Posted on 09/02/2013 5:41:35 PM PDT by markomalley
Early signs say it will be hard for President Obama to win congressional authorization for military action in Syria. That could change; lawmakers might re-write the president's draft authorization into something they can live with, ultimately allowing Obama to go forward. But whatever happens, Republicans have a compelling case for rejecting the president's request. Based on off-the-record conversations with some of them, this is it:
1) The chemical weapons evidence. The Obama administration appears to believe that conclusive proof that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians creates an unassailable case for U.S. intervention. A few lawmakers will likely challenge whether the proof is really conclusive. But a far larger number will accept the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons -- and still reject intervention.
Those lawmakers will argue that Obama did not intervene when Assad used conventional weapons to slaughter thousands of innocent people; the death toll in the two-and-and-half-year civil war is put at 100,000. What is different now? They will also point to the various atrocities and human rights violations around the world in which the United States has not intervened. American involvement, they will argue, should be contingent on a genuine U.S. national security interest, not the simple fact that an awful thing has been done.
2) The blank check problem. Lots of lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, believe Obama's draft resolution gives the president too much power. The draft would grant Obama the authority to use armed force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in connection with weapons of mass destruction in Syria, for the purpose of preventing the future use or spread of those weapons, or, more generally, protecting the U.S. and its allies.
For many lawmakers, that's too broad a mandate. But a significant number of members might reject even a narrowed version of the resolution on the grounds that, once the use of force is authorized, Congress as a practical matter will have little control over how the president exercises it.
3) The nature of the Syrian opposition. Many Republicans will never be convinced the U.S. can come to the aid of good rebels in Syria without also helping bad rebels in Syria. It's just too complicated, they believe, and there are simply too many bad guys. Why risk aiding al Qaeda or its affiliates? These Republicans remain unconvinced by arguments from fellow GOP lawmakers like John McCain, who point out that in the Libyan operation the U.S. essentially set up a safe area for good rebels in Benghazi. Given what happened later in that Libyan city, the skeptics will remain unconvinced.
4) The lack of confidence in Barack Obama. There's no doubt the president has been extremely reluctant to take action in Syria. He also showed terrible judgment by painting himself into a corner with his 2012 "red line" comments on chemical weapons. For those reasons, and more, some Republicans will argue that they simply cannot entrust special warmaking powers to a president who they believe is not competent to use them.
5) The "first to die" dilemma. Some Republicans are so war-weary that they would be loathe to authorize any military action in the absence of an actual attack on the United States. When Sen. Rand Paul re-phrased John Kerry's words from Vietnam -- Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" which Paul changed to "How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?" -- the senator from Kentucky was signaling that there is virtually no way lawmakers like him will ever support a Syrian initiative.
How many Republicans hold some or all of these beliefs? Quite a few. Perhaps in anticipation of a close vote, a new argument is circulating among pro-interventionists which says that protecting the prerogatives of future presidents is so important that Republicans should support Obama's Syrian action even if there is no good case for doing so.
Rejecting Obama could permanently weaken the presidency, argues political scientist James Ceaser in an article cited by influential conservative commentator William Kristol. Therefore, Republicans should vote to authorize force "even if they think that the president’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks…even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and…even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment."
That will be a very hard sell for Republicans. In the end, many will carefully consider all the evidence and then vote their instincts. And that will mean a vote against Barack Obama.
Because the Republican Party is now just another wing of the Democratic Party.
Lets hope so: and I would add another reason WHY I DON’T SUPPORT WAR IN SYRIA: As Christians we should be very wary of taking life, especially those of us that preach “pro-life” politically, Jesus died for even the violent fighters that we (as a nation) would be responsible for killing in any attack. Does God want to reach their hearts and save them. I submit 1 Tim Chapter 2 for proof that He does, let’s not be too quick to take life except in circumstances where our citizens are directly effected..
This ACTION in Syria doesn’t raise to that level. -J.S.
NO, the Republicans should vote: AGAINST IT, not “PRESENT”. That way we defeat Obama and he ~has~ to go extra-Constitutional and AGAINST his word again if he decides to bomb Syria!
Exactly!
AGREED LETS CALL OUR REPS:
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 224-3121
TTY: (202)-225-1904
Exactly. There are many reasons to exercise military power.
Saving face is not one of them.
And the IRS, Benghazi and NSA scandals. As Biden might say, All of those are a really big 'bleeping' deal. It all makes the Nixon admin look like choir boys.
Watch the left hand...
Obama should be treated to repeated verbatim repeats of what he has said in the past against Bush. Just keep repeating Obama’s opposition to Coalition’s, Bush’s seeking of congressional approval, and throw in a heavy dose of JF Kerry’s “was for it before being against it” just to hammer this administration. And keep up the drumbeat against the administration forever, after all the media will eventually report it.
The executive branch has gotten too big. It needs to be taken down many, many pegs. This is a good place to start. At the very least the should make Obama trade Obamacare funding for funding his Syria adventure— publicly.
Would the GOP-e defy upwards of 90% of the country on this? I would think not, but then again, this IS the GOP-e we are talking about. The dems that are being wishy-washy right now, on the other hand, will faithfully vote for anything on the floor when the time comes, regardless of what the people want.
This should be #1!!! Not another precious American life for that $hit Hole! They are killing each other and that should be viewed as a good thing. My give a $hit bucket is empty!
5) The “first to die” dilemma. Some Republicans are so war-weary that they would be loathe to authorize any military action in the absence of an actual attack on the United States. When Sen. Rand Paul re-phrased John Kerry’s words from Vietnam — Kerry famously asked, “How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?” which Paul changed to “How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?” — the senator from Kentucky was signaling that there is virtually no way lawmakers like him will ever support a Syrian initiative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.