So make your congressional vote prediction here regarding Syria

reply to post by bknapple32


I wrote all my congressmen to vote no on the Syria strike.
Everyone should write their congressmen, this is how a democracy works.
Let your voice be heard!
Congressmen List
My prediction is a no, unless something else happens(real or made up).
silent

I'll throw my opinions in the hat. The first wave if voting will be loud " no " from congress to save face with their voters. In weeks that follow another Chem attack , perhaps on a ally, by " Assad " will happen to push the American public. Chances are something close to 9/11 standards and the new vote held because if it will be yes. This is assuming this has all been planned for years and the ease of access to information is making it harder to sell than the Iraq war.

reply to post by bknapple32


I'd say this is part of the agenda that's been in place for the last 4 decades. The vote, like Iraq will be pretty much unanimous for war. The reps will look for some type os give back or payoff for not putting Obama through the ringer on it. This is beyond all their control anyway, including the POTUS.

They will yes vote for a strike on Syria.

They will also make some rather harsh comments towards Russia.

The end message will be that no matter what the cost, we will stand up to violations of international norms, specifically chemical weapon and those who use them.

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
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.

I completely agree with your first statement. Obama has no stomach for this war...he is simply trying to save face.
If it weren't for other red lines with places like N Korea and Iran he would probably just suggest him and Assad get together have a beer and a neat laugh over his false threats.

However...I don't agree with your second statement.
The Congress will go for this, it moves TBTB plan forward....
M.E. in Chaos and left in tribal/religious controls
They think this makes them easier to deal with (oil)
X

I vote we sit down and wait and save our money. Their neighbors can handle their disputes. I generally stay out of my neighbor's business. Tired of America being broke. We should focus on our own problems.

Gut says no. In spite of all I've heard from those who have spoken up: "if you can convince me" "needs to happen" I am also saying no because they aren't being called back early. How important is it if they aren't calling an emergency session? I believe most have already decided or are close to doing so. Unless those for an attack can bypass all "what if's" and show how this can benefit the people of Syria and the US it won't happen. However, there is time to allow for some homework and things can happen in the interim.

In the future I hope the administration choses to use more care with ultimatums. All of this additional drama, which has greatly impacted many above and beyond the troubling chemical weapons use could have been avoided.

reply to post by Dianec


The 'not being called back early"
is a great observation....unless Obama is hoping that the red line will be crossed yet again despite his making his decision
Then that fourth crossing of the line....that would really really make him have to do something

I tend to agree with the not being called back early sentiment. Of this was really dire this should go up for debate and vote asap.

Well so far no one has been able to turn down the kickbacks and pressure that the MIC and Big Oil have been able shove down everyone's throat up there. War is good for business. No matter how many people die- and whether or not they are our own- or foreign. Death doesn't matter to them. Only money. I think it was a researched political move to turn to Congress. I don't think he would have done it unless he felt like he could win. Add Israel's stranglehold on this country to that, and I will be amazed if Congress votes no as a whole. So I will predict based on the above (and also upon what a little birdie told me) that they are going to strike Syria no matter what the vote is. As to the vote itself- I think they will barely pull out a yes vote, but it will probably be close overall.

Republicans will bluster for a few days, trying to turn it into a full scale war.

Reps like Peter King, Rand Paul will try and make the case that President Obama isn't leading because he sought to seek Congressional approval instead of striking without it, even though when he performed airstrikes on Libya without Congressional approval they criticized him for it.

John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, basically anyone with major donors in the defense industry will be making the case for a widespread military endeavor.

Democrats will likely split over the issue, I'd imagine Obama will pull out some big guns like Hillary Clinton to try and make his case for those Democrats on the sidelines. You'll get some crazies like Charlie Wrengel trying to use the vote to forward their own plans - he was on Wolf Blitzer today trying to drum up support for no war without a national draft.

In the end, it will be passed, and a tactical surgical strike against Syria will end up paying for research into why potatoes grow so well in Idaho, research into what the most common first word out of a baby's mouth is in Texas, and why cheese from Wisconsin is so damn good.

Hey, it's how things get done in the good old corrupt USA.

Both the house and senate will vote yes by a slime margin to make it look like it was a close decision.

They aren`t worried about what the voters think they know most voters are idiots, in the last election almost every one of them got re-elected even though they had the lowest ever approval rating.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Republicans will bluster for a few days, trying to turn it into a full scale war.

Reps like Peter King, Rand Paul will try and make the case that President Obama isn't leading because he sought to seek Congressional approval instead of striking without it, even though when he performed airstrikes on Libya without Congressional approval they criticized him for it.

Sara

John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, basically anyone with major donors in the defense industry will be making the case for a widespread military endeavor.

Democrats will likely split over the issue, I'd imagine Obama will pull out some big guns like Hillary Clinton to try and make his case for those Democrats on the sidelines. You'll get some crazies like Charlie Wrengel trying to use the vote to forward their own plans - he was on Wolf Blitzer today trying to drum up support for no war without a national draft.

In the end, it will be passed, and a tactical surgical strike against Syria will end up paying for research into why potatoes grow so well in Idaho, research into what the most common first word out of a baby's mouth is in Texas, and why cheese from Wisconsin is so damn good.

Hey, it's how things get done in the good old corrupt USA.

This ^^^^^^^^^^ is a brilliant post!

It is cover for the president to seek Congressional approval -- since precedents has been set for such action decades ago. The War Powers Resolution gave broad and unspecific powers to the Executive branch to engage the military.

It should be interesting to note, that in Congress' path of abrogating their Constitutional authority, it was President Nixon that vetoed the initial resolution; only to be overturned. The use of force and the application of the military actually hinges upon one section -- a section only cited once since the passing of the War Powers Resolution.

Section 4(a)(1) is the oft stated purpose for using the military, but never used section to actually authorize it.
That section reads as follows:

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

Clearly this section is thrown around by many of presidents, including our present on President Obama. He claims there is "imminent involvement in hostilities" is expected.

It should also be noted that Section 4(a)(3) et. al. is another portion that the Executive draws upon.

Overall, the point being, all these sections do what a declaration of war does -- commits our armed forces into battle; except in the case of the War Powers resolutions, Congress merely needs to be consulted, not demanded to take action.

We cry of tyranny; when Congress has instilled it themselves.

The vote will be a very tight 'NO' just as in the UK .

Originally posted by Dianec

In the future I hope the administration choses to use more care with ultimatums. All of this additional drama, which has greatly impacted many above and beyond the troubling chemical weapons use could have been avoided.

Respectfully, and correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't seem to be seeing the big picture here.

Obama's use of the 'red line' rhetoric was far from a careless mistake. Since that rhetoric was accepted by the public at the time, he now has an excuse to use military force, technically speaking. He is only being consistent in something that the public has been accepting of.

The whole scenario is going according to plan. Sometimes, they are held up, or have to switch to a plan B or C, but they are prepared for anything. Unless of course the public as a whole suddenly wakes up...

My predictions are simple when it comes to my state (Massachusetts), Whatever Obama wants, Obama gets.

I live in a liberal stronghold state, so there's really little to take into consideration when it comes to predicting votes.

Boehner calls up Obama.

Boehner: Congress says, 'Yes Obama, You can go bomb, Syria'.

Obama says. 'Awesome! Pulls out his finger gun, and goes 'Pew,Pew,Pew'.

Originally posted by soulwaxer

Originally posted by Dianec

In the future I hope the administration choses to use more care with ultimatums. All of this additional drama, which has greatly impacted many above and beyond the troubling chemical weapons use could have been avoided.

Respectfully, and correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't seem to be seeing the big picture here.

Obama's use of the 'red line' rhetoric was far from a careless mistake. Since that rhetoric was accepted by the public at the time, he now has an excuse to use military force, technically speaking. He is only being consistent in something that the public has been accepting of.

The whole scenario is going according to plan. Sometimes, they are held up, or have to switch to a plan B or C, but they are prepared for anything. Unless of course the public as a whole suddenly wakes up...

So your saying it has been a set up all along? I can look at that possibility if that's what your saying. I've been reading about it in some of the threads but it's taken to the extreme sometimes so I revert back to no conspiracy. I've heard people say masons have a secret agenda, as an example yet know a couple of men in the masons who are just normal everyday people wanting to donate time for a better world. I usually don't look at conspiracies unless there is some validation behind them. However I have been somewhat open to this one, due to the circumstantial evidence. Whether Obama is aware of it or is just a talking head it could very well be that this is all a set up. Thank you for your feedback.

If this is the 0bama strongest statement...

...
"Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?’ Obama asked Saturday.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... ress-risks-devastating-Obamas-credibility.html#ixzz2dfI6J4RZ



well in Congress the fact that the Drones' missile strike programs of radical Islamic leaders are almost always killing the innocent friends, family including innocent children that are always around the targeted radical AQ leader.


0bama cannot seriously detach the killing of family & children as acceptable 'collateral damage by Drone Assassinations
from the children getting killed by wayward breezes pushing the toxic air into their direction, gas vapors cannot be controlled as well as a live video feed of the Drone Target and surroundings


that thought-scape should really be brought up by the Congress...
but--- if the vote is no punishment to Syria,,, 0bama will still have the rebel/barbaristic Army redouble their killing of Syrians and Christians, Alawites which live under the Assad regime

after all he no longer sends the Egyptian MuslimBrotherhood a billion $ in arms---so he will just ramp up the conventional terror insurgency in Syria by having the radical AQ & other sects increase their daily allotments of killing mostly civilians & burning-destroying churches


see this related story about the Syrian civilians as victims of the obama funded civil war:
thecommonsenseshow.com...




DE-FUND THE FSA MONEY PIPELINE which mostly targets Syrian civilians instead of Syrian troops and Assad sanctuaries