Congress may vote ?No? on Syria attack
 

They might need another false flag just before the vote :2 cents:


" According to analysis conducted Think Progress, lawmakers in the House are leaning towards a ?no? vote with regards to approving a strike against Assad to retaliate against his alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilian last month outside of Damascus.

Compared to earlier in the week, lawmakers in the House are now more likely to vote against authorizing a strike. The website reported Thursday morning that 199 US representatives are expected to shut-down any strike against Syria, with 49 lawmakers in the House looking towards voting yes.

Think Progress says their latest research reveals a drastic change that has occurred literally overnight. According to their reporters, 30 new lawmakers are now likely to vote against a strike, while the group of those expected to approve military action has only accumulated three new representatives since the previous day.

The latest figures posted by Think Progress were updated Thursday morning, only hours after lawmakers in both the House and Senate discussed what action, if any, should be taken to reprimand Assad?s regime. "


http://rt.com/usa/congress-syria-vote-no-466/

when is that fucking vote?

Could be a while...

"Senator Rand Paul, a Republican, has said he is considering undertaking a marathon delaying speech known as a filibuster to prevent the resolution moving forward.

Some of Mr Paul's colleagues may join his filibuster, says Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. But Mr Ornstein believes opponents of military action could only delay a full Senate vote for a day or so."

"Some members of Congress are holding meetings with constituents while they are still in their home districts.

With congressional elections next year, strong opposition among voters may make lawmakers who are currently leaning away from authorising military action even more intransigent.

Whether the resolution eventually passes or fails, the final votes on the Syria resolution will not be held before mid-September, Ms Binder and Mr Ornstein say."

Good. We need to stay out of this cluster fuck.

I don't understand how Congress works. I understand they have to go back and talk to the people in their home states, but they should do this every quarter for one week and then quickly return. If we have an emergency and they need to vote on something quickly.... Saying it's going to take two weeks to vote on something like this is just too long.

i lol for france if USA votes no...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SekrVjD5lR...00/cartoon.gif

right now, it is so true

Syria might defeat France :winkwink:

France produces jet fighters and russia DCA, so this could be the moment to see what is the most powerful of both.
French people are mostly against this war and french socialists are not really well known to be warmongers, so they have something to lose but i'm not sure we have really something to win.
I find that france is actually funny to try to bypass the UN security council. We are not so strong that we think we are.

I have a feeling the French people won't let Hollande get away with this

Do you think that paving the way for Hollande was the true reason for what was done to Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

Mr Hollande was a little snooty, so:
- or he does nothing and he is ridiculous
- or he does something and if we have casualties or if the war costs too much, people will be angry.

I think that DSK like sex too much to be a good president and DSK is not stupid and knows it.

Well,I vote no

When polls show 80% to 90% of the American people are against taking military action in Syria, what should be done when our "elected officials" vote to go in anyway - regardless of what the CLEAR MAJORITY of the voting citizenry want them to do?

it's funny to see how journalists are for the war while the opinion is against.
They look like real puppets of the politicians.

I would bet they go in mid September.
They want to teach them a lesson for using chemical weapons.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q7hNqiEF0K...tate_tweet.JPG

The deaths of people by chemical weapons is an atrocity.

To the victims, and to humanity, we should try to determine what happened, who is responsible, and how to prevent further uses of chemical weapons.

Those responsible should be held accountable. That no one is claiming responsibility should be the first big red flag, since often those responsible for such acts of war/terror take accountability for their deeds, particularly if they feel justified.

Instead, the details are murky at best, and in hot dispute. Was it the deliberate action or an accident by Assad's government forces/loyalists, or by rebels (of which there are various factions), or could an outside group/nation secretly have been involved?

This is a time when cooler heads should prevail. :2 cents:

While this was a cowardly attack, it was likely deliberately executed. Regardless of who is responsible, the usual partisan chatter has started up, and people from all sides are pointing fingers at the usual suspects, their existing enemies, to score political points and military/financial assistance.

I think it unlikely that any more chemical weapons will be used in the immediate future.

Obama and Putin should take advantage of the G20 to discuss this issue to ensure that the Middle East region does not plunge into an ever escalating war.

:stoned

ADG