Three South Carolina congressmen are hard “no” votes against American military intervention in the Syrian civil war, sources tell FITS.
U.S. Reps. Jeff Duncan, Trey Gowdy and Mark Sanford – all Republicans – will vote against authorizing the administration of Barack Obama to use military force against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Another Republican lawmaker – U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney – is leaning “no.”
Good for them …
Meanwhile, the status of “Republican” lawmakers Tom Rice and Joe Wilson has yet to be determined – with Wilson saying he is “undecided.”
Jim Clyburn – the lone Democratic member of the South Carolina congressional delegation – is also “undecided.”
In the U.S. Senate, South Carolina’s senior Senator Lindsey Graham is one of seven “Republicans” to pledge his support for military intervention. U.S. Sen. Tim Scott remains undecided.
This website has written extensively against American intervention in Syria.
“The national defense is a core function of government outlined in our constitution,” we wrote. “But in no universe is intervening in this conflict – on the side of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, no less – acting in defense of those interests. Intervening would, however, encroach on the sovereignty of another nation, incite anti-American fervor in the Middle East and fundamentally make our people less safe.”
Polling data affirms most Americans – 60 percent according to the latest Washington Post/ ABC News survey – agree with us.
America doesn’t want this war. Our allies don’t want this war. Our generals don’t want this war.
Why is there even a debate over getting involved?
30 comments
Here’s Wilson’s response:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/09/04/2571861/wilson-syria-benghazi-irs/
Just when you think Joe has hit bottom, he surprises you once again!
No surprise here.
Yesterday Russia’s Black and Baltic Sea Fleets’ Ropucha-class
landing ships Novocherkassk
(150 marines on board) and Minsk (225
marines) sailed off for the Mediterranean Sea. Today Putin called Kerry a liar. These events with the prospect of playing with soldiers should get Miss Lindsay pirouetting around her boxed BFF, John.
Can you say Megiddo?
The 1970s called. They want Hal Lindsey back.
Maybe. Maybe not? :)
You may be right.
Though TBG can only dream of writing something this perceptive, here is a comment from a reader of Steve Sailer’s blog.
Dave Pinsen said…”
Since we’re spitballing here, for the sake of argument, why not use a tactical nuke and go for a Childhood’s End scenario in Syria? Nuke Assad’s ancestral neighborhood, and say we’ll bomb Syria with a nuke a week until both sides come to an agreement and end their civil war.
On the one hand, that sounds totally outrageous, but on the other hand, it’s consistent with the arguments made for nuking Japan (hastening the end of the war, obviating the need for another US invasion, and ultimately reducing both US and enemy civilian casualties). And unlike a few cruise missile strikes, there’s no question nukes would get the belligerents’ attention.
The usual objections against us using nukes aren’t moral ones but legal and practical: it violates international laws we are a party to, and it invites an enemy to reciprocate with nukes. But I don’t see how either argument applies here. Whatever military action we take against Syria, absent UN authorization, would be a violation of international law, and Syria doesn’t have any nukes to reciprocate with.
Go big or go home.”
Good Point. My argument is obviously against the invasion of the country. Nukes are not invasive from the standpoint of colonization.
I grew up in LA, CA. Lots of Latin gangs where I was at. We used to have a saying. You fight one bean, you fight the whole burrito.
I truly believe that there is only one minor difference here. We started the fight. We started back in the 40’s (30’s maybe) and now we don’t have the wherewithal to finish it.
I do like glass though :) Silver makes yellow, Gold makes red. Wonder what color oil will make it :-k Hmmm?
“I grew up in LA, CA. Lots of Latin gangs where I was at. We used to have a saying. You fight one bean, you fight the whole burrito.”
lol…I went to HS out in So. Cal.
I had lots of “beaner” friends, most of which whose family had been “Merican” much longer then my Saxon-Euro ancestors.
Thing is, I really never had a problem(mid to late 80’s) with the gang thing…just 5 years later my bro did though…at lot changed in a short period of time…but most of the bangers were a generation or less into being “Merican”…not multi generational Mexican-Americans, whose culture I’m very fond of.
Now, when I lived in Cleveland….I used to play in 3 on 3 b-ball tourney’s when younger and spent A LOT of time in ghetto’s for pick up ball…and when it comes to blacks, I assure you that when you fight a black bean you almost ALWAYS fight the burrito. I can say that though I tried to avoid those situations I wasn’t always successful when younger, thankfully I had the proper people around me(both black and white friends) at the time to conduct the necessary business…but it’s almost always a given with blacks.
I don’t know if it’s the same anymore in So.Cal, but my experience was that the Mexican gangs seemed to be more preoccupied with the Black gangs and vice versa.
Kerry IS a liar…….
Sir, you repeat yourself.
Many Republicans in Congress seems more enthusiastic at the prospect of embarrassing or thwarting President Obama than taking actions to further the national security and foreign policy interests of the U.S. I am not saying intervention in Syria is in our national interest, but if
G. W. Bush were president, these same Republicans would praise his strength, decisiveness and leadership on the world stage and rush to tout their support.
Absolutely not. Well, Republicrats and Demlicans are two sides of the same coin so I’ll buy that argument. But no Conservative in his or her even minimally right mind would ever have agreed with Bushy, just as we disagree with Oshitforbrains now.
Wag dat shite, booooy. Wag dat Shite.
If I’m deciphering your gibberish correctly, you’re saying no conservatives would support intervention in Syria? Where were they on Iraq?
Same place, same song.
Since when is there any difference between Republicrats and Demlicans. Neither represent conservative values. Haven’t for decades.
My bad Manray. There is one difference. The Repuklicrats want to spend all my money on war. The Demlicans want to spend it on everthing else.
No need to discuss anything with those old boozer.Everybody is a rotten sonuvabitch, except him and other “true conservatives”(a class that is apparently comprised of only him)
Whats his point?Yeh yeh Pytel EVERYBODY is full of shit, except YOU!
Why post to yourself? No discussion means you’re right? Just like a libitard. He who yells the loudest is correct. EVERYONE
Oh, got it… since the MSM holds that the Dems are the smart ones and President Obama is a nuanced thinker therefore the formerly war-mongering Republican opposition (along with our reluctant allies and top Generals) is just knee-jerk. After Iraq and Afghanistan, a simmering Iran, and a tragic Egypt, …can’t we all learn from our mistakes?
Well, maybe in a past decade. But now, I don’t think so. I’m a staunch conservative (not necessarily republicrat) and I do not approve of intervention in Syria. I wouldn’t care if Reagan or Bush were pres, after what we’ve been through, enough is e fucking nough.
I think it’s time to stop the oil countries, Israel, House of Saud, Qatar and all those who want to bury Russia to stop. Dammit, where the fuck did diplomacy go? Oh, I know, it’s all about money. For starters, the 10 billion (yes fucking billion) that Exxon has invested to get Qatar gas to the EU, bypassing BRICS.
We’re going to war, no doubt. It just remains to be seen what Russia and China will do.
Sigh… just fucking sigh.
but if G. W. Bush were president, these same Republicans would praise his strength, decisiveness and leadership on the world stage and rush to tout their support.
Which why a leftist Democrat* President is better than a RINO. The Democrat in office keeps the GOP “honest”.
* “TBG, you have a call from the Department of Redundancy Dept on line one.”
Ms. Lindsey, if she knows what is good for her, will find a way similar to McPain. He’s getting his butt handed to him by his constituents and he jumped ship fast, and smooth.
This is a bad idea. I support efforts to stop proliferation and use of chemical weapons, but if the issue is enforcing a global treaty, what will the other members of the international community do to help us? The UN is hog-tied by Russian and Chinese opposition. Who will pay for this? Who will provide the young people to die, if necessary? The Saudis? France? No. The American people are supposed to pay the many millions of dollars in costs and risk our service members’ lives. When were we appointed as global enforcer of international treaties?
Agreed.
Jihadi John announced today they would pay us to do it. Tell them back, “Do it your Fracking Self”
So much for the element of surprise in Syria :(
Its not about “surprise”….its all about deception.
So……just think how deceptive this article is. How is Wil Folks using it against the thought process of his very own readers..?
Keep an enemy confused…they do not know how to counter you….
Keep your citizens confused….they do not know whether to vote you out of office or not……
Keep you troops confused …….they do not …..know how to WIN….what..?
I’d be willing to bet Scott and Wilson will vote yes. Clyburn has voted against war stuff before but might vote for it in support of Obama. Rice wouldn’t surprise me if he voted yes.
Joe said no yesterday, and I bet Rice will vote yes seeing that he loves John Boehner and the D.C. Establishment
there goes Tim Scott taking another bold stand.