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.
Bill Nelson FL. Sure to be on the wrong side of every issue.
Manchin has already come out against the Syria vote if I recall correctly.
The GOP should vote PRESENT and let the democrats and Obama OWN this one. No matter the outcome, Obama once again avoids governing and making a decision. To vote one way or the other simply supports his serial indecision and, by default, gives him credibility that he hasn’t earned. I wrote all three of my reps in DC today stating same ...even tho one was Lindsey Graham. Actually got a PERSONAL note back from Mark Sanford, which surprised me.
Let him nuke Syria, you’re all so racest (saRC off)
I just read that Tom Cole in the House (Major league RINO) will vote NO. Good start. Let’s hope Amash and others in the House can sink this vote.
Glad you put in that sarcasm line. You had me wondering if you’d started using drugs. :>)
How about many Republicans in Congress don’t trust Obama because of the video lie supposed to cause the Benghazi massacre? Or how James Clapper lied to Congress? Or how the whole administration is corrupt and unbelievable???
If anything the Republicans will even be more “gung ho”, same happened during Willard’s bombing of Yugoslavia.
I think the AG should be an elected position too....to a single 6 term. That way it doesn’t coincide with the presidential elections (so a liberal AG don’t get on the same ticket with the presidential candidate) and it overlaps administrations.
I’m happy with our elected AG in Michigan. He’s the same party (GOP) as the governor but is a solid constitutionalist.
He’s representing the unions in the Detroit Bankruptcy fight not because any of us like it but because the state constitution requires it.
Better an AG who strictly adheres to the constitution than one who serves as personal prosecutor or defense attorney of the president.
I’ve got a compelling reason not to support Obama; there is no f***ing reason to interfere when our enemies are killing each other. I know they’re killing Christians too but the winner of this fight is going to keep doing that anyway. We don’t need to help.
Good post of a PR effort by the RNC to soften up the public for a Republican capitulation. If these spineless, gutless, ball-less bastards support the Mombasa MF on this, it will be just another nail in the coffin of the GOP.
The GOP is having a slow painful demise, to no one's satisfaction but the Democrat Party. Unfortunately, what the GOP cannot seem to realize is that their death as a political force endangers the survival of the Republic.
How about many Republicans in Congress don’t trust Obama because of the video lie supposed to cause the Benghazi massacre? Or how James Clapper lied to Congress? Or how the whole administration is corrupt and unbelievable???
Happened to see a video clip of O meeting with McCain/ Graham.
Its O & Susan Rice meeting with them. How they could spend 1/2 minute with these 2 liars is beyond comprehension.
Have they forgotten Bengahzi and the role these 2 played ?
Draft the revised binding resolution to fund military action only if Obamacare is defunded.
” How they could spend 1/2 minute with these 2 liars is beyond comprehension.”
Are you calling McCain/Graham liars?....
Personally, I couldn’t stand to be in the same room with any of them for 10 seconds.
That is my thinking as well. Too bad we can’t be flies on the wall to see the horse trading.
On second thought...maybe it’s best we aren’t flies on the wall.
When (not if) the Republickins go along with this, any last shred of relevancy they had will go bye-bye.
No one should have to die just to save Obama from embarrassment, and I don’t understand why any Republican would want to do so.
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.