Thread: On Syria, House GOP won’t follow their leaders

On Syria, House GOP won’t follow their leaders



Informal counts indicate support in Congress for Obama’s plans is in the low dozens. | AP Photo

By JONATHAN ALLEN and JAKE SHERMAN | 9/3/13 6:26 PM EDT Updated: 9/4/13 11:56 AM EDT

The whip count on Syria has become like the war itself: No one in Washington wants to own it alone.

While most top congressional leaders have vowed to back President Barack Obama in seeking authority to launch missile strikes, there’s little evidence that they can — or even want to — help him round up the rank-and file-Republicans he’ll need to win a vote in the House.

Boehner supports Obama

O’Reilly slams conservatives

Kerry testifies on Syria

Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman said that he “expects the White House to provide answers to members’ questions and take the lead on any whipping effort.” Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whose aides and allies run the whip process, isn’t yet in favor of Obama’s request for military authority in Syria.

Several lawmakers and aides who have been canvassing support say that nearly 80 percent of the House Republican Conference is, to some degree, opposed to launching strikes in Syria. Informal counts by Obama allies show that support in Congress for Obama’s plans is in the low dozens.

(PHOTOS: Senate hearing on Syria)

While a handful of lawmakers pledged support for striking Syria inside a White House meeting with Obama Tuesday, the hell-no caucus in the House gathered steam outside, portending a vicious, multi-factional fight over the most somber issue that ever faces Washington — whether to deploy military force. In the House, neither Republican nor Democratic leaders are in a position to speak for their rank-and-file. Several lawmakers and senior aides interviewed by POLITICO Tuesday wondered about the fallout for leadership if the resolution is resoundingly defeated.

Of course, there’s time, and classified briefings and arm-twisting from committee chairmen can help change lawmakers’ moods and opinions. But at this point, the overwhelming narrative is that authorizing military action in Syria will be one of the toughest sells of Obama’s time in the White House.

The biggest problem for Obama — and now Boehner — is that the opposition is coming from precisely the places where many expected the president to find support. The thought throughout top levels of the House Republican Conference is that Obama needs to garner backing from Republicans on the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence committees, and the Appropriations subcommittees on Defense and Foreign Operations. He should also look in and around leadership, these sources say.

(Also on POLITICO: Senators craft Syria compromise)

But it is in those places where loud opposition is bubbling up.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) — a member of the GOP whip team and a natural ally of Boehner’s as a former Army attorney who sits on the Intelligence committee — told POLITICO leadership’s approval of the mission didn’t move him at all. He said that the U.S. has “the keys to escalate [the conflict] unilaterally.”

“I really do believe when you have an engagement confined within the boarders of Syria as bad as it could imaginably be to engage, you’re really really asking for it to spill outside the borders,” Rooney said in an interview Tuesday. “If I’m Assad and I get attacked, Tel Aviv is in my scopes.”

The clash of titanic interests, from national to political security, makes this vote the toughest for Obama since he narrowly won enactment of his health care law in 2010. It cuts so many different ways — across parties, philosophies, and parochial political considerations — that win or lose, its reverberations are sure to be felt well into the second term of Obama’s presidency.

(Also on POLITICO: Pelosi's test)

Division within each party and the matter-of-conscience nature of a war vote make it uncomfortable for party leaders to whip the votes. Republican leaders have said they won’t do it, and Democratic leaders aren’t likely to run a formal whip effort. That doesn’t mean, though, that they won’t keep tabs on where members are to make sure the White House knows whether it’s winning or losing.

The president’s informal whip team consists of most, but not all, of the top House Democratic leadership, several top lawmakers on national security committees, his Cabinet, France, and the pro-Israel lobby. The French Embassy sent members of Congress a nine-page intelligence report Tuesday afternoon to help persuade them to vote for military action. And the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the top pro-Israel advocacy group in Washington, released a statement encouraging lawmakers to back Obama.

The French embassy went as far to send members of Congress a nine-page French intelligence report Tuesday afternoon. The country offered up its Middle East political hand to lawmakers if they had questions. National Security Adviser Susan Rice will brief the Congressional Black Caucus Sept. 9. The House Armed Services Committee will also have a members’ only briefing that same day.

(Also on POLITICO: Senate all over the map on Syria)

The CBC is asking its members to stay mum for now.

“We ask that you limit any public comment on the subject of Syria until after the meeting,” a caucus official wrote in an e-mail to member offices.

Then there’s congressional leadership. Pelosi sent her colleagues a letter Tuesday, urging them to support the president. Obama shouldn’t expect that kind of support from Boehner and Cantor, who have vowed to allow the White House to whip this vote. Although a Boehner aide late Tuesday sent out an email, highlighting AIPAC’s support for the strike.

The support in leadership is far from uniform. McCarthy, who has spent the last several days calling House Republicans to gauge their support of the resolution, issued a statement through his spokesman that he wasn’t ready to support the president.

That opposition is evident throughout the ranks of the Democratic and Republican caucuses — and among their constituents — who haven’t yet, and may never, draw the conclusion that the horror of Assad using chemical weapons is a matter of urgent U.S. national security. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) tweeted Tuesday that “constituents who have contacted my office by phone or mail oppose action in Syria 523-4 so far.”

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who is libertarian, said on Twitter that four of about 200 constituents he encountered support action in Syria.

Even those who support the idea of force in Syria want to slow the Obama administration’s efforts. Congress wants to have its fingers on the resolution. GOP aides on committees of jurisdiction are likely to rewrite the resolution’s language. Some Democrats want an overhaul, as well.

“Whether you support the President’s call for limited use of force in Syria, or are opposed to any military force, we should not simply consider and vote on the text submitted by the President,” wrote Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) in a letter to his colleagues. “While the action the President has proposed is only in the air for a short duration, the text he has proposed is unlimited. In fact, it would authorize boots-on-the-ground for an undetermined duration. Accordingly, we should consider amendments, including those that limit the scope and duration of the authorization.”

Not only does Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) — a member of the Intelligence Committee — remain opposed to force, but he’s drafting an alternative resolution that is being reviewed by the House legislative counsel. The resolution, which he’s beginning to talk to colleagues about, would not authorize military force, but would require Obama gather coalition support, and reach other benchmarks, and then come back to Congress and ask for authorization, again.

Problems could deepen if a cost analysis determines that the bombing campaign will be pricey. Plus, if Boehner puts this resolution on the floor with the support of only a few dozen Republicans, he could have real problems in his ranks.

The White House is throwing its full weight into lobbying Congress, in what administration officials describe as a “flood the zone” approach to overcoming opposition. That campaign is now in full swing.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel testified before two committees apiece on Wednesday — they’ll be together for the House Foreign Affairs Committee — and the highest uniforemd officer in the country, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, will appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He found allies among some of a set of veteran lawmakers who met with him at the White House on Tuesday morning.

“I’m proud to be part of the president’s whip team,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Obama and his team have settled on a rally-around-the-flag rationale for strikes in Syria. America’s standing in the world — and, indeed, its own security — is at risk if punishment is not meted out to Assad, they argue. “As President Obama said, the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity,” Hagel said before the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. “It is a serious threat to American’s national security interests and those of our closest allies.”

Kerry told the same committee that America’s influence would be damaged if it didn’t keep its word in promising to retaliate against a major chemical weapons attack — a vow Obama made a year ago when he drew what he called a “red line” on Assad using chemical weapons.

But, so far, those lines of argument hasn’t moved as many lawmakers — or as many Americans — as Obama would like.

Pelosi even had trouble convincing her 5-year-old grandson, who told his “Mimi” that he didn’t quite understand why America would go to war when Assad didn’t pose a direct threat.


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...gop-96225.html

Senate Committee Sets Wheels In Motion For Syrian War

September 4, 2013 by Sam Rolley

On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution granting President Barack Obama limited authority to initiate a military strike against Syria in response to alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Following objections from Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) that the initial resolution did not go far enough, the Senate panel approved a revised resolution with language giving the U.S. more power to meddle in the Syrian civil war.

“These amendments are vital to ensuring that any U.S. military operations in Syria are part of a broader strategy to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria,” McCain said in a statement after the vote. “That strategy must degrade the military capabilities of the Assad regime while upgrading the military capabilities of moderate Syrian opposition forces. These amendments would put the Congress on the record that this is the policy of the United States, as President Obama has assured me it is.”

The measure, which will be presented before the full Senate, would permit the President to order a limited military mission against Syria that is supposed to last fewer than 90 days and involve no American combat troops on the ground.

The war proposal passed in the committee with a 10-7 vote. Senators voting against the measure included Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).

Filed Under: Liberty News, Staff Reports

http://personalliberty.com/2013/09/0...or-syrian-war/