Would you, as a senator, vote to authorize President Obama to use military force against Syria?

[flpoljunkie]

9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Yes
	2 (22%)
	No
	7 (78%)
	Undecided
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Too many lies from Kerry to even think the administration might be honest.

Kerry keeps claiming he and Hagel opposed the Iraq war from the start but they both voted for it and said there were WMDs and Saddam brought the war on himself and Saddam must be deposed and all manner of war hype.
An honest case is never made by lying men.

[BlueStreak]

4. I don't trust those guys, but if there is a chance to eliminate chem weapons

we should try to do that. I like the idea of Congress linking all of this to cooperation from Syria and Russia on eliminating the gas.

OTOH, it sure seems that Russia and Syria were very quick to agree to that. I doubt that we can trust them to follow through.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Senate to draw up new resolution to use force if Syria does not follow thru with giving up CW

Just heard from MSNBC's Chuck Todd. Senators Schumer and McCain will apparently be authorizing the resolution.

[BlueStreak]

6. Lovely. The Senate's craziest war monger teams up with the most reliable agent of Israel

This is not good.

[BlueStreak]

3. It isn't that simple, people

If there is an opportunity to pressure Russia and Syria to cooperate at least a little on eliminating those weapons, we have to take that opportunity. And there must be a credible threat in order to do that.

The Russian gambit would make me MUCH more likely to support a resolution to attack. However, I would fight like hell to make it as narrow as possible. It doesn't have to be an open-ended invitation to full-out war in order to keep the pressure on. Broad Congressional support of a very narrow resolution would send the message that these guys had better follow through with the elimination of those weapons because Congress can always come back later and authorize something much more painful.

I would link the authorization very specifically to the elimination of those weapons.

[flpoljunkie]

8. China will back the Russian blueprint for a UN resolution

“We are hoping to present this plan in the near future,” Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said. “We will be ready to work through this plan and improve it with the participation of the U.N. general secretary, with chemical weapons control organizations and with the members of the Security Council.”

The Russian blueprint also won backing from China, which has resisted Western calls for military action against Syria but said on Tuesday that it supported Moscow’s vow to avert an American strike.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/syrian-chemical-arsenal.html?hp&_r=0

[Arkana]

5. If I were given incontrovertible proof that Assad used chemical weapons,

then yes, I would vote to authorize the use of force--mostly because I trust Obama's foreign policy team to utilize it as an absolute last resort.

[geek tragedy]

7. Nope. Syria is not worth American blood or treasure. Let someone else deal with it. nt

[bigwillq]

9. No (nt)

[Lil Missy]

10. Yes.

[zipplewrath]

11. Not any of the current proposals I have read

Can't claim to have read them all. But they tend to be open ended, and/or not have enough demand for diplomatic action unfront. They also tend to avoid self closing if enough things change.