So make your congressional vote prediction here regarding Syria

The senate is voting on this issue no later than Sept 9th. The house will vote on this the week of Sept 9th.

Regardless of if you think we should or shouldn't, what do you think Congress will do. As an anthropologist I will find this vote EXTREMELY fascinating. So many issues here. So many motives here. Do the democrats who chastised Bush for 'smoking out' the terrorists in the form of war with Iraq, essentially switch viewpoints in this instance? And vice versa... Do the republicans who said they had to back their president as being patriotic to take out Iraq, say this is nothing more than a first strike war that bears no meaning to the security of the United States.

I may be painting broad strokes here, but if you take a step back, look at this from an unbiased view (as hard as that is in reality) I think most will come to the conculsion that the two parties and their backers have essentially switched sides.

My prediction? Sheesh, it's really tough. I dont think Obama would bring this to congress without knowing he had the democratic backing. I see him winning the senate vote. However on the house side, I really dont know. Im really torn on this. My gut says the house votes no.

My gut says the house & senate both have enough wealthy politicians with ties to war-happy companies who could stand to make a good deal off an illegal war (*ring ring!* Hello, this is Iraq, remember my deals?) I'm fairly certain they both will vote yes, despite a likely huge public backlash.

I predict that it doesn't matter. If congress voted nay, there'd be another mysterious chem weapon attack then there'd be another vote. If the CIA goes to the extremes of setting of chemical weapons, they expect a war out of it and nothing else will suffice.

My vote says yes yes yes.

It serves as another distraction from the real issues.


Peace

I personally believe, despite popular opinion here, that Obama has no stomach for this war and that he is secretly hoping, by taking this to a vote, instead of pushing it through, as is his right as commander in chief, that this is rejected and the decision is taken out of his hands.

I think he knows, or feels he will be defeated and can sit back with a sigh of relief and save face by saying it wasn't his decision. He can back out of a costly war and hold his head up.

My prediction, motion defeated.

Originally posted by lynxpilot
I predict that it doesn't matter. If congress voted nay, there'd be another mysterious chem weapon attack then there'd be another vote. If the CIA goes to the extremes of setting of chemical weapons, they expect a war out of it and nothing else will suffice.

Interesting point. Will Obama go ahead regardless? He doesn't have another election to win....I was thinking the same thing a few minutes ago.. What happens in the interim if another 'chemical attack' happens? What if its verified by sources everyone would take as fact?

I'm hoping that the corrupted fools on the hill will realize that he voters are sick of war and all the negatives involved with it.That we need reforms in Washington,fix the abandoned economy.And will vote nay just to make Obama look foolish,not that he needs help with THAT part.

Congress will vote yes to put pressure on Obama.

He either has to put up or shut up. He already stated he didn't need congressional approval, and he didn't for Libya.

Make no mistake here people Obama and team are putting politics ahead of this country once again.

I smell a set up for the mid terms.

reply to post by neo96


I don't think its as draconian as all that. It could simply be a ploy to not invite impeachment arguments. Perhaps they figured the lines would be too blurred and that an air strike may not be enough. So he doesn't want to usurp congress and then have to go back to them a week later.

reply to post by bknapple32


War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives him the power without Congress. I feel he is turning to Congress for political purpose. If they say yes, he can say Congress saw it the same way as him if something goes wrong. If they say no, he blames Republicans for not caring about the innocent children that died.

Peace

Personally, I think there was a delay but the game is still on.

The sudden setback was the vote in Parliment. If the UK holds to its decision to opt out, that leaves a hole in the tactical end of things that the US, if it goes alone, will have to fill before taking action. How many air assets will need to be replaced before the US can cover the loss?

Links about UK build up on Cypress

The White house announcement for "Delay of Game" is timely if viewed from that perspective.

Besides who builds, transports and parks hundreds of Cruise Missiles off the coast of some country with no intent to use them?

No Deal!

No, I would use reason and see what is the best possible action to take. I feel there is no reason to support any group; just the Syrian people.

i can't predict all States... .... but here in South Carolina

i see Graham for attacking Syria
I see Scott as against any attacks

so it is a split

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by bknapple32


Let's see. . . .

The representatives of the people are going to vote on this.

The "people" don't want this.

Ergo, they will vote "yes" to go to war.

They keep pushing the envelope. They also know that they can do whatever they want. What are "we" going to do? Write an angry blog or post on an angry thread? Protest?



Where's George Washington when we need him?

reply to post by beezzer


Hence why I find this remarkably fascinating. IF they do vote yes, how do they all not get thrown out in the mid terms? Its too fresh to go away.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by beezzer

 

Hence why I find this remarkably fascinating. IF they do vote yes, how do they all not get thrown out in the mid terms? Its too fresh to go away.

Honestly?

Because we're goddamned sheep!

reply to post by beezzer


True... But on the other hand, if we're sheep, wouldnt a yes vote sway public opinion in favor of this?

This war has nothing to do with Obama...he is just reading the script the neocon corporate oligarchy give him. Just because the neocons aren't front and center in the media doesn't mean they just evaporated. They are more powerful now than ever.
America is in the war business. Manufacturing guns, tanks, ships, planes, bullets, bombs, nerve gas, body armor, medical stuff for when you get maimed, body bags and all the support crap like food and toilet paper a proper war needs. It's business as usual, the free market system in all it's glory. And it's extremely high tech now and high tech cost money. Who pays for the university department involved in war research and all the private contractors profiting from war.

The politics of war is just the veneer to make the public think they have a say in the matter.

Follow the money and you will see the reason for war, trace the financial players and see where they live.

Who do you think the puppet masters of war are? Do some research and be amazed!!!
www.usatoday.com...

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by beezzer

 

True... But on the other hand, if we're sheep, wouldnt a yes vote sway public opinion in favor of this?

A yes vote would illustrate that we have no representation.
A yes vote would illustrate the elitist mentality of the political class.
A yes vote would be a blatant slap in the face of the American public.

A yes vote won't sway public opinion. The media might, though. The media will be on a full 24/7 blitz of poor poor Syria.
The media will try to sway public opinion.

Enjoy the show!

Personally - i think that we need to wait until more information comes in about the nature of the attack, and it is my sincere hope that congress does the same.

That said, congress has never shown to have much restraint, in recent times, when the world stage is involved. I also believe that the GOP's push to discredit Obama and the Democratic party will be their reasons for voting to push us into another war.