Thread: GOP Congressman to Boehner: Call House Back Now to Deal With Syria

CNSNews
8/28/2013

"I really do believe that given how the clock is ticking, based on what the administration is saying ... I think we’re at the point now of saying the House of Representatives should be called back into session because it is clear the president is moving in this direction.”

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Scott Rigell (R.-Va.)--who served six years in the Marine Corps Reserves, sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and represents the congressional district with the largest concentration of military personnel of any in the nation--said today he is calling on House Speaker John Boehner to call the House back into session to prevent President Barack Obama from usurping Congress’s constitutional authority to authorize—or not authorize—the use of military force in Syria.

“He should be calling the House back right now,” Rigell said of Boehner. “I will be clear on this.”

"I do have a call scheduled with one of our senior leaders this afternoon and I will be making that case," said Rigell. "I think we're at this point, and I regret that we're at this point. But that is where we are."

Rigell sent a letter to President Obama today—co-signed by a bipartisan group of “over 100” House members--reminding the president that it is “clearly delineated” in the Constitution that the president must seek congressional authorization before using military force unless the use of force is needed to protect the United States from an attack.

“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate—and the active engagement of Congress—prior to committing U.S. military assets,” Rigell wrote. “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

Obama expressed precisely this view of the constitutional war power when asked about the matter by the Boston Globe in an interview that was published on Dec. 20, 2007.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said at that time.

The draft language that the Constitutional Convention discussed on Aug. 17, 1787, according to notes that were taken that day by James Madison, gave Congress the power to “make war.” Madison himself and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts "moved to insert 'declare,' striking out 'make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." The convention accepted this change and the argument for it.

George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Constitution, acted on this understanding of the war power when he was president. In 1793, Washington wrote: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."

Rigell said George Washington's understanding of the war power is reflected in the letter he and his colleagues have sent to the president.

“Prior to engaging U.S. forces, he must call us into joint session, make the case to the American people via their elected representatives—House and Senate--and seek and obtain statutory authority," said Rigell, "or if he is not successful in seeking or receiving that statutory authority, then he would be prohibited from taking action in Syria. It’s really that simple."

Rigell said that if Obama does not do this he personally believes Boehner should call the House back into session immediately.

“Look, I don’t think it is in dispute that chemical weapons have been used," said Rigell. "I am quite sure that tragedy, as it unfolded, it is going to be clear that chemical weapons were used. And this is a tragic loss of life, and I think Secretary [of State John] Kerry was correct in describing it as a moral obscenity.

"Now, that said, the question is: What then, if anything, we should do here? And the president, in my view, has not been clear," said Rigell. "It is not clear what we are trying to achieve, or how it would be achieved. And, so, if that were brought to the floor for a vote, whether or not to initiate military action, I’d vote no. But I would also keep an open mind should the president follow the correct steps—and that is to call us into joint session and walk us through both what the facts are and what his logic is.

"I would be open to the argument," Rigell said. "But as the facts are presented today, I would vote no.”

Rigell said he believed there were only a “handful” of members of Congress on the Hill at this time--and that, in fact, while he has been up their working on this issue he had not run into anybody.

CNSNews.com asked Rigell what he would tell Speaker Boehner if he spoke to him right now.

Rigell said: “Mr. Speaker, based on what the president is saying right now, that I do think we need to get ahead of this. I think our conference needs to be bold and united—not only our conference, but so many members of the Democratic minority. It’s so important on this matter that it is not presented as a partisan matter. It is not. And the tone of our letter, though firm, is respectful. But it is unambiguous.

“I’d ask the speaker, look, get behind something,” said Rigell. ‘If not this letter, then something."

“I wouldn’t have said this a week ago," he said, "but I will say it now, and here with you, that I really do believe that given how the clock is ticking, based on what the administration is saying ... I think we’re at the point now of saying the House of Representatives should be called back into session because it is clear the president is moving in this direction.”

“That’s my view as one member of the House of Representatives,” said Rigell. “But we are at that point.”



www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gop-congressman-boehner-call-house-back-now-deal-syria

Syrian chemical weapons may shed light on Saddam's missing WMDs


Secretary of State John Kerry’s formal accusation today that Syria has used chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians sounds somewhat similar to Bush Administration charges against the regime of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq a decade ago. Saddam had used his chemical weapons numerous times against Iraqi minorities and was all but ignored by the world.

When the U.S. led a coalition of nations to depose Saddam in 2003, the belief that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as well as a nascent nuclear weapons program was a major justification for the invasion. Failure to locate large stocks of the weapons led to charges that President George W. Bush had lied to lead the United States into an unnecessary war.

The fact of Syrian use of chemical weapons should call the conventional wisdom about Iraq into question. The two countries were linked by their ruling Baathist parties and, as neighbors, engaged in trade, both legal and illegal, before the war. In 2006, Georges Sada, a former general of Saddam’s air force, detailed in his book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” how Saddam had secretly moved much of his WMD material to Syria before the U.S.-led invasion under the cover of providing relief to Syrian earthquake victims. Sada’s claims were detailed in Examiner in 2011. Sada’s claim was be supported by other sources as well. In 2004, a Syrian defector, Nizar Nayouf claimed that Iraqi WMDs had been hidden at three sites in Syria. Nayouf’s story appeared the Dutch paper Der Telegraaf and is summarized on WorldThreats.com. Satellite reconnaissance photos from 2010 published in Israel’s Haaretz show Syrian military facilities in the same areas that Nayouf fingered. The same sites were identified in the 2004 book “End Game” by General Thomas McInerney and Paul Vallely as well as another former Iraqi general, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti. If the U.S. launches airstrikes against Syria, these facilities are likely to be targeted.

The lack of large stockpiles in post-Saddam Iraq led to the myth that Saddam’s WMDs were nonexistent. In reality, Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurdish minority was documented by the BBC in 1988. Saddam also used chemical weapons in his war against Iran and after the Persian Gulf War while combating the Shiite uprising of 1991. The destruction of an Iraqi munitions plant that produced the nerve gas sarin may be responsible for Gulf War Syndrome, a neurological affliction that affects as many as 30 percent of veterans from the Persian Gulf War in 1991 according to USA Today. In 2010, Wired Magazine detailed how classified military documents released by Wikileaks revealed the discovery of many small caches of chemical weapons by coalition forces during the occupation of Iraq.

While the shelf life of nerve agents such as the sarin, one of the chemical weapons found in Iraq and recently used in Syria, is short, an undated CIA report estimated that the Iraqis had improved their sarin stocks by increasing the purity of the chemical components and building binary weapons. In binary weapons, the components of the nerve agent are not combined until the weapon is ready to be used. This could make the shelf life of the weapon “irrelevant” and allow it to be stored for years before use. This means that if Iraqi stockpiles were transferred to Syria prior to 2003 they could still be lethal.

Syria has long had development programs for weapons of mass destruction of its own. In 2008, Time reported that North Korea was helping Syria to build a nuclear reactor. Israel bombed the Syrian reactor in 2007 according to Der Spiegel. The German weekly also reported last year that Iranian officers were involved in the testing of Syrian delivery systems for chemical weapons. The Nuclear Threat Initiative notes that Syrian WMD programs may have begun as early as 1971. The NTI also noted that the U.S. believed that Syria was dependent on “foreign sources for key elements of its CW program” as late as 2010. This may have included Saddam’s Iraq.

There are a number of objections to the theory that Syria benefitted from Saddam’s WMD programs. For example, Syria sided with the Coalition forces during the 1991 Iraq war. Therefore some question whether it would have cooperated with Saddam in later years. In reality, Syria was complicit in helping Saddam subvert UN sanctions on Iraq prior to the 2003 war. Congress estimated in 2004 that Syrian-Iraqi smuggling was worth more than $3 billion.

A second question is why Saddam did not admit to transferring the weapons when he was interrogated. Apparently Saddam did not take U.S. threats seriously and was more concerned about Iran. Transferring weapons to Syria would have prevented their discovery by UN inspectors, but would have left them available in the event of an Iranian attack. Not confessing as he faced death may have been as simple as going to his death knowing that he had the last laugh on his tormenters.

As yet there is no conclusive proof that Syrian chemical weapons can be traced to Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, there is ample circumstantial evidence to take another look at the Iraqi-Syrian connection. If the Asad government falls, Syrian military files may shed light on the mystery of Saddam’s WMDs. The Syrian civil war may one day help to rewrite the history of the Iraq War.

http://www.examiner.com/article/syri...s-missing-wmds

Boehner Sends Obama Letter Demanding "Clear, Unambiguous Explanation" For Syrian Intervention

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/28/2013 17:58 -0400

The letter below was sent a short while ago by House Speaker John Boehner to the president, voicing the Republican's displeasure with the Commander In chief, and criticizing the level of consultation about a potential military strike as well as demanding a clear explanation of any mission in advance of its start. Sadly, since not even Obama is quite clear why his Wall Street-based advisors demand that the US rush head first into this deficit-boosting campaign (and whose primary purpose as we have been explaining for a month is to make the Untaper possible), we doubt Boehner will get a response. Separately, as the WSJ reports, 114 House lawmakers— 97 Republicans and only 17 Democrats— have signed a letter calling on Mr. Obama to seek congressional authorization before embarking on military action in Syria. We suspect that 17 would have been substantially greater if the president engaging in unauthorized war had a last name beginning with "Buh" and ending in "Oosh."

Full Boehner letter to Obama:

Dear Mr. President:

I deeply respect your role as our country’s commander-in-chief, and I am mindful that Syria is one of the few places where the immediate national security interests of the United States so visibly converge with broader U.S. security interests and objectives. Our nation’s response to the deterioration and atrocities in Syria has implications not just in Syria, but also for America’s credibility across the globe, especially in places like Iran.

Even as the United States grapples with the alarming scale of the human suffering, we are immediately confronted with contemplating the potential scenarios our response might trigger or accelerate. These considerations include the Assad regime potentially losing command and control of its stock of chemical weapons or terrorist organizations – especially those tied to al Qaeda – gaining greater control of and maintaining territory. How the United States responds also has a significant impact on the security and stability of U.S. allies in the region, which are struggling with the large exodus of Syrian refugees and the growing spillover of violence feeding off of ethnic and religious tensions. The House of Representatives takes these interests and potential consequences seriously in weighing any potential U.S. and international response in Syria.

Since March of 2011, your policy has been to call for a stop to the violence in Syria and to advocate for a political transition to a more democratic form of government. On August 18, 2012, you called for President Assad’s resignation, adding his removal as part of the official policy of the United States. In addition, it has been the objective of the United States to prevent the use or transfer of chemical weapons. I support these policies and publically agreed with you when you established your red line regarding the use or transfer of chemical weapons last August.

Now, having again determined your red line has been crossed, should a decisive response involve the use of the United States military, it is essential that you provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action – which is a means, not a policy – will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy. I respectfully request that you, as our country’s commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy. In addition, it is essential you address on what basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the exclusive authority of Congressional authorization under Article I of the Constitution.

Specifically:

• What standard did the Administration use to determine that this scope of chemical weapons use warrants potential military action?
• Does the Administration consider such a response to be precedent-setting, should further humanitarian atrocities occur?
• What result is the Administration seeking from its response?
• What is the intended effect of the potential military strikes?
• If potential strikes do not have the intended effect, will further strikes be conducted?
• Would the sole purpose of a potential strike be to send a warning to the Assad regime about the use of chemical weapons? Or would a potential strike be intended to help shift the security momentum away from the regime and toward the opposition?
• If it remains unclear whether the strikes compel the Assad regime to renounce and stop the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or if President Assad escalates their usage, will the Administration contemplate escalatory military action?
• Will your Administration conduct strikes if chemical weapons are utilized on a smaller scale?
• Would you consider using the United States military to respond to situations or scenarios that do not directly involve the use or transfer of chemical weapons?
• Assuming the targets of potential military strikes are restricted to the Assad inner circle and military leadership, does the Administration have contingency plans in case the strikes disrupt or throw into confusion the command and control of the regime’s weapons stocks?
• Does the Administration have contingency plans if the momentum does shift away from the regime but toward terrorist organizations fighting to gain and maintain control of territory?
• Does the Administration have contingency plans to deter or respond should Assad retaliate against U.S. interests or allies in the region?
• Does the Administration have contingency plans should the strikes implicate foreign power interests, such as Iran or Russia?
• Does the Administration intend to submit a supplemental appropriations request to Congress, should the scope and duration of the potential military strikes exceed the initial planning?

I have conferred with the chairmen of the national security committees who have received initial outreach from senior Administration officials, and while the outreach has been appreciated, it is apparent from the questions above that the outreach has, to date, not reached the level of substantive consultation.

It will take Presidential leadership and a clear explanation of our policy, our interests, and our objectives to gain public and Congressional support for any military action against Syria. After spending the last 12 years fighting those who seek to harm our fellow citizens, our interests, and our allies, we all have a greater appreciation of what it means for our country to enter into conflict. It will take that public support and congressional will to sustain the Administration’s efforts, and our military, as well as their families, deserve to have the confidence that we collectively have their backs – and a thorough strategy in place.

I urge you to fully address the questions raised above.

Sincerely
John Boehner


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ian-interventi

[/COLOR]

On Syria, Obama says eyeing ‘shot across the bow’

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

Boehner Sends Obama Letter Demanding "Clear, Unambiguous Explanation" For Syrian Intervention

The letter below was sent a short while ago by House Speaker John Boehner to the president, voicing the Republican's displeasure with the Commander In chief, and criticizing the level of consultation about a potential military strike as well as demanding a clear explanation of any mission in advance of its start. Sadly, since not even Obama is quite clear why his Wall Street-based advisors demand that the US rush head first into this deficit-boosting campaign (and whose primary purpose as we have been explaining for a month is to make the Untaper possible), we doubt Boehner will get a response.

---------------------------------------------------

AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'

The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later.

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the issue Thursday.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/syria-obama-...5/#post1363981

Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No

• 
  
  Mr. President, please give America justification before you spend blood and treasure to intervene. Start with: who are you rooting for in this?