Illinois says "No U.S. Attack on Syria" (Is Congress Listening?)

More on Syria: Where Have We Ended Up?

On Syria, it's time for Congress to remember who they represent.

In Illinois, people have been sending the "No U.S. Attack on Syria" message to loud and clear to their representatives in Congress.

And we've been asking them to acknowledge the level of opposition they've been hearing, in tweets like this:

@RepMikeQuigley what's the level of constituent opposition you're getting to military action against #Syria? 80% ? 85% ? 90% ?

Replies from representatives as well as anything else I've been able to detect about whether those representatives are listening is contained in the remainder of this post. Next to each name I've added a color-coded status (with count shown as of Monday, September 9, 8 p.m.):

WAR RESISTER - 2

Looks Strong -7

Question Mark - 4

Looks Weak - 3

WAR HAWK - 2

Click to read the information for your representative!

1st District - Bobby Rush
2nd District - Robin Kelly
3rd District - Dan Lipinski
4th District - Luis Gutierrez
5th District - Mike Quigley
6th District - Peter Roskam
7th District - Danny Davis
8th District - Tammy Duckworth
9th District - Jan Schakowsky
10th District - Brad Schneider
11th District - Bill Foster
12th District - Bill Enyart
13th District - Rodney L. Davis
14th District - Randy Hultgren
15th District - John Shimkus
16th District - Adam Kinzinger
17th District - Cheri Bustos
18th District - Aaron Schock


1st District - Bobby Rush (D) @RepBobbyRush Question Mark

2nd District - Robin Kelly (D) @RepRobinKelly Looks Strong

Per Chicago Tribune, September 11: "'As most offices have been experiencing, the majority of people who have been contacting our office are against any kind of Syrian intervention,' said [Rep. Kelly's] spokeswoman Kayce Ataiyero."

3rd District - Dan Lipinski (D) @RepLipinski  Looks Weak

Quoted in Chicago Tribune on Sunday, September 8: said in town hall meeting in Willow Springs on Thursday that with "clear evidence" that Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, he would likely support sme sort of intervention, if he thought the action would deter future use.

"Before I would approve the use of force I need to understand not only the proof of chemical weapons use, but also what military actions the president is planning and what the risks and benefits of these actions are in the short term and the long term." Aug. 31 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

4th District - Luis Gutierrez (D) @LuisGutierrez Looks Strong

"I have concerns about taking military action in Syria without a holistic plan and a clear objective to ensure that in the end, democracy wins. Intervention without a clear plan could make what is already a very bad situation much worse.” Sept. 4 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

5th District - Mike Quigley (D) @RepMikeQuigley WAR RESISTER

Quoted in Chicago Tribune on Sunday, September 8: "Our constitutents are overwhelmingly opposed to intervention."

“Before we get into an extended arrangement, it’s very important to ask what is our exit strategy.” Sept. 3 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

There is an extensive set of constituent comments -- largely opposed to Syria intervention -- on Mike Quigley's statement on Facebook.

6th District - Peter Roskam (R) @PeterRoskam Question Mark

7th District - Danny Davis (D) NOT ON TWITTER!  Looks Strong

Per Chicago Tribune, September 11: "Rep. Danny Davis, a Chicago Democrat who is leaning 'no' on military action, said he wasn't sure there was any new ground plowed in the president's speech, nor does he know 'if it changed the opinion of people who are opposed to military intervention.' 'I just think that people are war-weary,' Davis Said. . . . Davis said his offices had 'several thousand' calls about Syria last week, with most people overwhelmingly opposed to military strikes . . . . "

8th District - Tammy Duckworth (D) @RepDuckworth Looks Strong

Quoted in Chicago Tribune on Sunday, September 8: "[I]t's military families like mine that are first to bleed when our nation makes this kind of commitment."

"Until I feel it's imperative to our national security, I will not support preemptive intervention in Syria. America shouldn't bear the burden unilaterally, especially since none of our allies, including those in the region, have committed to action." Aug. 30 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

9th District - Jan Schakowsky (D) @janschakowsky WAR HAWK

"I want to know to know what evidence the administration can provide that this strike will denigrate the Assad regime’s ability to use these weapons again, what plans have been made for possible retaliation and a clear sense of the end game." Sept. 5 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.

10th District - Brad Schneider (D) @RepSchneider Looks Weak

Quoted in Chicago Tribune on Sunday, September 8:"What we're talking about is holding the Assad regime responsible for the use of chemical weapons on a large scale."

“I want to study this very carefully. The whole world will be watching. By the whole world, I mean Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah as well as governments who will do us harm.” Sept. 2 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.

Per Chicago Tribune, September 11: "Schneider is no stranger to the Middle East, having traveled twice to Israel on official trips since taking office in January.  He has been a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC], the pro-Israel lobby, since 2000, an aide said."

11th District - Bill Foster (D) @RepBillFoster Question Mark

“There is serious sentiment in a lot of Congress, including myself, that we shouldn’t have an open-ended commitment here. That there should be limits in the time frame and the scope of military action.” Sept. 2 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

12th District - Bill Enyart (D) @RepBillEnyart Looks Strong

Quoted in Chicago Tribune on Sunday, September 8: "The administration folks also urge that it would be a deterrent for terrorist groups from using these weapons.  No, I don't believe that for a moment. Terrorist groups are not deterred by punishment."

“After two costly and prolonged wars, there is very little tolerance for another U.S. military operation by the people of southern Illinois or by my colleagues in Congress. If President Obama believes action is needed, he must lay out a convincing case to the American public first.” Sept. 1 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

For more, see Rep. Enyart statement on his website.

13th District - Rodney L. Davis (R) @RodneyDavis Looks Strong

"I don't think the president has sold the reason why we have to take military action to the American people." Sept. 3 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

14th District - Randy Hultgren (R) @RandyHultgren Looks Strong

“We cannot commit our military forces when there seems to be no clear objective or path to ending our involvement. History shows that there is no such thing as a limited or surgical strike – that every action will be met with a reaction. In this instance, I am concerned that military strikes could result in many unforeseen consequences.” Sept. 5 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

15th District - John Shimkus (R) @RepShimkus WAR RESISTER

From September 3 op-ed by Rep. Shimkus on Syria:

"My gut tells me it makes matters worse not better. Its limited actions continue the civil war. It creates another cause for grievance by the Arab world, and it risks this conflict spilling across the borders of our allies.

"Is the use of military force a "de facto" declaration of war? If a military strike is a declaration of war, do we want to go down this path with Syria? A strike, although “limited,” could very well be the spark for the tinder that engages the United States in another drawn out campaign in the Middle East.

"Until I see evidence of a real threat against the United States or our allies or unless the international community reaches a consensus and leads, I am not convinced that a limited strike against Syria at this time is warranted."

16th District - Adam Kinzinger (R) @repkinzinger  WAR HAWK 

"I’m about to support this, but I do want to say at the very beginning my disapproval of the president’s policies in the Middle East, and I believe that part of the reason we are having difficulty rallying an international coalition is because they don't see the United States having lead on this until recently." Sept. 4 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

17th District - Cheri Bustos (D) NOT ON TWITTER! Looks Weak

 Quoted in Chicago Tribune on Sunday, September 8: "Our consitutents are overwhelmingly opposed to intervention."If we can take steps to rein in Assad's use of chemical weapons without engaging in a war and committing troops, I'm open to weighing courses of action with a clear purpose and defined end goals."

"I don't want us to do this unilaterally, without the support of the international community." Sept. 3 (Found at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria.)

18th District - Aaron Schock (R) @repaaronschock Question Mark

More at The New York Times - Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria

More on Syria: Where Have We Ended Up?

Related posts

September 10, 2014 in Chicago - Andy Thayer introduces speakers from 8th Day Center for Justice, Anti-War Committee of Chicago, Gay Liberation Network, No Drones Network, Veterans for Peace, Voices for Creative Nonviolence, and World Can't Wait, all speaking against the Obama administration's latest war escalation.

(See Obama Didn't Invent Permawar. He Just Perfected It.)

Yesterday, as all the other senators sat patiently through the obfuscation of Barack Obama's Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey -- Rand Paul gave 'em hell.
"Stand up for us and say you’re going to obey the Constitution and if we vote you down — which is unlikely, by the way — you would go with what the people say through their Congress and you wouldn’t go forward with a war that your Congress votes against."

(See Obama's Syria "Vote" in Congress: Democracy? or Theater? )

As the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights prepared to convene a conference on surveillance on October 19, 2013, it was a shock to find that the majority of the Illinois congressional delegation voted AGAINST the Amash Conyers Amendment -- the measure to curtail NSA surveillance.

(See In Chicago, Illinois: YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE!)