I questioned your false link to a report in USA Today that you cited to make your assertion that Obama had no support in the US Senate. I have not disputed that the public is not behind a proposed strike on Syria.
As the USA also cited there is support in the Senate and there is opposition but the majority of Senators on September 10 were undecided.
You count those as no votes. You are not making a credible argument when a link to a report is distorted.
Your cite merely said Obama was losing momentum on bipartisanship because five Republicans announced they were against. Turning that into no support’ which you did is a problem
I am not the one who is wrong. I have no reason to move on.
I am making a point that headlines are that the Pro-Israeli Lobby supports Obama on the Syria Strke and that US conservatives usually side with them on matters involving Israel. Can you dispute that point?
And I hardly ever agree with Progress on national security matters.
Does it mean that posting a link to a website that it means the poster is a follower of the subjects ideology.
I also cited the CS Monitor which means the point I attempted to highlite that the pro-Israel Lobby in our country supports a strike against Syria is broadly acceptable as fact. So would I if Syria does not reasonably comply with their agreement to surrender their CW to the international community.
The reported you cited also explained that Reid pulled the procedural vote becsuse the Putin discussions about disarming Syria may have an impact on the minds of some Senstors.
Well you’re halfway there. No public support. No support from the House. That just leaves the Senate. And where is the Senate vote again? It’s right where I said it was and cited. Reid delayed it because the support wasn’t there.
Hey on the plus side, at least now Obama can arm the “rebels” openly without having to sneak around doing it. All he had to do was convince himself to strike down part of a statute making it illegal.
" Reid had to delay voting on it because there was no support. So you would be wrong." -Originally Posted by Magiver.
Since what you said is not true since you were citing a news report that did no say what you write.
It said Obama was losing bipartisan momentum and the Putin diplomatic stuff played a part in why the vote was canceled.
So I am not wrong.
Here’s your link again:
Why would Sen Reid hold a procedural vote to start debate on a bill that was written prior to new breaking information that a potential diplomatic breakthrough could diminish the need for military action?
Because the President ASKED for a vote. Reid held the vote because there wasn’t support for it. It stated it in the article I cited. The article was clear WHY it was delayed and it was because of a lack of support.
Find a rant from me anywhere about the Jewish Lobby and post it. I agree with the Jewish Lobby /pro-Israel lobby and our President that Assad should be hit with air strikes for using chemical weapons.
No you said there was ‘no support’ which is not true. And there were way too many undecided Senators for any conclusion to be made that procedural vote to start debate would not pass. They were only voting to start debate when a new development regarding Putin changed the debate entirely.
You cite merely said support was slipping. And it reported the reason Reid postponed the vote which was to let Obama address the nation first.
And it reported that the vote was pulled because of the chance for diplomacy.
And Terr tried to deny that. So that rebuttal went nowhere too.
Just admit a semantic error. It’s not correct to say there was “no support”, but the key is there wasn’t enough support. I can’t think of any knowledgeable person who was predicted a “yes” vote in either house by the time Reid decided to take a time out. The more Americans heard Obama explain his plan to bomb Syria, the less support it got. Listening to the Sunday Talk Shows, even most of the lefties were talking about how Obama fumbled on this one.
This discussion was set up on whether if Romney were President after his campaign suggestion that he would put US troops in Syria to stop the threat and spread of CW. My point is that hypothetically there are enough Dem Hawks in the Senate that Romney would get backing for strike after they had been used by Assad.
Putting boots on the ground would be a different matter.
Magiver said I was ‘wrong’ and know nothing about politics and to back that up he cited the USA Today article and embellished it to say there was no support.
It’s hard to have a discussion when one party doesn’t hold up their end to some kind of credible standard when citing things like news reports to back up calling someone wrong.
And the fact that the USA Today report added that Reid pulled the vote ‘amid’ breaking news that a peaceful solution could be in the making.
So that’s the deal here.
Do you think Romney would get Republican support for airstrikes given that he advocated ground troops to deal with Syria’s CW aresenal?