Posted on 09/17/2014 6:01:55 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
A total of 85 House Democrats, primarily anti-war liberals, voted Wednesday against the proposal to arm Syrian rebels against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The majority of the Democratic caucus, 114 members total, joined 159 Republicans to pass the amendment. But an unusual coalition of nearly an equal number of Democrats (85) and Republicans (71) opposed President Obama's proposal, which was voted on as an amendment to a stopgap funding bill to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1.
Several centrist Democrats in tough reelection races voted in favor of arming the rebels, including Reps. Ron Barber (Ariz.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Raul Ruiz (Calif.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.). Rep. Gary Peters (Mich.), who is a Democratic candidate for Senate, also voted yes.
Other Democrats, such Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), voted no because they believe that Congress should vote on a full authorization of military force against ISIS instead of a narrow measure considered as part of a short-term spending bill.
Still other Democrats, such as Reps. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) and Jackie Speier (Calif.), said they are wary of becoming involved in another military conflict in the Middle East.
"We should be frank with ourselves and the American people. We are not facing a limited engagement, but a new war that will only escalate," Speier said.
Most of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for the amendment, but Chairwoman Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) and others including Reps. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) voted against it.
Members opposed to the measure formed an unusual set of bedfellows consisting of liberals and far-right conservatives rarely seen casting the same vote on a major issue.
A sizable group of libertarian Republicans that included Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Walter Jones (N.C.) and Thomas Massie (Ky.) opposed the amendment.
Some GOP lawmakers who voted no, such as Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Matt Salmon (Ariz.), distrust the Syrian rebels and would prefer the U.S. launch a full authorization of military force.
I don’t think Obama gives a rats rear end
What Obama did in Libya worked so well that we should do it again in Syria.
Not.
Here’s the complete list of the vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll507.xml
My congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX) voted to arm and train the Syrian rebels. I’ll be giving him a call tomorrow to ask how he knows the difference between a moderate Syrian rebel and ISIS.
These moderate rebels would prefer the enemy of their enemy Assad to lose to ISIS or the FSA unicorns.
Mine did too. I think I’ll do the same thing.
The moderates don’t pose with McLettuce in photos.
Of course he knows the difference. Juan McInsane told him!
Here’s an article stating Syrian rebels agree to a non-aggression pact with ISIS. Am I missing something here?
We want to send arms to rebels who want truce with ISIS? WTF?
http://www.infowars.com/moderate-syrian-rebels-sign-non-aggression-pact-with-isis-iraq-defies-us/
An executive order outta take care of that...
I too would have voted no.
Attack ISIS? YES. Attack ISIS inside Syria? Yes. Continue to intervene between Assad and what is essentially a Sunni Islamist putsch against him? No.
What we need between Assad and the putsch against him is a military stalemate, a convincing stalemate that is so convincing that both Assad and the FSA understand that is all they can get. Then we can get a truce and then we can get political talks between them.
If we up the support to the “Syrian opposition” it is certain that (a) Iran, Russia & Hezbolla will up their support to Assad, and (b) Lebanon will be engulfed with spillover from Syria between Sunni & Shia, and (c) in addition to becoming a part of the internal struggle in Syria, Lebanon will become an additional venue for ISIS as well. NONE of those things are in the U.S. interest.
BUT, if we limit our actions inside Syria to only attacking ISIS, and that’s all we are doing, then we become less on one side or the other between Assad and the “Syrian opposition” and we will gain some leverage in getting them to come to a truce. That truce and what we do alone against ISIS only in Syria is what is in the U.S. best interest.
I called my rep, Shuster, before the vote but...
He's usually a sound Conservative.
Yeah lets arm another group of muslims that will just use the weapons to kill us in the end.
Even more infuriating - this story on Breitbart:
DEM SENATOR: OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRAIN SYRIAN OPPOSITION WOULD COST $100,000 PER REBEL
We’re going to spend $500 million to arm and train these “rebels”. Are they out of their freaking minds? Why do I find myself agreeing with dems in this case?
“Attack ISIS? YES. Attack ISIS inside Syria? Yes. Continue to intervene between Assad and what is essentially a Sunni Islamist putsch against him? No.”
I agree with that.
Good for you....like Mark Levin said...0bama and Congress are arming 5,000 “whatever’s”.
Don’t see may votes like this.
Gabby Gifford's office boy is trying to look tough in a fight against a female A-10 pilot...:^)
fta... Obama’s proposal, which was voted on as an amendment to a stopgap funding bill...
***********************************
If the Pubs can control both houses of Congress, I’d really like to see rules changes that will forbid “riders” or amendments to legislation. ....If those issues are worthwhile, they should be presented as stand-alone legislation proposals.
I think a great many of this country’s problems are the result of harmful amendments being added to meaningful legislation that really should be passed. ....JMO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.