Are you pleased with your lawmaker’s stance on intervention in Syria?

Protesters opposed to U.S military action in Syria picketed U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s office on Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013 in Minneapolis. (MPR News/Jon Collins)

“About 200 protesters opposed to U.S military action in Syria picketed U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s office in Minneapolis on Tuesday afternoon,” writes Jon Collins for MPR News.

President Barack Obama has asked Congress to weigh in on using military force following a chemical attack the administration said was linked to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government.

One of the protesters, Neil Fagerhaugh of Hugo, said he’d like to see Klobuchar strongly oppose the resolution, especially in the wake of U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“I don’t want any type of action limited or otherwise,” Fagerhaugh said. “When they say it’s going to be limited, that’s a guess — they don’t know what the responses are going to be from other interested parties.”

Margo Casey of St. Paul said bombing Syria would be ethically wrong.

“Enough people have died and I think it would just unleash a terrible disaster in all of the Middle East,” Casey said. “We just seem to be on a course of endless war, and that needs to stop.”

The Washington Post is keeping tally of where member of congress stand on intervention in Syria. Check where your lawmaker stands here.

Related
Capitol View: Peterson joins Nolan and Bachmann ‘no’ caucus on Syria
Capitol View: MN delegation reacts to Obama plan to seek authorization for Syria strike

Today’s Question: Are you pleased with your lawmaker’s stance on intervention in Syria?

  • Stella Townsend

    Count me among the “war-weary” – I don’t see what military action would accomplish other than killing more civilians. Not worth the risk of enraging the middle east. There has to be other ways – peaceful ways.

  • Jeremy

    No. Rep. Ellison sometimes seems to think his constituency is not Minnesota’s Fifith District, but rather the whole country.

  • Darrell Gerber

    No. There is a lot unknown and uncertain right now. The risk from being wrong could be higher than any of our latest wars combined. We need to slow down and make sure the intelligence is entirely correct. On top of that, we also need to follow international law and not go in without the UN. Again, the risks of doing it wrong are huge. Additionally, what are the root causes? The drought, famine and the economic impacts of them need o be addressed. Attacks are only going to make the root causes even worse. Rep. Ellison, slow down and go with the peaceful approaches.

  • PaulJ

    No, so many lawmakers want the benefits of being seen as life affirming by avoiding the awful truth that it is a kill or be killed planet we are living on. See the sharper teeth in your mouth? What do you suppose they are for?

    • PaulJ

      Actually, isn’t the standard deterrent to WMDs the threat to have WMDs used in response? G Assad

  • Rich in Duluth

    Being against military action, I’m pleased that Nolan is strongly against a military strike and disappointed in Franken. I’m hoping Klobuchar will vote against this action.

    As satisfying as it might be to militarily punish whoever used these horrible weapons, people in Syria are being killed just as dead with bombs, tanks, and artillery, and we haven’t responded to that.

    The U.S. should be using diplomacy to try to keep weapons from flowing into Syria. We should also be doing all we can to support the 2-million refugees coming out of the war zone and overwhelming neighboring countries. This might show 2-million Syrians that the U.S. isn’t so bad.

  • Jim G

    So far my congressmen, Eric Paulsen, and Amy Klobuchar believe the authorization at this point is “too broad” to support. I agree with those assessments, and would add those hawks who profess loudly that there won’t be any “boots on the ground” can quickly change their decisions when Syria retaliates: perhaps against Jordan and Israel or any other U.S interests. I mostly agree with what Congressman Nolan said.

    “An airstrike against another country is clearly an act of war. This strike will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It will undoubtedly will kill hundreds, if not thousands of people. When you attack another country there is retaliation. We can ill afford another conflict in the Middle East where we have no friends. And we need to be reminded that we are not the policeman of the world, and even if we wanted to be we cannot afford it.”

  • John

    No. I sent emails to both Amy and Al in hopes of getting them to vote against war. But so far every time I’ve contacted them for a vote, they vote the opposite way. The majority of Americans don’t want military action in Syria and it bewilders me as to why our representatives aren’t listening most of the time.

  • david

    I have no idea what my “representative’s” stance is. For some reason I don’t feel that knowledge matters much. The powers that be will lie to get what they want in the end anyway, or completely disregard their constituency. Seems to be the way things work since the end of WW2.

  • JQP

    It OK. I’d prefer that we’d never revamped the middle-east in the first place. the west built the Assads.

  • kevins

    I infrequently agree with my congressperson, Mr. Peterson, but this time I think he has it right. I would write him and congratulate him on the matter, but it is harvest time and I’m sure he is too busy to read my note. Curious that Mrs. Bachmann is unsupportive as she is on the intelligence committee…Hum…mabye, just maybe she knows something…No, its just harvest time.

  • Miz G

    NO! I never had Al Franken on my list of warmongers. Guess I’ll have to change my list.

  • Allan

    No, I am not pleased with my representative’s stance on intervention in Syria.
    The debate in the Senate on its resolution focused on prevention of further use of chemical weapons inside Syria. My Representative, John Kline, confines his concern to the interests of Syria’s neighbors, specifically to the interests of Israel.
    Let’s compare.
    Senator McCain insisted that the Senate resolution include language defining the purpose of a U.S. strike, in part, to change the momentum of the civil war in favor of the rebels in order to assure Bashar al-Assad’s departure. McCain stated, “There is no policy without that (Assad’s departure), and there is no strategy without that, except for significant attacking of facilities that deliver chemical weapons against the free Syrian Army.” His emphasis and concern is the prevention of further use of chemical weapons within the boundaries of Syria.
    Representative Kline, in a statement broadcast on MPR on Wednesday morning, mentioned no concern about what had happened to Syrian citizens in the chemical attacks to date, nor did he give any hint that a U.S. goal should be to prevent future chemical attacks on the Syrian people or its Free Syrian Army. Mr. Kline stated, “You have to greatly hinder his (Assad’s) ability to propel these munitions across the border so, for example if you’re Turkey, Israel or Jordan, you want to know that his ability to hurt you with these weapons is seriously degraded.” If there were significant lobbying groups representing the states of Turkey or Jordan ever-present in the halls of our national capitol, I might buy the sincere inclusion of these states in Mr. Kline’s comments. What I have read is that AIPAC is conducting an all-out effort to get every Senator and every Representative to vote for U.S. attacks on Syria. Their motive is not based on concern for the welfare of Syrian citizens. AIPAC’s goal is to maneuver the United States into a position with Syria that will inevitably lead to military confrontation with Iran. Thank you Representative Kline.

  • Dione Perpich

    Congressman Rick Nolan is on the right track. Sen. Franken not so much. And still waiting to hear from Sen Klobuchar,