WHIP LIST: Syrian Conflict and Members Positions

[Spoa]

http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/whip-lists/syrian-attack-whip-list/

Please help me if you find articles by members of congress (especially if I don't have a position listed for them).

I'm creating a list of who supports, against, or leans against STRIKES in Syria. Take note because some members will say they're against troops on the ground, but that doesn't mean they are fully against strikes.

Great Interactive Links on Positions: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/house.html) Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/where-lawmakers-stand-on-syria/)

[Brett85]

In Kansas, Huelskamp, Jenkins, and Yoder are against it, while Pompeo hasn't taken a position.

[erowe1]

Jackie Walorski in IN-2 put out a statement that isn't explicit. But it seems to imply that she wants more, not less, than what Obama called "a limited narrow act."
http://www.fox28.com/story/23309527/2013/08/31/rep-walorski-responds-to-presidents


The American people deserve the opportunity to have their voices heard in Congress regarding the situation in Syria, and I respect the President's decision to seek a congressional vote concerning future military action.
I urge Congress to return to Washington immediately so that President Obama can make the case to lawmakers and the American people as to how military action could fulfill a comprehensive strategy to protect our national interests and shield our allies.
"The president's red line was already crossed, yet it still remains unclear how his recent consideration for a ‘limited, narrow act' will deter the Assad regime, and I look forward to hearing the Administration's specific plan in the coming days.

[Brett85]

Jackie Walorski in IN-2 put out a statement that isn't explicit. But it seems to imply that she wants more, not less, than what Obama called "a limited narrow act."
http://www.fox28.com/story/23309527/2013/08/31/rep-walorski-responds-to-presidents

Yeah, I read that McCain and Graham may actually vote "no" on this authorization since it's too limited and doesn't go far enough for them.

[RockEnds]

My Congressman, Loebsack sounds like a probably not:

http://clintonherald.com/topnews/x86512327/Loebsack-talks-farm-bill-Syria


After the talk on the farm bill, Loebsack fielded a question on a potential war with Syria, the Middle Eastern country suspected of using chemical weapons against its own people, an international war crime.

“I have a lot of concerns, certainly with boots on the ground. I also have a lot of concerns about even any kind of air strikes and doing any of this without any kind of significant international support from other countries,” Loebsack said.

“I think we need to be really cautious and think really hard and if the president’s serious about using military force, I hope that he will consult Congress and I would like to see us called back into session,” he added.

I wouldn't count on him to buck the administration, though.

[ClydeCoulter]

I sent an email to Todd Rokita, IN-4 asking his stance, for or against limited strike, boots-on-the-ground and/or support of the Syrian rebels in any way.

[twomp]

Yeah, I read that McCain and Graham may actually vote "no" on this authorization since it's too limited and doesn't go far enough for them.

Don't they always do that? Complain that it doesn't do enough then votes for it anyway.

[CaseyJones]

Mr. Massie less than an hour ago


I hope someone starts a thread to show how many members on that Rigell letter eventually vote to bomb Syria

[ClydeCoulter]

Mr. Massie less than an hour ago

Source? I want to share it.

[CaseyJones]

I am your source :p

[ClydeCoulter]

I am your source :p

You have a blog, twitter, FB or something? How can I share that?

N/M

[CaseyJones]

You have a blog, twitter, FB or something? How can I share that?

N/M

eh best if we leave it in house

[GunnyFreedom]

NC Senators Burr and Hagan have both staked themselves out in favor of the attack.

[Uriah]

My Congressman, Loebsack sounds like a probably not:

http://clintonherald.com/topnews/x86512327/Loebsack-talks-farm-bill-Syria



I wouldn't count on him to buck the administration, though.

We share the same congressman. I think Loebsack will follow whatever Obama does. I was at a fundraiser for Mark Chelgren a few days ago and Mariannette Miller-Meeks was there. It sounds like she may run again for IA-2. I didn't really follow her previous campaigns so I don't know if she'd be much of an improvement.

[RockEnds]

We share the same congressman. I think Loebsack will follow whatever Obama does. I was at a fundraiser for Mark Chelgren a few days ago and Mariannette Miller-Meeks was there. It sounds like she may run again for IA-2. I didn't really follow her previous campaigns so I don't know if she'd be much of an improvement.

She didn't do much the last time she ran against him. I really don't remember what her foreign policy position was. I suppose I must have thought she was better than some of them on something because I do remember voting for her in the primaries, but she just didn't have the support she needed.

Loebsack might surprise. If I remember correctly, he has someone in the service. But he typically never opposes the Dem party line. It will be a real surprise if he votes his own mind. I'll be shocked.

[paulbot24]

Congressman X: "I wonder if Obama really cares what we think?"
Congressman Y: "I don't know. Probably not. At least he's inviting us into the conversation....sort of."
Congressman X: "Well, I feel better that he's making the right political decision since it makes the people feel a lot better when the House and the Senate at least look like we're involved in decision making."
Congressman Y: "I hope they serve Surf and Turf. My kids keep calling me a celebrity since the President wants to talk to me."
Congressman X: "Yeah? Isn't this great?"

Somewhere in the corner Rand, Amash, Massie, Jones, and maybe Grayson are shaking their heads.....

[Spoa]

Thank you everyone for all your help. Keep posting info and I'll be updating the page as soon as I can! :)

[Spoa]

+reps for anyone who can provide information on members positions.

[compromise]

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130828/NEWS01/130828021/Bill-Posey-Obama-needs-congressional-say-before-striking-Syria?nclick_check=1
Posey

[COpatriot]

Colorado senator Michael Bennett (D) and reps Scott Tipton (R) and Doug Lamborn (R) all "applauded" Obama's decision to go to Congress. Rep Jared Polis (D) also tweeted that he was gathering info to make a decision. None of them have given stances yet though. Now Lamborm is my rep and I've met him. He's an israel-firster through and through in a military-heavy district so that's one thing to consider

Polis from twitter:


Sounds like I will be voting on military action in Syria! Send me information/articles to read as I study the issue to make my decision

And this:

http://gazette.com/colorado-lawmakers-say-they-will-carefully-weigh-syria-options/article/1505640

[compromise]

https://twitter.com/treyradel/status/372786663849611264
https://twitter.com/treyradel/status/374169399919661056
https://twitter.com/treyradel/status/374169399919661056
Radel - Against

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/ted-yoho-opposes-military-action-against-syria
Yoho - Against

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130830/PC16/130839925/1009/sc-lawmakers-cool-on-syrian-intervention&source=RSS
Sanford, Duncan, Mulvaney, Clyburn - Leaning Against


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Dw0F-wG-4oM
Gohmert - Against

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/congress_doesnt_think_much_of_syria_intervention.h tml
Rooney - Leaning Against

[fr33]

There's another thread going about this. Might want to combine or paste info from. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?426041-Where-does-your-Congressman-stand-on-Syria

[Warlord]

Yeah, I read that McCain and Graham may actually vote "no" on this authorization since it's too limited and doesn't go far enough for them.

Don't fall for that. When it comes down to it they're a reliable vote for war - any war - no matter what they say

[mosquitobite]

Todd Young, IN 9th district said:


I respect and welcome the President's decision to ask Congress for authorization of military action in Syria. I hope this is more than a symbolic gesture, and that the administration actively engages us throughout the process because many questions remain unanswered. Have we utilized all instruments of national power, and exhausted all other options? What is our long term strategy in the Middle East, and do we even have a coherent doctrine for the region? Will Syria use chemical weapons again regardless of whether or not we attack? These are just some of the questions that need to be worked through as President Obama tries to persuade a skeptical Congress and American public.

[Spoa]

Bachmann released this statement:


Michele Bachmann
The prospect of military intervention in Syria demands a robust public debate, and President Obama made the correct constitutional decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force.

I am adamantly opposed to President Obama starting another war in the Middle East and plan to vote against military intervention in Syria. We have bad actors and bad options on both sides in Syria, with many of the rebels working with al Qaeda-affiliated groups.

The fruit of President Obama’s failed foreign policy has contributed to the chaos and instability in Libya and Egypt, all the while distracting from the essential threat in the Middle East: the specter of a nuclear Iran.

President Obama has not demonstrated a vital American national security interest in the conflict in Syria or a clear strategy outlining what the use of force would accomplish. The American people do not support a military intervention and I cannot vote for one.

[COpatriot]

Rand says it's 50/50.

http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/01/20280427-paul-5050-chance-that-house-will-vote-down-syria-authorization

[ClydeCoulter]

From Rep Zoe Lofgren's FB:


Joint Statement from Congresswomen Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren Regarding Congressional Debate and Potential Authorization of U.S. Military Action in Syria - August 31, 2013

We are pleased that President Obama will seek Congressional authorization before engaging in any military hostilities against Syria.

That authorization is legally and constitutionally required – the President cannot legally act alone without the U.S. Congress. This construct is part of the genius of our nation’s democratic system and our Constitutional checks and balances.

We welcome the opportunity to listen to the facts of this matter in the most public forum. While a review of the evidence, both classified and unclassified, as to the use of chemical is important, we are already inclined to believe that these horrific weapons were used based on public and social media accounts. We believe that the question before the U.S. Congress is not “can the Obama Administration prove that the Syrian government used chemical weapons?” Rather, the paramount question is, if that is true, “what is the best course for the United States to take, and why?”

Here are just a few of the questions that are at the heart of what Congress must debate as we and our colleagues determine the best course for the United States to take:

• What role should the United States play in enforcing international treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons?

• International treaties are frequently violated by various nations. What precedent does it set if the United States acts in this case? Will the U.S. be placed in a position where we must respond whenever treaties are seriously violated? If not, why?

• Civilian massacres have occurred in other countries without U.S. military intervention and are occurring today in Egypt, for example. Would action in Syria set a precedent for action in other parts of the world? If not, why not?

• Should the U.S. take action when international bodies, including the UN and NATO, have declined to do so?

• Should the U.S. take action when the United Nations has asked that we not do so?

• Should the U.S. act when other nations decline to participate with our country in taking such action, including Great Britain? Arab nations?

• If action is taken by the United States what impact will it have on the future behavior of the Assad regime? On what basis are we concluding that Syria will change its behavior based on a U.S. attack on Syrian targets?

• If the U.S. attack is limited in scope and time, what message will that give to Syria as well as other nations such as Iran? If the action is protracted in scope and time, what are the potential costs in American lives and U.S. taxpayer dollars? For U.S. prestige in the world and in the Middle East?

• How would U.S. military action against Syria make the American people safer? The Syrian people? The people of Israel?

• If a U.S. attack assists the rebels in overthrowing the Assad regime, who takes over in Syria? If the Assad regime falls, will further civil war ensue between competing rebel factions? What role will Al Qaeda play?

• The Syrian civil war is also a proxy war for other powers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and other non-state actors such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. What impact would U.S. action have on these other actors?

• Will the unrest in Syria spread in the region if the U.S. acts? If the U.S. does not act?

• What impact would U.S. action have on our closest ally in the region, Israel? Would a U.S. attack on Syria lead to retaliatory attacks against Israel or others? What will the reaction of Israel be in that case? What U.S. action would then be required?

• If our country decides that some action by the U.S. is required, what should that action be? Should further diplomatic efforts, as opposed to military action, be considered? Are there feasible sanctions that could be put in place? Other actions?

• If military action is proposed, what are the targets, the scope and the cost? What is expected to be accomplished and how will that serve the interests of the United States? Syria? The Middle East? The World?

• What is our strategy for Syria (and for the Middle East generally) and how would military action support or damage that strategy?

• If the Assad regime, or even the rebels, were to engage in actions that appear to violate international treaties including the use of chemical weapons in the future what action would the U.S. take? What would be the consequences of further action or inaction in such a case in terms of spread of war, entanglement of the U.S. in the Syrian civil war, U.S. reputation around the world, and the perception of American strength and resolve by Iran and North Korea? To what extent is the U.S. “painting ourselves into a corner” by attacking Syria now? Will that force us to attack again in response to further violations? If not, why?

• What impact would U.S. military action have on relations between Russia and our country? What are the short and long term implications for Russia and the U.S., including efforts to continue the reduction of nuclear arms by our two nations?

• What are the possible adverse results of U.S. military action in Syria? What steps have been taken to address those potential adverse impacts? What is the “end game?”
We hope the Congressional debate will be carried out at the highest level, with the result that the United States acts, or does not act, after the most deliberative consideration. In that regard, we ask the President to make his case in the light of public scrutiny, not by “classified” briefings that are kept from the American people and which Members of Congress are prohibited from discussing publicly. This debate will have its needed effect only if it is fully transparent.

We pledge to our constituents and fellow Americans that we will carefully weigh the facts and options that face the United States at this juncture. We look forward to debating and hearing answers to these questions, and other relevant ones that may emerge, as we examine the facts and further hear from our constituents on this very serious issue facing our country.

[GunnyFreedom]

There's another thread going about this. Might want to combine or paste info from. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?426041-Where-does-your-Congressman-stand-on-Syria

Interestingly, "Whip List" is actually the correct name for something like this.

[ClydeCoulter]

From Congressman Kevin Yoder's Facebook Page:


I do not believe a military attack against Syria is warranted at this time. However, I do appreciate the announcement by the President that he will seek the input of the American people and the consent of Congress. I look forward to discussing the President's plan with my constituents and giving it full consideration on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

[Brian4Liberty]

Pretty sure that Zoe Lofgren will be a "no".

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?426116-Great-list-of-Syria-questions-via-Rep-Zoe-Lofgren-(D-CA)

[navy-vet]

NC Senators Burr and Hagan have both staked themselves out in favor of the attack.
I sent them both an email earlier today asking them to vote against our involvement in Syria in any military action. I also asked that we desist in supplying any and all military aid as well.

[GunnyFreedom]

I sent them both an email earlier today asking them to vote against our involvement in Syria in any military action. I also asked that we desist in supplying any and all military aid as well.

Excellent! At some point before the vote though, you will probably want to call, as that is way more effective than e-mail:

Richard Burr: (202) 224-3154

Kay Hagan: (202) 224-6342

[69360]

In Maine

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/09/01/politics/king-pingree-applaud-obamas-decision-to-seek-congress-approval-before-military-action-against-syria/

Pingree “I’m inclined to vote no but will listen to the president and am glad he is seeking the approval of Congress”

Michaud no comment yet

Collins and king both agreed with Obama going to congress, but no decision

I'm going to email Michaud tonight

[thoughtomator]

It's tough to say for a lot of Reps because many are insisting on Congress' prerogatives without saying which way they're going to go with it.

Rep. Randy Forbes in VA sounds like he's against strikes right now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9s7fRCg6_s

[seyferjm]

Last I checked, mine was in favor of it. Steve Chabot, OH-1.

[erowe1]

Excellent! At some point before the vote though, you will probably want to call, as that is way more effective than e-mail:

Richard Burr: (202) 224-3154

Kay Hagan: (202) 224-6342

I have never taken this advice. But I have been told by a political consultant that faxes are most effective, because an aid will show the rep. a stack of paper that represents people with such and such a view.

[KEEF]

http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/whip-lists/syrian-attack-whip-list/

Please help me if you find articles by members of congress (especially if I don't have a position listed for them).

I'm creating a list of who supports, against, or leans against STRIKES in Syria. Take note because some members will say they're against troops on the ground, but that doesn't mean they are fully against strikes.
RT https://twitter.com/G_fasciatus/status/374342860570509313

[CaseyJones]

I have never taken this advice. But I have been told by a political consultant that faxes are most effective, because an aid will show the rep. a stack of paper that represents people with such and such a view.

this makes a lotta sense, we should promote doing this and physical letters as well as calling

[devil21]

NC Senators Burr and Hagan have both staked themselves out in favor of the attack.

Thanks for the info. How did you learn this? Im sure my Rep will be all for it too since he's statist through and through.

Remind your congresscritters that the majority of Americans are against getting involved and 2014 is right around the corner. We will NOT forget how they voted.

[jbauer]

R tn6 black no response since last Monday.

[navy-vet]

Excellent! At some point before the vote though, you will probably want to call, as that is way more effective than e-mail:

Richard Burr: (202) 224-3154

Kay Hagan: (202) 224-6342
Will do! Thank's

[evandeck]

CNN has made a list of who is for and against the authorization.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/house.html

It has some of the votes that was on here but not all.

[Brett85]

CNN has made a list of who is for and against the authorization.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/house.html

It has some of the votes that was on here but not all.

According to this, practically all of the Republicans in the house are either undecided or are going to vote "no."

[erowe1]

According to this, practically all of the Republicans in the house are either undecided or are going to vote "no."

The ones who have committed to a position say no. But they're a pretty insignificant number so far. A lot of the rest are waiting for the leaders to tell them what they want the party to do. There will be an official Republican position, and if it's to vote for military action, then it will be interesting to see how many Republicans oppose it then.

[Root]

"Liberal" Leonard Lance (R) NJ-7.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/lance_convinced_of_regimes_role_in_syrian_chemical _attack_but_not_that_us_should_intervene.html#inca rt_river


“I abhor the use of chemical weapons,” Lance told The Star-Ledger following the afternoon briefing at the Capitol, given by representatives of the State and Defense Departments. “But I am yet to be convinced that we should take military action.”

Lance said he wants “a full analysis by the administration” of the methods, potential toll and consequences of an attack.

[erowe1]

"Liberal" Leonard Lance (R) NJ-7.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/lance_convinced_of_regimes_role_in_syrian_chemical _attack_but_not_that_us_should_intervene.html#inca rt_river

It would be nice to get him on record saying which methods of mass killing he does not abhor.

[Root]

It would be nice to get him on record saying which methods of mass killing he does not abhor.
My guess would be the rest of them.

[ClydeCoulter]

From Bentivolio FB post:

Levin, Bentivolio differ on taking military action against Syria
http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20130831/NEWS02/308310007

[erowe1]

Holy smokes! Levin looks 20 years older than the last time I guess I ever actually saw his face. It can't have been that long ago.

Doh! Wrong Levin.

[libertariantexas]

Why is this even on our radar?

It's a civil war between the forces of a nasty dictator and Muslim extremists (who are likely worse than the dictator).

The USA should stay the HELL out of it.

[libertariantexas]

Why is this even on our radar?

It's a civil war between the forces of a nasty dictator and Muslim extremists (who are likely worse than the dictator).

The USA should stay the HELL out of it.

[Paulatized]

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it is a concise breakdown. Just scroll over the dots to see the names.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/02/where-the-votes-stand-on-syria/