It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Latest count on where congress stands on "Military Authorization on Syria"

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Also, as far as I can tell, 99% of ATS seems to be against Syria action too. I don't believe I've seen one post fully supporting a strike.

If you know where your congressman stands, feel free to post it in here. Ed Royce, my congressman is sort of trying to play both sides but I have a feeling he is leaning more on the side of no.

I'm proud Rand Paul was one of the very first elected officials to openly oppose Syrian action before the whole "99%" thing was cool and trending with all of the congressmen and senators.





edit on 6-9-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Sadly it won't matter, everybody knows Obama will order the attack regardless.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MushroomWig
Sadly it won't matter, everybody knows Obama will order the attack regardless.


Resigning the Patriot Act, Not closing Gitmo, NDAA, Drone strikes, Personal Kill Lists, Fast and Furious, Etc......

This is the clincher.

Impeach this bum. I want a do over.




posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


The Republicans do NOT want to vote yes, else they will be owning the war come 2016, and re-election time. If they are listening to voters, it'll be a no. If they are listening to Saudi/Israeli interests, well....



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


The Republicans do NOT want to vote yes, else they will be owning the war come 2016, and re-election time. If they are listening to voters, it'll be a no. If they are listening to Saudi/Israeli interests, well....



Maybe there is more going on than meets the eye. Perhaps this is a very complex Democrat tactic, designed to really mess with the GOP.

We all know that members of the GOP get lots of campaign donations from the military industrial complex. Normally, they SHOULD be voting yes on this. However, because it's Obama, and he's a Democrat -- they are somewhat obligated to vote no.

If they vote yes (as they normally would) the scenario you outline above would probably happen in 2016. If they vote no, they might be pissing off the hands that feed them.

Obama has put the GOP in between a rock and a hard place, to further a Democrat win in 2016.

Maybe...?
edit on 6-9-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
For what it is worth, CNN research on the vote by rep and senator.

My state senators and my rep are leaning to No. But of course, saying and doing are not always the same.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MushroomWig
Sadly it won't matter, everybody knows Obama will order the attack regardless.


This is what the administration is claiming to do, most likely a political maneuver to scare congress into voting yes. I honestly don't think Obama has the balls to strike on Syria if congress says no, I truly believe he loves himself too much to do that to his legacy.

But then again, he could just go ahead and do it because the military industrial complex and his backers said so.

It could really go either way. I prefer that he NOT blast Syria for the innocent people that we KNOW will die. But if he does, I think he is over. I do believe Walter Jones has articles of impeachment ready to go if Obama acts against congress.


edit on 6-9-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join