If your congressman vote today. How would they Vote. Complete list of YES, No & Maybe

quote:

And yes, these missiles have the range to hit targets in Cyprus. Perhaps someone should tell U.S. military planners that it is probably not a good idea to be parking so much air power at bases there.

It also looks like the Syrians are going to have plenty of naval targets to shoot at as well. According to Reuters, a U.S. carrier group will soon be joining the five U.S. destroyers that are already parked in the eastern Mediterranean...


here is a vid:


[link to www.youtube.com]

Utah people

The following are undecided:

Hatch 202)224-5251

Stewart 202)225-9730

Bishop 202)225-0453

Hit them guys let them no we say NO to the NWO!

STOP IT!

Called my congressman today,

MARK POCAN WI: Heavily against any involvement/intervention

The United States is no longer a democratic republic.
The people have no representation.

thanks to you 7465905!

We need to stop this!

yup. pretty much so...

Germany, shoulda nuked them too.

You know Kerry and McCain said no boots on the ground. The president can do anything he wants including putting as many boots on the ground as he wants once congress has declared war. The Congress can't tell the president how to run the war it is all up to him. The Congress can't even tell him when to stop the war.

"advise and consent" is still a strong part of the Constiution.

.

Who in the fuck would trust what Kerry or McCain say?
Really?

the U.S. Congress?

.

We need, desperately to regain our Democratic Republic.
One way.. or the other.

Sure and proven by the facts since 1789... 89% or more of US Congress imcumbants have constantly been re-elected no matter what.

Very good info. I emailed ny representatives and senators. Take a look at this poll. [link to www.newsmax.com]

I voted NO to attack on Syria whick is what my letter also said.

I feel going to war on Syria or an air strike which is the same thing is a BIG mistake and only the beginning of the end. Why kill innocent citizens for the crime of one man. If Assad is a war criminal then have him arrested. I do not believe in punishing citizens of a nation for what their government may or may not be guilty of. We called Osama Bin Laden an evil terrorist because he killed thousands of U.S. citizens on 9-11 because of his anger at our government.  Direct your goal of stopping Assad at Assad not  innocent men, women and children.

By the way I am a 4th generation Texan, my mother is a Dandridge of the Dandridge's of Virginia of whom also belongs Martha Dandridge who is of course Martha Washington our country's first lady and we have had many of our family serving our country and I love my country but this is not right. I do not agree that we should attack Syria!

The UN and the OPCW are the ones more responsible for policing the world than our United States. It is not our job to ensure countries obey the ban on use of chemical weapons!

I vote No!

But in an unexpected twist, Senator Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat, voted “present,” choosing not to register his position on the highest-profile issue to come before him since he was sworn in.

[link to www.bostonglobe.com]

The AC wants re elected.....

Last Edited by A.R.T. on 09/04/2013 06:20 PM

Called Kevin Brady's office today. (Rep.) Texas, Montgomery county. His office said as of today he is voting no. However, Brady is a known flip flopper and will probably change his mind and vote with Bonehead.

Update on Sen Bob Corker. He was one of the yes votes and actually co-authored the resolution approving attack. I don't know if he has begin to change his mind, but his office took on a different tone when I called today.

Usually they just politely listen and may offer a pre-prepared statement. Today, it took several tries (a few hours of busy signals) to get through but when I did and said my piece, the lady made it a point to tell me they were making sure to make note of and record oppinions today. It was the way that she said it that stuck me as odd. His office is always cordial, but she made it sound like my call today was more important some how.

I also made sure to bring up Senator Paul's solid three reasons for voting no. No American interests to defend. No attack on us to respond to. Even Sec defense Hagel admitted that the proposed strikes would not achieve the goal of reducing or limiting Syria's potential for using chemical weapons.

Last Edited by Resister on 09/05/2013 01:21 PM

Typical politician covering their asses. Prepare for the usual "I was for it before I was against it"

WASHINGTON– U.S. Rep. Vern
Buchanan, R-FL, said today he
opposes launching a military strike
against Syria because there is no vital
national security interest at stake.

WASHINGTON– U.S. Rep. Vern
Buchanan, R-FL, said today he
opposes launching a military strike
against Syria because there is no vital
national security interest at stake.

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on the proposed use of force in Syria. Your thoughts and comments are important to me and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Below you will find the statement I made this evening after receiving a classified briefing from Administration officials regarding President Obama’s proposed course of action in Syria.


Hudson Opposes Proposed Use of Force in Syria

WASHINGTON- U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement regarding the proposed use of force Syria:

“For two years we have seen a civil war raging in Syria. Recent reports that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own citizens are deeply concerning and warrant a serious discussion about the United States’ policy in the Middle East and our role of intervening in such affairs.

“I have taken the last several days to study the situation in Syria, receiving intelligence briefings and speaking with my colleagues in Congress. It has become clear to me that President Obama and his Administration do not have a cohesive long-term policy for the Middle East and are unable to articulate a strategy in Syria. The Administration has also not made it clear what objective and end game is achievable with a limited use of force. To make matters worse, it appears that if we were to pursue the President’s suggested course of military action, we would be acting unilaterally, as support from our allies is nearly nonexistent. Limited unilateral action will not send the right message to Iran and other bad actors, and I fear it will only further destabilize the region.

“Up to this point, President Obama and his Administration have not done a credible job in demonstrating strength of conviction in the region and sending cruise missiles into Damascus now isn’t going to change that. I do not believe it is in our best interest to take the military action currently proposed by the President against Syria."

###

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views. Your opinions are important, so please continue to write, call, or email me with any concerns you may have in the future. For more information on issues impacting North Carolinians, please visit our website at: [link to hudson.house.gov] and sign up for our weekly newsletter.