Senate Committee members who voted in favor of attacking Syria received 83% more money from defense contractors than those who voted against it
As you are all well aware, last week the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs voted by a 10-7 margin to approve Barack Obama’s plan to attack Syria, sending the resolution to the Senate floor for a final up or down vote.
It just so happens, according to this article, that the ten members of the committee who voted in favor of this resolution just happened to receive 83% more money from defense contractors than did the seven members who voted against the resolution:
The ten Senate Foreign Relations Committee members who voted to attack Syria received 83 percent more campaign contributions from defense contractors than the seven senators who voted against it, according to analysis from Maplight.org.
Examining data from 2007 to 2012, the analysts found that the average senator who voted “yes” on the authorization of the use of military force took $72,850 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests. Senators who voted “no” received just $39,770 on average.
Care to guess which member received the most campaign contributions from defense contractors? It just so happens to be the most vocal Senator in support of attacking Syria, none other than John McCain:
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain led the pack among those in favor, raking in about $176,000 from defense interests over five years
The obvious question is this: are these people voting for the bombing because they really believe that this is in the best interest of the American people, or are they voting to do what is best for their wallets?
I think we all know the answer to that, but I do have one more question: didn’t Barack Obama promise to end the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington when he because president?
I thought so…..
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Brittius.com and commented:
Follow the money.
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike
You’re welcome, Steve.
LikeLike
I’m shocked I tell you. Shocked! Pfffffft!!!
LikeLike
The only one more shocked than you is I! 😉
LikeLike
This is Iraq 2.0
We should absolutely NOT go to war with Syria.
PS- Anyone who says cruise missle strikes are not war should ask if Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor was not war.
President Obama is selling us the EXACT SAME policy of President Bush, namely that we be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner in the case for assad. We are good at executioner, but not good at judge and jury. just look at Iraq. And anyway, at this stage we need a policeman to separate the two sides in the civil war. THEN someone can be the judge and jury. Not before.
If you look at Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, we’re not good at being policeman either. Obama, just like Bush, is trying to sell us promises that the US government is not equipped to deliver.
We should know better.
LikeLike
I agree. How can anyone claim that lobbing missiles into a foreign nation is not an act of war?!
LikeLike
And it turns out that Cheney’s daughter is in the board of the organization that is supporting the Syrian free army or whatever they are called along with 5 or 6 military contractors. The suggested post I mentioned over at pj media. I am On my iPad or I would send it over.
LikeLike
What a coincidence, huh!
LikeLike
Soooo, from what I’m gathering here, If Putin so decides, he can send a few warships this way, lob 100 or so cruise missiles at various “targets” here, and Obama wouldn’t dare declare war on Russia for doing it, right?
LikeLike
Right, I guess it is not an act of war and remember he did nothing after missiles were launched in Benghazi.
LikeLike
The main objective is to get “BOOTS ON THE GROUND.” The d contractors were getting $16 per food tray during the Iraq war…look it up!!!
LikeLike
Do not doubt it for a second!
LikeLike
Jimi Hendrix said it best:
“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.”
LikeLike