This vote in Congress will be Obama's hallmark of his Presidentcy. If he loses the vote, he will simply become a lame duck President.
Chris Collins releases statement on Syria and recall of Congress
Submitted by Howard Owens on August 31, 2013 - 3:09pm
“I am pleased President Obama has made the decision to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. This situation is extremely complex and it is appropriate for all the representatives of the American people to vote on this critical decision.
Speaker Boehner has called House Members to Washington tomorrow to participate in a classified, interagency briefing. I will be traveling to Washington to be a part of this important meeting.
As I said earlier this week, the situation in Syria is deeply troubling and any military response by the United States could have ramifications far beyond the Syrian border.
Before deciding how I will vote when Congress returns to session, I will thoroughly review all of the available intelligence and learn all I can about the limited military action in Syria proposed by President Obama.”
Congress is going to make a decision......really?
"Congress" and "intelligence" in the same paragraph.......really.... really?
I hope he does let "Mom be the heavy" Keep our troops OUT OF IT!!!!!
He best vote no if he want my vote again
I believe you're correct, Howard. That's exactly what Obama is doing.
And I think 'Momma' (Congress) is gonna say, "yay, go ahead with your plan, sonny".
To our detremment. Batten your hatches, folks. We're in for another fight.
It's like Bush all over again, only this time I wonder who will say Obama lied to them. Lets see how things play out this time.
In the Iraq resolution:
United States House of Representatives
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution.
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution
TOTALLY MEANINGLESS Doug
Was an entirely different situation. Right or wrong back then an entirely different situation.
First of all, hardly any of those who served in the house back then are still there.
Secondly, the current house make up is heavily in the TEA PARTY realm and leaning somewhat libertarian..
In this present scenario, there is no goal, it is strictly punitive, back then regime change was a goal. The President stated clearly this time regime change is NOT the goal. In 2003, whether you agree with it or not there was a distinct goal.
Additionally, there is no meaningful coalition this time, not even the UK, Israeli defense people do not want it because of the ramifications toward them could open up an enormous wave retaliatory attacks on their civilian populations.
I believe Howard to be correct, the President is punting, HE is the one who backed himself in a corner with the 'Red Line Statement', The anti-aircraft stations in Syria are partially manned by Russians (SOURCE:Military.com, Leatherneck Magazine, and The Naval Institute's Proceedings Magazine) which presents an entirely new problem. And let's not forget that both Russia and Iran have been supporting Assad with arms, Iran has supplied actual militia fighters. Even if regime change was in the wind, who would take over, the original people rising up have been cast aside to more radical islamist..
You are going to be seeing some resignations over this, mark my words, Obama has in the last two weeks alone subverted the statements of both his secretary of state and of defense by releasing statement contrary to what they were saying.
The CURRENT Chairman of the Joints Chiefs warned against intervention of any kind over the past two years, and while he will follow orders, he has expressed concerns about involvement.
Because of the way this was handled, chemical weapons I assure you have already been redeployed meaning too many targets for a selective strike intended to degrade.
Ironically, President Bush in my opinion, had the correct approach to Syria, 'Total Political Isolation' something the current administration undid when they took office.
There is NO comparison to Iraq here at all, there is NO benefit for the United States strike Syria at this time, and unless there is some intelligence drastically different than we are hearing, there is no appreciable reason such a military action should take place,
Frankly, how many Democrats or Republicans approved the Iraqi Resolution in 2003 has little if any bearing on the present situation.
Howard, when it comes to Military Action, I personally do not want a representative that yields to constituents, or to party loyalty.
What I want in a representative is three fold
1. Acts in the DIRECT INTEREST of the United States
2. Looks at the actual Intelligence to include the ramifications for the United States
3. Bases his vote on 1 and 2 above and NOT as a result of political pressure of any kind.
"I hope he's listening to his constituents."
Now, that WOULD BE a new concept. Who knows, you might've started something NEW, Howard!
I am going to out on a limb here and give credit to Obama for seeking congressional approval for whatever action the country does or does not take. I do believe Howard is correct in his assumption as to why, but whatever the motive, I will accept and credit the correct procedure of following the Constitution. Mark, I also agree with your assertion that our congressional representatives act on behalf of our security interests and not by sticking their finger into the political wind, but will also add that the use of chemical weapons on hoards of innocents (women and children) rises above intervening in regional skirmishes or wars for oil. This is not an overseas national issue, it is a human issue and I am frankly disappointed in our allies for so quickly backing away. That kind of atrocity separates war from just plain evil.
C'mon, I was being sarcastic.
Just say NO
Jeff I understand what you are saying, but I ask you this.
What difference is there if women and children are murdered by bullet, bomb or poisonous gas? I appreciate and agree with you that this is an atrocity, but military force should NEVER be used as a punitive measure, a retaliation to an attack on us, yes. A retaliation to invading an innocent nation perhaps.
If attacking Syria as a punitive measure is the proper thing to do, then why was it not alright to attack Cambodia during the POl Pot era, or Darfur, or the Congo, or several other nations over the past 50 years.
When nations try to expand their borders by force it is one thing, In this case a PUNITIVE STRIKE could further inflame an already volatile region, together with the radicalization in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and of course Iran, the wrong move here could easily light the fuse for a World War.
I am very apprehensive of that event you named Mark.... World War. One thing I know that has universally been considered a fact is that no matter of the how or whys of it. WWIII is going to be horrible no matter how it's fought.
That's something I have heard hawks and doves agree upon. The other thing being that after WWIII that WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones. Is WWIII a possibility, I think your right, it very well could be... But I think EVERYONE in the world knows that doing so could be the end of things for everyone as we know them well, at least as we know things today.
Oh what a wonderful world it would be if all nations were led by rational men
Mark, if you reread my post you will not see anywhere that I advocate attacking Syria.
Sorry Jeff I misunderstood the first time.
Yes Howard, that's what I call it anyway. How much is it costing to recall Congress? Why is this so critical that it can't wait a week? When will we learn to stay out of Middle Eastern conflicts?
Rhetorical questions, I know there are no answers
I agree with Mark's comment. After all, didn't we learn our lesson in south east Asia in the 60s & 70s?
If what is happening in Syria doesn't upset the rest of the world, why do we need to do anything? Let them kill each other, it is what muslims
do best, they won't have it any other way.
I would certainly hate to give them someone else to be pissed at that would distract them.
I am totally against any intervention...What is really sad is the figure head that sits as the president of the USA can't make up his mind one way or the other..First he doesn't need congress to act,next he now needs congress to act..Maybe he needs more time on the golf course to figure it out..I only hope that congress will JUST SAY NO..
It's not that POTUS NEEDS congress to act on this situation as the War Powers Act of 1973 allows POTUS to act without congressional permission.
What he said in his press conference on Saturday is that even though he believes he can take action without involving congress, he will go to congress none the less and debate this issue and involve our congressional leaders in the decision to act or not.
Personally, I hope we(the USA) do not take any action, and decide to allow the UN Security Council to handle the situation.
One thing POTUS, and congress should strongly consider, is Russia. They're against any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war, and have moved several of their naval vessels to the Med. Though they(Russia) claim this is a routine movement, I think we all know this is by design, possibly to answer any action the U.S. takes against Syria.