Obama
and aides confront skeptical Congress on Syria strike
President
Barack Obama and his top aides launched a full-scale political
offensive on Sunday to persuade a skeptical Congress to approve a
military strike against Syria, but faced an uphill struggle to win
over many lawmakers and a war-weary American public.
1
September, 2013
Obama
made a series of calls to members of the House of Representatives and
Senate, with more scheduled for Monday, underscoring the task
confronting the administration before it can go ahead with using
force in response to a deadly chemical attack blamed on the Syrian
government.
Dozens
of lawmakers, some in tennis shirts or shirtsleeves, cut short their
vacations and streamed into the corridors of the Capitol building for
a Sunday afternoon intelligence briefing on Syria with Obama's
national security team.
When
they emerged nearly three hours later, there was no immediate sign
that the many skeptics in Congress had changed their minds.
"I
am very concerned about taking America into another war against a
country that hasn't attacked us," said Representative Janice
Hahn, a California Democrat. On the way out of the briefing, she said
the participants appeared "evenly divided" on whether to
give Obama approval.
None
expressed doubts that Syria had engaged in chemical warfare. "The
searing image of babies lined up dead, that's what I can't get out of
my mind right now," Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman
Schultz said after the closed-door briefing.
But
the credibility of the administration's intelligence is turning out
to be a less important issue than the nature and usefulness of the
response.
Earlier
in the day, Secretary of State John Kerry invoked the crimes of Adolf
Hitler and Saddam Hussein and warned of a potential threat to Israel
a day after Obama's decision to delay an imminent attack on Syrian
targets and allow Congress to vote on it first.
Even
as Kerry took to the airwaves touting new evidence that deadly sarin
gas was used in the August 21 chemical attack near Damascus, the
scope of the challenge confronting the administration became
apparent.
Lawmakers
raised a broad array of concerns, including the potential
effectiveness of limited strikes, the possible unintended consequence
of dragging the United States into another open-ended Middle East
conflict, the wisdom of acting without broader international backing
to share the burden and the war fatigue of the American public.
Many
in Congress have been able to avoid taking a position on the merits
of a military strike, focusing instead on demands that Obama consult
them and seek their approval.
While
Kerry predicted Obama would win the endorsement he wants, a growing
cacophony of congressional critics - ranging from liberal Democratic
doves to Republican Tea Party conservatives - illustrated just how
hard that will be.
At
the same time, Kerry, the administration's most impassioned voice for
intervention in Syria's 2-1/2-year civil war, was left to publicly
defend Obama's stunning reversal, a decision that puts any strike on
hold for at least nine days.
"This
is squarely now in the hands of Congress," Kerry told CNN,
saying he had confidence "they will do what is right because
they understand the stakes."
In
a round of television appearances, Kerry declined to say whether
Obama would go ahead with military action if Congress rejects the
president's request, as Britain's parliament did last week to derail
London's role in any Syria military operation.
But,
echoing Obama's comments in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday,
he insisted the president had the right to act on his own if he
chooses that course.
Obama
is taking a gamble by putting the brakes on the military assault that
he considers essential to maintain U.S. credibility after Assad
crossed the "red line" set against the use of chemical
weapons.
MORE
EVIDENCE
The
consensus on Capitol Hill is that Obama has a good chance of winning
approval in the Democratic-led Senate, but the vote appears too close
to call in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where
the president's opponents rarely miss an opportunity to block him.
Acknowledging
that the administration has its work cut out for it to persuade some
lawmakers, Kerry insisted they could not "have it both ways"
by demanding a voice in the matter and then abdicating responsibility
to uphold the international bans on chemical weapons use.
Kerry
used the television appearances to provide further evidence backing
accusations against the Syrian government.
"I
can share with you today that blood and hair samples that have come
to us through an appropriate chain of custody, from east Damascus,
from first responders, it has tested positive for signatures of
sarin," Kerry told CNN's "State of the Union."
It
was the first time the administration had pinpointed what kind of
chemical was used in the attack on a rebel-held area, which U.S.
intelligence agencies said killed more than 1,400 people, many of
them children.
"So
this case is building and this case will build," Kerry told
NBC's "Face the Nation."
OBAMA'S
DILEMMA
Obama's
efforts are sure to be hampered by his dismal relations with
congressional Republicans. Another bitter face-off on government
spending is looming this autumn.
Lawmakers
for the most part welcomed Obama's decision to consult them, but
looked in no hurry to reconvene early from their summer recess, which
lasts until September 9.
Comments
from leading Republicans and Democrats indicated how complex the
debate will be - and raised doubts whether Obama would win their
authorization.
Underscoring
a sense of wariness even from Obama's traditional allies, a spokesman
for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the
Vermont Democrat believes that the use-of-force resolution offered by
the White House is too broad and that new language will be written
for consideration.
Mike
Rogers, Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told
CNN: "I think there are some real challenges. I think that at
the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion. This is a
national security issue."
Republican
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, speaking on NBC, took a more skeptical
view.
While
saying he was "proud" of Obama for coming to Congress for
authority, Paul said, "It's at least 50-50 whether the House
will vote down the involvement in the Syrian war."
"I
think the Senate will rubber stamp what he wants," he said. "The
House will be a much closer vote." The Senate is controlled by
Obama's Democratic Party, the House is in the hands of the Republican
Party.
Republican
Senator John McCain said he was not sure Obama's request would pass,
but made clear his view that tougher military action was needed than
the limited cruise missile strikes that the Obama administration is
preparing.
Republican
Representative Peter King of New York said it was unclear if
lawmakers would sign off on an attack on Syria, but he warned Obama
may have to overcome "the isolationist wing" of the
Republican Party to prevail.
Seeking
to lay the groundwork for what is expected to be a heated
congressional debate, Kerry tipped his hand on one tactic the
administration will use - linking the congressional vote to
safeguarding U.S. ally Israel from the Syrian chemical weapons
threat.
"I
don't think they will want to vote, ultimately, to put Israel at
risk," Kerry said.
Lawmakers
of both major political parties recognize how important it is to be
seen as defenders of Israel, especially at election time, when they
compete to show voters who is a better friend of the Jewish state.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete