As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
voted 10-7 on Wednesday in favor of an
authorization of military action against Syria,
data show senators who voted “yes” on the
resolution received more money from the
defense industry.

On average, the senators who voted “yes” on President Barack Obama’s strike plan for Syria
received 83 percent more financial support from
defense contractors than those who voted “no,”
according to The Center for Responsive Politics, a
research group that tracks money in US politics.

The data show that over a 5-year period, most of
more than $1,000,000 that flowed from the
defense lobby to senators who weighed in on the
war powers resolution went to those who were in
favor of military action.

Senator John McCain, a leader of the Senate’s
hawk faction who supports “regime change” in
Syria, came on the top of the list with $176,300 in
defense donations.

The resolution would limit military action against
Syria to a period of 60 days, with the possibility of
a 30-day extension. It also bans the use of US
ground troops.

Both chambers of Congress are expected to vote
on the resolution after lawmakers return from
recess on September 9.

Washington has accused the government of Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical
attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21,
killing hundreds of people. The Syrian government
has strongly rejected the allegation.

On Saturday, President Obama, who had
previously described the use of chemical weapons
as a “red line,” announced his decision to attack
Syria.

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics, a
research group that tracks money in US politics, as made available online by Press TV.

@OP. U think US lawmakers are like naija lawmakers abi.
They don't av cap banker

Lusola15: @OP. U think US lawmakers are like naija lawmakers abi.
They don't av cap banker

I wonder o.

Lusola15: @OP. U think US lawmakers are like naija lawmakers abi.
They don't av cap banker

And your point in plain terms is

In case you can't read between the lines, they have an obligation to their defence industry financiers. It doesn't matter if the war is morally/ethically justified or not. What matters is that their financiers see them as loyal pro-war folks that keep business sustained.

It may not be direct bribery. But gratification remains gratification, shikena!

tpacalipse: I wonder o.

So they don't take bribes in the US? Don't tell me that's your point.

They may be smart and discreet about it, but it does happen!

a third of the senators are jews, what do you expect.

Pattey:

And your point in plain terms is

In case you can't read between the lines, they have an obligation to their defence industry financiers. It doesn't matter if the war is morally/ethically justified or not. What matters is that their financiers see them as loyal pro-war folks that keep business sustained.

It may not be direct bribery. But gratification remains gratification, shikena!

Please, next time do not reply everybody. There are many dunces out here. The Americans are one of the worst bribe takers on earth.

adino:


Please, next time do not reply everybody. There are many dunces out here. The Americans are one of the worst bribe takers on earth.

Like u said don't reply everybody. There are many dunces out here.

I repeat their are no CAP-BANKING lawmakers in the US

Lusola15: @OP. U think US lawmakers are like naija lawmakers abi.
They don't av cap banker

.
US lawmakers don't need caps.
They are expert in wiring funds to foreign countries probably better than their Nigerian counterparts.

solomon111: .
US lawmakers don't need caps.
They are expert in wiring funds to foreign countries probably better than their Nigerian counterparts.

I gree
But I still maintain that their are no CAP-BANKING lawmakers in the US