for."

Obama announced Wednesday night that his plan includes airstrikes in Syria, as well as training moderate Syrian rebels who are also trying to combat the militant group. The latter action requires specific congressional approval, and Boehner said he supports giving the President that authorization.

Still, he blasted Obama's decision to draw a line on putting U.S. troops on the ground.
"I would never tell the enemy what I was willing to do or unwilling to do," Boehner said.
Congress has not passed any authorization. And while Boehner said it would be in the nation's interest to vote, he punted to the White House, complaining it had not presented Congress with the language for a resolution.


Pressed by CNN's Dana Bash on why Congress wouldn't just write its own language, Boehner reiterated that the White House has typically taken that initiative.

"That's not how this has happened," he said. "The President would make that request and the President would supply the language for the resolution."

While he said he would support the authorization, he still remained skeptical of the President's mission.

"I'm not sure that we're doing all that we can do to defeat this terrorist threat," he said. "If our goal is to eliminate ISIL, there's a lot of doubt whether the plan that was outlined by the President last night is enough to accomplish that mission."
Ok, so now it's official...

The GOP are "American Taliban" when they try to push for just their own way.
The GOP are wrong when they say they'll work against Obama.
The GOP are blamed for "refusing to compromise".
Now they will compromise with Obama, while doubting he's correct or the strategy is effective...aaaand you blame them for that also!?

It's official you are NUTZ and will blame the GOP no matter what they do.
 
Ok, so now it's official...

The GOP are "American Taliban" when they try to push for just their own way.
The GOP are wrong when they say they'll work against Obama.
The GOP are blamed for "refusing to compromise".
Now they will compromise with Obama, while doubting he's correct or the strategy is effective...aaaand you blame them for that also!?

It's official you are NUTZ and will blame the GOP no matter what they do.

As you know, I'm not bashing Boehner and the Pugs for supporting Obama's proposal (if that's what they do).

I'm bashing them for castigating Obama even when he proposes what they want done.

Any comment on the actual topic?
 
As you know, I'm not bashing Boehner and the Pugs for supporting Obama's proposal (if that's what they do).

I'm bashing them for castigating Obama even when he proposes what they want done.

Any comment on the actual topic?
Here's a comment on your topic- it came from a crazy person.
 
We already have boots on the ground despite the sentiment (public) that we don't. It's best to support the President in doing at least something, rather than doing nothing.

BTW I agree, Boehner is a complete idiot. I'm no fan of his.
 
Ok, so now it's official...

The GOP are "American Taliban" when they try to push for just their own way.
The GOP are wrong when they say they'll work against Obama.
The GOP are blamed for "refusing to compromise".
Now they will compromise with Obama, while doubting he's correct or the strategy is effective...aaaand you blame them for that also!?

It's official you are NUTZ and will blame the GOP no matter what they do.
Boehner is a complete moron...but in the case of these PJ Obamacultists, anything short if abject worship and prostration is inconceivable and sacrilegious.
 
Boehner is a complete moron...but in the case of these PJ Obamacultists, anything short if abject worship and prostration is inconceivable and sacrilegious.

Putting your one trick aside, do you think it at all strange that Boehner bashes Obama, bashes his policy and then says, aw, what the heck - give him what he wants?
 
Putting your one trick aside, do you think it at all strange that Boehner bashes Obama, bashes his policy and then says, aw, what the heck - give him what he wants?
Yes. Boehner is horrible. That's been well established for some time. I wish the kind folks of Ohio would send him on his way.
 
ISIS' #'s at 30,000

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

But were were told that that the war would be quick, done on the cheap and we would be seen as liberators against a resistance far greater in numbers.

That's the Pugs assbackwards argument.
 
He is a rather dimwitted fellow - the perfect leader for the GOP, no?

;-)
He's GOP through and through. I'm no fan of Dems either (as you know). The problem with Republicans, though, is twofold. Their candidates are generally incompetent...and their candidates are generally unconservative.
 
He's GOP through and through. I'm no fan of Dems either (as you know). The problem with Republicans, though, is twofold. Their candidates are generally incompetent...and their candidates are generally unconservative.

I'm weary of hearing that from Pugs....

At election time we hear "Vote for this GOP candidate! He's very conservative and will do a wonderful job!"

Then the Pugs govern horribly, with atrocious results, and we hear "He wasn't conservative! The next one will be better! Honest! Vote GOP!"

;-)
 
I'm weary of hearing that from Pugs....

At election time we hear "Vote for this GOP candidate! He's very conservative and will do a wonderful job!"

Then the Pugs govern horribly, with atrocious results, and we hear "He wasn't conservative! The next one will be better! Honest! Vote GOP!"

;-)
I have no idea what candidate you reference. Republicans turned their backs on conservatives long ago. The GOP still exists, to be sure...but I know of no national level conservative in that party.
 
I have no idea what candidate you reference. Republicans turned their backs on conservatives long ago. The GOP still exists, to be sure...but I know of no national level conservative in that party.

It's constant, as to all candidates (except in the northeast, where Pugs have to be careful about being seen as too "conservative").

GWB, for example, ran as a "conservative." After he left behind his trail of wreckage, all we heard was "Bush was not really a conservative."

The problem is that Pugs tend to do stupid things in office - it has nothing to do with their label.
 
It's constant, as to all candidates (except in the northeast, where Pugs have to be careful about being seen as too "conservative").

GWB, for example, ran as a "conservative." After he left behind his trail of wreckage, all we heard was "Bush was not really a conservative."

The problem is that Pugs tend to do stupid things in office - it has nothing to do with their label.
Ok, Bugs. I'd agree and add that Dems are also slobbering morons - but on that we'll never see eye to eye.

Have a good night. :)
 
Back
Top