"If I felt for one minute that my nation was in danger, and I'm 83, I would volunteer and do something to protect her," Rangel told The Cable on Wednesday. "But I'll be damned if I see anything worth fighting for."
"I don't see anyone else using any military at all," Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Congressional Black Caucus, told The Cable. "We don't have NATO, we don't have the Arab League, we don't have the United Nations.
Various news organizations are contacting members of Congress to see where they stand on the attack authorization. While each outlet has different numbers, the ominous sign for the administration is that all of them show the "no" votes outpacing the "yes" votes by a more than a 3-1 margin.
Most alarming for the administration may be The Washington Post whip count.
The Post has contacted 371 of the 435 members of the House. Of those contacted, 204 representatives are against authorization or leaning against it. That compares to 24 members in favor and 143 members who are undecided, and 48 of the undecided representatives are Republicans.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., mocked the idea that U.S. military could make a “limited” attack on Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, even as the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus asked members to keep quiet about the issue for the time being.
“There’s no such thing as limited war,” Rangel told MSNBC’s Martin Bashir Thursday afternoon. “You cannot attack a country and then [set] the rules by which he or she may respond.”
Rangel cited violence in New York City as a riposte the humanitarian argument that the United States should attack Assad because he killed hundreds Syrian children in a chemical weapons attack.
“[T]here’s no way that I have to explain why 400 kids are dead, killed by this mad man, and I’m supposed to feel guilty; my kids are killed every darn day in New York,” he told Bashir.
'Limited' is in keeping with my post elsewhere hereon, a) micromanagement (not known to be terribly efficient). We are so concerned with touchy feely ROE we have PC'd ourselves away from a flat out will to win while enemies with no tolerance for touchy feely gain advantage.
As Charlie stated, we are so concerned over 400 Syrian children while still neglecting our own 4 Bengazi casualties. But that of course follows the administration's Islamic ideaology and its tacit approval of Christian ideaology destruction here and abroad.
When asked if his constituents had any appetite for a war with Syria, Rangel replied bluntly. "In answer to your question: Hell no."
ReplyDelete"If I felt for one minute that my nation was in danger, and I'm 83, I would volunteer and do something to protect her," Rangel told The Cable on Wednesday. "But I'll be damned if I see anything worth fighting for."
ReplyDelete"I don't see anyone else using any military at all," Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Congressional Black Caucus, told The Cable. "We don't have NATO, we don't have the Arab League, we don't have the United Nations.
ReplyDeleteVarious news organizations are contacting members of Congress to see where they stand on the attack authorization. While each outlet has different numbers, the ominous sign for the administration is that all of them show the "no" votes outpacing the "yes" votes by a more than a 3-1 margin.
ReplyDeleteMost alarming for the administration may be The Washington Post whip count.
The Post has contacted 371 of the 435 members of the House. Of those contacted, 204 representatives are against authorization or leaning against it. That compares to 24 members in favor and 143 members who are undecided, and 48 of the undecided representatives are Republicans.
Well I saw where one female member stated "Yes, we should support President Obama on Syria... (wait for it ....) OUT OF LOYALTY to him.
ReplyDeleteThat's scary ...
It's been painful as an American to watch Obama in St. Petersburg.
DeleteFailure on public display is not a pretty thing. Our country is in serious trouble. The next three years will be very dangerous.
1773-2009 Pray that our founders principles sustain us.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., mocked the idea that U.S. military could make a “limited” attack on Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, even as the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus asked members to keep quiet about the issue for the time being.
ReplyDelete“There’s no such thing as limited war,” Rangel told MSNBC’s Martin Bashir Thursday afternoon. “You cannot attack a country and then [set] the rules by which he or she may respond.”
Rangel cited violence in New York City as a riposte the humanitarian argument that the United States should attack Assad because he killed hundreds Syrian children in a chemical weapons attack.
“[T]here’s no way that I have to explain why 400 kids are dead, killed by this mad man, and I’m supposed to feel guilty; my kids are killed every darn day in New York,” he told Bashir.
'Limited' is in keeping with my post elsewhere hereon, a) micromanagement (not known to be terribly efficient). We are so concerned with touchy feely ROE we have PC'd ourselves away from a flat out will to win while enemies with no tolerance for touchy feely gain advantage.
DeleteAs Charlie stated, we are so concerned over 400 Syrian children while still neglecting our own 4 Bengazi casualties. But that of course follows the administration's Islamic ideaology and its tacit approval of Christian ideaology destruction here and abroad.
This might be the first good thing that the CBC has ever done.
ReplyDelete