Syrian strike resolution loses critical support on either side depending on which way it leans

[bigtree]

Greg Sargent ?@ThePlumLineGS 1h
ICYMI: Chris Van Hollen tells me House Dem support for Syria resolution is at risk: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/03/on-syria-obama-cant-take-liberals-and-dems-for-granted/ …

. . .he's still inclined to support many of its most questionable premises, tho . . .

In an interview with me today, Dem Rep. Chris Van Hollen — a key member of the Dem leadership who is also respected by Congressional liberals — was surprisingly pointed in warning that doing too much to win over the likes of McCain and Graham could end up driving him away, along with many other liberals and Dems.

“You’ve got some members of Congress, particularly Republicans in the Senate, who would like to use this resolution to open the door to large scale U.S. intervention,” Van Hollen told me. “That would be a big mistake. So to the extent that the administration tries to placate those voices, they’re going to get a lot of resistance from those of us, like me, who believe the scope needs to be significantly narrowed.”

Van Hollen declined to say whether he thought a majority of House Dems would support Obama’s request in the end. “I don’t know the answer to that,” he said. “This is a matter of conscience, and each member must make up his or her own mind. This is not an issue that will be whipped by the Democratic leadership, so the president will have to make his case to members of Congress individually.”

Van Hollen reiterated his demand for the White House’s current draft resolution to be narrowed in scope, suggesting he could not support it if his concerns aren’t met, and detailed his concerns. He said the resolution must explicitly prohibit boots on the ground; it must specify that beyond initial limited strikes, future military force can only be used in response to the use of chemical weapons; that the resolution must specify that the focus is only on deterring chemical weapon use; and that the chronological end point of the president’s authority to use force must be specified.

It is unclear whether the White House will be willing to go that far, and it is even less clear whether such tight conditions would be acceptable to the hawkish Republicans the White House is working to win over.

All of that said, Van Hollen did suggest that in general terms, the argument for the use of force was valid — a position that could frustrate those who are hoping Dem leaders will raise the bar high in demanding a good case for military action . . .


read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/03/on-syria-obama-cant-take-liberals-and-dems-for-granted/