Which idiots in both Houses will vote on this Syria attack just for politics?

At the very least, it will be interesting to see which way the vote goes. You have the polls from several sources that are against a strike. You have very compelling evidence that a barbaric act has been committed and something should be done.

The problem is that there is no clear evidence available to prove without doubt who the act was committed by. The French have claimed that they have evidence that strongly suggests it was an act of the Assad regime but without more proof we really do not know who is at fault. It could have been the anti government alliance that are trying to draw the West into the fray to swing the odds in their favor.

I hope that the legislature weighs the evidence very carefully before committing to an act that will have long lasting consequences for all involved.

Obama has vacillated over Syria for more than a year while deaths from conventional weapons have been largely ignored. He made his first "red line" comment a year ago, recently repeated it and now it has come back to haunt him.

I found this observation interesting " The lack of confidence in Barack Obama. There’s no doubt the president has been extremely reluctant to take action in Syria. He also showed terrible judgment by painting himself into a corner with his 2012 “red line” comments on chemical weapons. For those reasons, and more, some Republicans will argue that they simply cannot entrust special warmaking powers to a president who they believe is not competent to use them.

This conclusion says it all:

In the end, many will carefully consider all the evidence and then vote their instincts. And that will mean a vote against Barack Obama."

By the way: Dems have practiced their own version of this, which the left at the time labeled “the incompetence dodge.” When things deteriorated in Iraq, many Dems who’d initially supported the war blamed George W. Bush’s execution for it, to avoid engaging in a debate over whether they themselves were complicit in supporting an idea that was fundamentally flawed, dodging accountability.

None of this is to say there aren’t legitimate reasons for Republicans to oppose Obama’s request. There are. And there are many legitimate questions about the flaws in Obama’s approach to Syria thus far that deserve continued discussion. But the point is that the request for authorization could, if lawmakers are willing, prompt a serious and searching Congressional debate over the true prospects for success, however that is defined, and whether they really outweigh risks; over whether Obama is placing strict enough limits on the authorization he’s requesting; over how to deal with atrocities when international institutions won’t act; and over America’s need to maintain credibility (presuming you even place stock in this argument) in reserving the right to use force abroad to realize geopolitical or humanitarian ends. So keep an eye out for GOP use of the “incompetence dodge” as a way to skirt real debate."

Incompetence dodge works for me.

"Its all about politics and not about humanity and protecting humans"

so you're FOR attacking Syria. You actually agree with Obama?

I'm gonna faint...

I strongly urge anyone who has a representative that votes yes, against what the majority of their constituents want, to petition that representative to be recalled and removed. If these clowns don't want to represent the American people, we need to send them a message. A message that is loud and clear.

I see nothing but trouble coming from this. Completely destabilizing the whole region ,I guess is the aim of the P.O.T.U.S.

I think it will depend on how much influence lobbyists have over each representative

I don't think either side plays games for political gain when it comes to war.

Every vote will be politically motivaed

"... and not about humanity and protecting humans"

What do you think they want to ATTACK for? Are you that clueless that you don't know what Assad is doing there?

McCain tops the idiot list