Voting in favor of war on Syria while knowing the American populace is overwhelmingly opposed.

[Dems to Win]

How can any Senator or Representative vote in favor of war on Syria, knowing the vast majority of the American people are vehemently opposed?

By all accounts, calls and emails to their offices are overwhelmingly opposed to military strikes on Syria. I understand that we elect them to use their best judgement, not solely to echo the public opinion polls, but on the issue of going to war, it should be unthinkable to do so without the support of their constituents.

And yes, authorizing a Pearl Harbor-type attack on Syria is going to war. Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and/or Syria might decide to fight back in surprising ways, possibly leading to a prolonged, deadly, costly war that the American people wanted no part of in the first place.

I can understand and respect my own Senator's concerns that we must hold a dictator accountable for CW use (Boxer) and we must support and follow through on our President's commitments (Feinstein).

But at the end of the day, I just can't understand how they can actually vote to plunge the USA into a very risky war, knowing the American people are not behind them.



{ I've suggested we should hold Assad accountable by taking his $1.5 billion personal fortune and using the money to help the refugees, see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023581450 }

[cthulu2016]

1. Would you be saying this about, say, outlawing Islam?

What if the majority supported that? Congressmen should follow their lead in that case?

So it is silly to say it here.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. But the majority DOESN'T support that, and never will. You're saying congresscritters should NEVER

follow the lead of their constituents?

Goodbye in the next election then, congresscritters. Period, end of sentence.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Follow the money.

The general populace, no matter how much they pay the politicians, cannot match the money and future opportunities provided to the politicians that do the bidding of the super-rich.

[warrant46]

8. Yes follow the Money $$$

Look at how much these Clowns get for a boring 25 minute speech.

During their term and AFTER they "retire" for their perceived influence value.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/11/hillary-clinton-isnt-alone-former-politicians-rake-it-in-on-speaker-circuit/

Bill Clinton, former president — $750,000

For his highest-paid gig, President Clinton was paid $750,000 for an address to the telecom company Ericsson in Hong Kong. In the past 11 years since his presidency, he has earned $89 million from paid speeches averaging $189,000 per event, according to CNN.

George W. Bush, former president – $110,000

W’s made about $110,000 per address, says Yahoo! News. He’s earned at least $15 million since he left office in 2009. His approval ratings have seen an upturn recently, which may bode well for him in terms of speaking requests.

Dick Cheney, former vice president – $75,000

Cheney earns around $75,000 per event, reports Politico. Both he and his daughter Liz are represented by the same speaking agency though Liz receives $20,000. As a possible senatorial candidate in Wyoming though, she might be worth more in the future.

Hillary Clinton Taps Speechmaking Gold Mine

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-hits-the-lucrative-speechmaking-trail.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Just a few months after leaving the State Department, Hillary Rodham Clinton has plunged into the lucrative world of paid speechmaking, joining a branch of the family business that has brought the Clintons more than $100 million since her husband left the White House in 2001.

For about $200,000, Mrs. Clinton will offer pithy reflections and Mitch Albom-style lessons from her time as the nation’s top diplomat. (“Leadership is a team sport.” “You can’t win if you don’t show up.” “A whisper can be louder than a shout.”)

[Rex]

4. People were overwhelmingly against invading Iraq.

Massive protests, but the PNAC crowd had enough money to get what they wanted.

[Dems to Win]

5. True. But people like Barbara Boxer weren't voting in favor of the Iraq War.

And there was a substantial portion of the public who had wanted to 'get Saddam' for more than a decade.

Now, it feels like there are Senators voting in favor of war in light of even more overwhelming opposition than in 2003. I have to wonder how the people will put a stop to endless wars against our will.

[Rex]

6. Term limits.

No kidding, I really don't know either.

[amandabeech]

7. Perhaps there just won't be any vote.

Boehner may not bring it up, citing conflicts within his own caucus.

Reid can then say that the Senate won't bring it up since the House isn't doing it either.

That will give every Rep and the Senators who are up in 2014 cover.

Boehner won't bring up a bill of impeachment, either, and I doubt that he will be overthrown by his own caucus until the new Congress is seated in 2015.

The President can then do what he likes.

The voting public's attention span is short, and other problems, like the continuing resolution and debt ceiling votes (for starters), will have people's attention soon enough.

However, if Congress votes against the use of force, I think that the President should not go it alone. It carries too much risk of a Constitutional crisis.

[Dems to Win]

9. You could be right, Congress could punt.

Obama better not go it alone. I'll join the calls for impeachment if he strikes without affirmative votes from Congress.