Roll Call: The News Source of Capitol Hill Since 1955
October 21, 2014

How Would You Vote?

President Obama “continues to rally support for his plan to punish Syria for using chemical weapons against its own people, and several senators may be crucial to getting the 60 votes needed to move forward on a use of force resolution,” Roll Call reports.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) originally said he would hold a test vote on a resolution this week, but Roll Call now says this will be delayed at the president’s request.

What would you do if you had a vote in the Senate? Take our poll below:

Explain your vote in the comments below.

Categories: Uncategorized
  • http://petgazette-pets.com OleHippieChick

    Sorry, Boeing. The Family Business of producing things that deliver death from above is obsolete. Retool, will you? I’d like a matching Boeing fridge, stove and dishwasher.

  • Dave

    I vote yes. Obama is effectively using gunboat diplomacy. And the Obama-haters want to take away the gunboat.

    • DolphT

      Ah for the good old days of unabashed imperialism — and that was all that gunboat “diplomacy” was about.

    • stevefranklin54

      Sorry, but I voted for Obama in each election, and I don’t want him to attack Syria either.

  • LarryBurt

    Taking away this threat now would be like a football player releasing the ball before crossing the goal line. Therefore, Yes.

  • cettel

    Wow, this thing could get done if only the public were as well informed as the readers of Roll Call are.

  • stevefranklin54

    NO The side we help will resent that we didn’t do more and will never forgive us. The side we hurt will never forgive us. And the families of the people we kill will never forgive us.

    We should not be the peacekeepers of the world. We don’t have manpower, we don’t have the resources, and most importantly, we don’t have the wisdom.

  • Debra Drayton

    The US needs to stand up for something. If the world has decided that using chemical weapons is a red line, then we need to take action when someone crosses that line. I know we can’t be the world’s policeman, but sometimes circumstances cast us in that role. If not us, then who?

    • MarkLuxford

      I agree completely, Debra. In 2005 the world community agreed to a “Responsibility to Protect” vulnerable populations from genocide or mass murder attacks. Note that the name of that agreement is not “Option to Protect”. If the world community and this country fail to live up to the responsibility they voluntarily assumed then shame on the world community and shame on us.

  • ab

    I vote yes because while generally I oppose war and desire peace I also believe that a no vote is a vote for appeasement. We have treaties banning chemical weapon use and chemical warfare for a reason and with no teeth these treaties will be seen as not being useful.

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...