Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
December 2, 2015

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

Comments (10)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. OleHippieChick

    September 10, 2013
    8:27 am

    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 The Family Business of producing things that deliver death from above is obsolete.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.

  2. Dave

    September 10, 2013
    10:43 am

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

    • DolphT

      September 10, 2013
      11:15 am

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

    • stevefranklin54

      September 10, 2013
      5:12 pm

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

  3. LarryBurt

    September 10, 2013
    11:41 am

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

  4. cettel

    September 10, 2013
    1:30 pm

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

  5. stevefranklin54

    September 10, 2013
    2:53 pm

    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.

  6. Debra Drayton

    September 10, 2013
    4:26 pm

    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

      September 11, 2013
      10:17 am

      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.

  7. ab

    September 10, 2013
    11:18 pm

    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?



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

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...