Rather than jump on the "Bring it on", "Smoke 'em out", bandwagon of political expediency.

For the bill. If these three is trying to show foreign experience by voting against this bill then they are only fooling some people. Congress was given the opportunity to be briefed on ISIS, perhaps the four intentionally miss the briefing.

One week the highest priority was ISIS, this week it lost its fizz.

This is political insurance.

What will be interesting is how they vote when an AUMF in Syria is proposed.

I am quiet disappointed in Warren, I thought she would take an issue for what it is and not try to use it for political advancement, I guess I was wrong.

An unwinnable, expensive, destabilizing quagmire.

and lead on this fight. Yes ISIL should be a #1 priority to those nations and then we can help them some in a small advisory way, but it's their fight.

that this nation (not it's citizens) cannot resist getting mired in. After all - we got the biggest, baddest blow-em-up hardware on the planet - what a cryin' shame not to get some use out of it all!

Edit to add: Aside from the running tab this helps the military-industrial complex keep fat - I really DO think these perpetual conflicts are trial-by-fire proving grounds of the latest in war technologies. It's one thing to blast some Super-Dead-Eye missile at a domestic firing range. It's something else again, to see that weapon perform in a hostile environment - and a great sales ploy when making the case for Unca Sam laying out billions to buy a bunch!

correct vote. We don't need another war and we don't need a neocon in the WH.

Look, EW and BS has their base, they are nit going to be able to get the attention of enough voters to carry them to victory, won't happen. They are shooting themselves in the foot, actually shooting off their legs with this one. I am more disappointed with EW, last week she had it right, ISIS was NO 1 priority, this week she ran backwards.

"the right thing"?

to fight the very same people we armed before reeks of stupidity. There is no other way to frame it.

It hasn't had much "fizz" except among Republicans, hawkish Dems and the defense contractors that are shouting "Cha-Ching!" in the background.

into the mouths of those Senators. This is the Hill's interpretation of their vote.

I happen to agree with their vote, because I think this ISIS organization is not the only "war" that is happening. It seems that the whole ME is blowing up. Are we then supposed to be the world's savior for oil?

Any more fish, go to the next lake and fish for more, go into Hill's lake, no they continue to fish in the fishless lake. They are limiting their influence to the base they already have.

In the case of ISIS, they are different, they have already beheaded two Americans, this isn't the old go to town on Saturday night gang, they at vicious. Even Assad wants them out of Syria, they are targeting Syria and Iraq because they are weak. Congress received intelligence briefings, they have more information than the public. They are playing a political game just like Ted Cruz.

your fish example.

Yes, we are told that ISIS is worse than anything before. If you want to believe that, fine.

I have read enough history to realize that any warring faction is cruel : 30 year war in Europe, gassing during WWI, the behavior of the Nazi as well as the Russian troops,etc.. Yes, ISIS is on the war path, but I don't buy the propaganda that they are the worst. They just are excellent in modern communication to strike fear into their enemy.

Why not let the main actors behind the scenes take them on: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, and, yes, Turkey? Do we have to be their stooges?

anyone's stooge provided that it keeps the defense contractors happy and politicians can thump their chests.

Saudi Arabia wants Damascus. Qatar and SA funded ISIL because they were unsuccessful in goading us into a war with Syria last year. With a slicker, more gruesome advertising campaign, they have successfully sold a war that enough people will go along with.

This is not conjecture. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html
If that link doesn't suit, there are plenty of other discussions about it.

Here is a comprehensive one: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/16/1330029/-Saudis-Lobbied-John-McCain-Lindsey-Graham-to-sell-War

Make no mistake, though, this won't end with defeating "ISIL". It won't end until Syria is in the hands of SA and Sunnis. There is a reason why John Kerry used the language that he did - it won't be a short campaign, because it is about putting Syria in the hands of SA.

I didn't get it either.

long as it works. Arm one group of rebels to kill another group. Arm a dictator to kill some rebels. Arm rebels to kill dictators. We are not helping anyone except the MIC and the neocons.

And if I were you, I'd have that obsession with Ted Cruz looked at.

The Saudis couldn't get us involved in Syria last year, so they and Qatar funded ISIL to drag us into it. And here we go again - arming another group to fight the group we armed before. It's ridiculous.

And where are they selling all of that oil? That would be Turkey. Oil doesn't just mysteriously appear somewhere via the oil fairy. If we did NOT know that (which we do) then we literally have the most incompetent intelligence agencies on the face of the earth.