Congress may not rubberstamp Obama's war

Congress may vote ‘No’ on Syria attack

While President Barack Obama attempts to drum up support overseas for a potential strike against Syria, lawmakers in the United States House of Representatives appear not all that likely to authorize the use of military force.

RT,

5 September, 2013

Obama is currently meeting with international leaders in Russia at the annual G-20 meeting, where he is reportedly lobbying foreign representatives to rally behind a US-led strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad. As American politicians prepare to vote on whether or not they should authorize such an attack, however, Obama’s cause is quickly losing support in Congress.

According to analysis conducted Think Progress, lawmakers in the House are leaning towards a “no” vote with regards to approving a strike against Assad to retaliate against his alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilian last month outside of Damascus.

Compared to earlier in the week, lawmakers in the House are now more likely to vote against authorizing a strike. The website reported Thursday morning that 199 US representatives are expected to shut-down any strike against Syria, with 49 lawmakers in the House looking towards voting yes.

Image from thinkprogress.org

Think Progress says their latest research reveals a drastic change that has occurred literally overnight. According to their reporters, 30 new lawmakers are now likely to vote against a strike, while the group of those expected to approve military action has only accumulated three new representatives since the previous day.

The latest figures posted by Think Progress were updated Thursday morning, only hours after lawmakers in both the House and Senate discussed what action, if any, should be taken to reprimand Assad’s regime.

On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-to-7 in favor of using military force in Syria, but the full chamber will have to weigh in before a strike is agreed upon. Meanwhile, the House isn’t expected to vote until next week, and at this rate the lawmakers in the Republican-controlled chamber of Congress are likely to reject a plan that would target Assad.

The Obama administration said previously that they want to launch a limited, proportional strike in Syria that would degrade Assad’s capability of using chemical weapons in the future. And while the Senate committee gave him the initial go-ahead on Wednesday, others in Congress aren’t quite certain how to move forward.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), a libertarian-leaning lawmaker with staunch isolationist views, said he opposes any use of force overseas. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), another leading Republican in Washington, complained earlier this week that the latest plan of action isn’t aggressive enough.

According to Think Progress, 149 Republicans in the House are likely to disapprove a strike on Syria, while only 13 are expected to vote in favor of using force.

“The numbers are a contrast to 2002, when Democrats in the House provided ‘the bulk of the opposition’ to President George W. Bush’s Iraq war resolution — though a majority of Democrats (61 percent) still backed war,” Think Progress reported. “Only six House Republicans voted against the Iraq war in 2002.”

At the same time, support isn’t all that rampant among the American public either. According to a poll conducted by the Washington Post in conjunction with ABC News that was released on Wednesday, only 36 percent of Americans say they’ll support an initiative that would involve launching missiles against the Syrian government.

Republican congressman withdraws support for Syria strike

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who on Saturday said he supported President Obama’s decision to launch military action in Syria, has changed his mind.

Washington Post,

5 September, 2013

In a statement Thursday, Grimm says the window for action has now passed and that the feedback from his constituents has made him re-think his previous position.

“Thus, after much thought, deliberation and prayer, I am no longer convinced that a U.S. strike on Syria will yield a benefit to the United States that will not be greatly outweighed by the extreme cost of war,” Grimm said.

Grimm added: “Now that the Assad regime has seen our playbook and has been given enough time to prepare and safeguard potential targets, I do not feel that we have enough to gain as a nation by moving forward with this attack on our own.”

The remarks stand in stark contrast to what Grimm said less than a week ago.

The Staten Island Advance quoted Grimm as saying he was “supporting the president on this.”

“We have to keep our word; this is about our credibility,” Grimm said. “We can’t permit a precedent where there is a use of chemical weapons and there is no response.”

Grimm is the 91st House member to express opposition to military action in Syria, along with 93 who have expressed skepticism. That means the ranks of those likely to vote against a use of force resolution is getting close to the 217 that will be required to defeat it.

CNN vote count: Obama long way from congressional approval on Syria

President Barack Obama still has has a long way to go to secure congressional authorization for military action against Syria even after clearing a key hurdle in the Senate.

CNN

5 September, 2013

According to CNN, there are 18 "no" votes in the Senate and 24 "yes." Fifty-eight senators -- almost the same number of votes needed to overcome any filibuster -- remain undecided.

After changing an Obama-sponsored proposal authorizing a military response to alleged chemical weapons use by Syria, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on Wednesday to approve it by a 10-7 margin.

The outcome set up debate next week in the full chamber.

Three Republicans -- Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee -- voted in favor of taking action.

And that's where the good news ends for the White House.

Obama needs at least 217 votes in the House to secure his resolution. In that chamber, there are nearly four "no" votes for every "yes" at the moment.

According to CNN's count, 109 members plan to vote "no," while 23 -- including a number of high profile Republicans -- plan to back it.

More than 280 representatives remain undecided.

Of concern to the administration is a trend showing an increase in "no" votes, although lawmakers remain out of town until next week and many have yet to receive classified briefings where the administration says it can spell out more evidence and more candidly answer questions.

Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Bob Gibbs and Rep. Cynthia Lummis are among those who have come out against the plan.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, signaled through a spokesman on Wednesday that she was planning to vote "yes." But the same official said on Thursday that she wanted to first see the resolution language and was now undecided.

Those decisions put those lawmakers at odds with their leadership since House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have backed Obama. Boehner has said it is up to the White House to get the votes.

House Democrats, too, have reservations about Syria. Many, especially liberals, cite war weariness and prolonged intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan as reasons to oppose new military action.

Others want to hear more details in classified meetings or see resolution language, which in the Senate would limit any strike, set a time limit for action, and prohibit the use of American troops in Syria.

"After 6,668 American troop deaths and tens of thousands of American wounded, after spending $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan representing $40,000 in debt for every American family, now is the time to nation-build in America and invest in the growth of the American economy," New York Rep. Brian Higgins, a Democrat, said in a statement to CNN.

Despite the vocal opposition in Congress, Obama remained confident he'd get the necessary support.

"I believe Congress will approve it because I think America recognizes that as difficult as it is to take any military action and even one as limited as we are talking about, even one without boots on the ground, that's a sober decision," he said at a news conference on Wednesday in Sweden.