What do John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Karl Rove and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Have in Common?

They all support war in Syria, even though we have no idea whether anyone actually used chemical weapons and, if they were used, who used them; or who we're fighting for; or what the goal is; or whether a regional or global conflict will result; or how blowing up some camels helps U.S. national security interests. Aside from those issues, the case for action is rock solid.

• "Nancy Pelosi to Congressional Democrats: Use of Force in Syria 'Is In our National Interest'"

• "Of course: John Boehner supports Obama's call for military action against Syria"

• "Wasserman-Schultz says ‘dozens of countries’ will fight with us, but she can’t name them"

• "Karl Rove siding with Muslim Brotherhood in Syria"

I know why anti-war moonbats Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are now angrily banging the drums of war: because they put politics over principle every hour of every day.

But I have no earthly idea why John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Karl Rove would support this bumbling, feckless administration when there is no concrete proof that: (a) chemical weapons were used; and (b) who used them if they were indeed employed.

Writing at World Tribune, Yossef Bodansky reports that there is evidence a "Aug. 21 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a premeditated provocation by the Syrian opposition."


Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.