Opposition to Syria attack already emerging in Congress

[David__77]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday he does not believe Congress will reject military action against Syria, but lawmakers are making it clear that the vote will not be easy and the outcome is not assured.

...

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press he thinks the Senate "will rubber-stamp what (Obama) wants but I think the House will be a much closer vote." Paul said he believes "it's at least 50-50 whether the House will vote down involvement in the Syrian war."

...

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.Y., an Army veteran with multiple foreign deployments, said Saturday, "I hope my colleagues will fully think through the weightiness of this decision and reject military action. The situation on the ground in Syria is tragic and deeply saddening, but escalating the conflict and Americanizing the Syrian Civil War will not resolve the matter."

...

Opposition to the use of force is not limited to the Republican Party. Democrat Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said in a statement "Unilateral U.S. military action against the Syrian regime at this time would do nothing to advance American interests, but would certainly fuel extremist groups on both sides of the conflict that are determined to expand the bloodshed beyond Syria's borders."

Read more: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/usatoday/article/2752965

---

Looks like lots of opposition is mounting on the Sunday talk circuit...

[Sand Wind]

1. Thanks for sharing. Nt

[totodeinhere]

2. I think we will see some atypical alliances emerge in the run up to this vote.

Some in the libertarian/tea party wing of the Republican Party will vote against authorization while more establishment Republicans will support it. Meanwhile some more liberal members of the Democratic caucus will oppose intervention while more establishment Democrats will support it. It's probably too early to predict how this will ultimately shake out. While I personally oppose any military attacks on Syria, I am afraid that if Obama's request is turned down by Congress it will be spun as a major defeat of the President along the lines of Cameron's humiliation in the UK.

[David__77]

3. "No" will help save Obama from great political damage.

Obama does not want to do this thing. I'm not basing that statement on fact, just my personal opinion. He "stunned" his crew by at the last minute deferring to congress. He wants the people's input, and so he should get it. And he should abide by it. No harm in that. Kerry on the other hand really, really wants this thing.

I'm going to do what I can to actually speak with my own representative and local Democratic leaders on this issue. This would not be a vote against Obama, but for peace and security.

[totodeinhere]

5. I said it will be "spun" as a vote against Obama. Conservative media would have a field day with it.

In fact some posters at DU in other threads have predicted that Republicans will vote against it just because it's Obama who is proposing it just as they vote against anything Obama. But I am going to take the president at his word when he said in his statement that "After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets." You can't get much more definitive than that.

Yet on the other hand I think you are correct that ultimately an attack will cause political damage as well, especially if the aftermath of the attacks does not go well.

[joshcryer]

20. I don't think he wants to do it either.

But I think he has this sad sense of "I am the President of the free world and I got to do something, I can't appear weak."

Same reason he voted for things like FISA-2008. He didn't want to appear weak.

[Leontius]

4. If Obama's request is spun as a major defeat so be it just so it's stopped.

This needs to be stopped now. If the President is for this he deserves whatever the fallout is.

[totodeinhere]

6. I understand what you're saying, but the way it works in Washington a major defeat

projects an aura of political weakness which might carry over to other issues. If they can defeat Obama on his Syrian attack request then it might embolden some Republicans to redouble their efforts to obstruct Obama on a wide range of other issues. And yes I know they are doing a pretty good job of obstructing him already but it might get worse.

[arewenotdemo]

16. I couldn't agree more.

[totodeinhere]

7. I am not too familiar with the author of this piece but this is an example

of what is already being said about a prospective congressional rejection of Obama's request.

The consequences for Obama's turnabout could be sweeping, both at home and abroad. If Congress votes against military action, it would mark a humiliating defeat for a second-term president already fighting to stay relevant and wield influence in Washington. It could also weaken his standing internationally at a time when there are already growing questions about the scope of American influence, particularly in the Arab world.

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-obamas-credibility-line-reversal-225640371--politics.html

[Igel]

13. And it's sick.

It provides motivation for thinking like, "Gee, if I vote not to bomb Syria then Obama won't have enough political capital for me to get my widget enhancement measure added to the spending bill. I really want that widget enhancement, so I'll vote to bomb Syria. They're not my constituents, after all."

Making life and death decisions for secondary and tertiary reasons is basically sacrificing people for a trivial cause.

[another_liberal]

8. We are going to witness . . .

I think we are going to witness the most important confrontation between our Legislative and Executive branches of government since the debate over President Clinton's impeachment, perhaps since the Watergate hearings.

The President appears firmly determined to go through with attacks on Syria, and he can likely count on support from a majority in the Senate. The House Republicans generally love going to war, any war, but they will have to decide whether they want to go to war more than they want to hand our President a major political defeat. In the end, they may just end up hopelessly divided on the question.

This will be first-class political theater from now until the issue is finally decided.

[Iliyah]

9. Which I'm pretty sure the GOPers

will be exposed more as insane. Most Americans know that there will be opposition and agreement with the President. But to hear the GOPers in their opposition will be amusing although whats happening in Syria is not.

Corporate media of course will be there to insure that Pres O will be bashed, attacked, and judged. DU will again light up with negative articles and some posters will claim its gospel.

Paul is praising Assad and poking fun at Kerry, kinda sounds like some DUers here.

Anywho, Pres O will decide and do what he thinks is right which will comply with the Constitution which I don't think most GOPers in Congress ever read nor understand.

[riversedge]

10. The treater will continue through the 2016 election cycle.

[another_liberal]

14. Yes, if we aren't consumed by our uncontrolled blood lust first.

At this point, playing with fire as we are, making it to 2016 as a species should be considered an accomplishment.

(sigh)

[iandhr]

11. This is going to be an interesting vote.

[another_liberal]

15. We have a grand prize winner!

Let the master of understatement come forward and receive his trophy!

[proverbialwisdom]

12. More.

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/viewart/20130901/NEWS/309010098/VIDEO-Opposition-Syria-attack-emerges-Congress

[quadrature]

17. Hearings? any schedule yet?

I would really like to hear both
sides of the argument.

[Billy Love]

18. Not until September 9th.

That's when the useless Congress goes back to work..

[Xolodno]

19. I don't think any "spinning" will work this time....

...Congress is going to have to own this, period. The fact that you have some in Congress already crying and demanding Obama execute his "executive" powers says something. If he went at it alone, Tea Party jokes will have said "he didn't go far enough to end Assad"...if he went too far it would be "..Obama is interfering in Syria's civil war which could result in more terrorist". On the Dem side...well, just look at the different threads...He's in a no win situation....so why not punt it to Congress....as it is their job according to the Constitution (something the 2010 Congress was all to fond of reading in a public charade).

Then you have this:

1. Obama sends missile strikes that do little = little change in the war.

2. Obama does nothing = little change in the war.

Pontious Pilate: I wash my hands of this....