Posted on 09/14/2014 4:16:18 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
A growing chorus of liberal Democrats is pushing President Obama to get Congress's explicit approval before launching missile strikes into Syria.
The pressure from supporters on Capitol Hill is not only a headache for Obama, but also puts House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats in the difficult position of bucking a broad segment of their own caucus in order to protect an ally in the White House.
Scores of Democrats had signed letters a year ago advocating against military strikes targeting the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad without congressional backing.
Thirteen months later the enemy has a new face, but a large number of those lawmakers say they remain committed to securing Congress's role in deciding matters of war, even as Obama is claiming unilateral authority to expand the fight against militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
“A vote is necessary,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) told The Hill. “The president is already empowered to act forcefully against those who murdered Americans, but he should seek congressional authorization to engage in the broader, sustained combat he envisions."
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) piled on.
“It would be very reckless, in my view, for him to go in and start doing all this without getting a vote from the Congress,” he told MSNBC recently.
Pelosi, a fierce opponent of the Iraq war under the George W. Bush, has toed the line between the liberal critics and Obama by urging a congressional debate on the use-of-force question, but stopping short of calling for a vote – at least for now.
“Whether we take a vote or not, we're not at that point because we believe the president has the authority,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday.
Speaker John Boehner has also avoided calls for a vote on use-of-force authority.
In a prime-time television address Wednesday, Obama sought at once to convince the country that he plans to “hunt down” the ISIS militants “wherever they are,” while emphasizing that the U.S. operations would be far more limited than those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil,” Obama vowed.
Instead, the United States will expand airstrikes on the ISIS militants – including those operating in Syria – while providing “support for partner forces” fighting to eradicate the terrorist threat.
Obama also amplified his call for Congress to expand Title 10 – which governs military powers – to allow the Pentagon to arm and train Syrian rebels fighting both ISIS and the Syrian government.
That proposal, which the White House wants to include as part of the Republicans' continuing resolution (CR) package, has delayed Congress's effort to prevent a government shutdown, as GOP leaders are weighing whether to attach the provision to the CR or pursue a separate bill.
Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are pushing for the separate vote, arguing that an issue so serious demands a robust public debate.
“People have some legitimate questions,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said Thursday. “We ought to ask the questions before we get involved, rather than, you know, once we're in the middle of something.”
In July, McGovern championed a resolution stipulating that Obama “shall not deploy or maintain” U.S. forces “in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use.”
The measure passed overwhelmingly, 370 to 40.
The disagreement now between Democratic leaders and many rank-and-file members revolves around whether the fight against ISIS has evolved to a point of “sustained combat” that would trigger the vote promoted by the McGovern resolution.
Pelosi says it has not.
“Hopefully, we don't have to go beyond what the president is doing now [and] we don't need that vote,” she said, referring specifically to the McGovern bill. “But we stand ready to have that discussion.”
Yet that argument doesn't fly with a number of her troops, who have balked at the notion that Obama has the power to expand operations without Congress's OK.
“He must come to Congress for authorization to expand military engagement in Syria,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).
“Mr. President, come to Congress [and] get your authorization,” said Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.).
“The president must seek – and receive – explicit authorization from Congress before deploying combat troops for any sustained mission,” said Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.).
“If it's going to be a long-term engagement, he should come to Congress for approval,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.).
“Congress must weigh in when it comes to confronting ISIL through military action,” Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
Yet it remains unclear how many Democrats, if any, would oppose the CR based on the inclusion of the much more limited provision for training Syrian rebels.
Asked that question Thursday, McGovern said he “very possibly” would vote against such a package.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Thursday acknowledged the growing unrest among members of his caucus surrounding the broader use-of-force question. He suggested Congress would debate the issue when lawmakers return to Washington in November, after the midterms.
“I think, at some point in time, when we come back from the elections … there will be a consideration of a larger authorization for the use of force,” Hoyer said in an interview on C-Span's “Newsmakers” program, according to The Washington Post.
But, with the administration threatening strikes against ISIS in Syria at any time, many liberal Democrats are wary of delaying the debate for so long.
“If this Congress is not careful, it will be as guilty as previous Congresses – which go all the way back to the '60's and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution – in giving away our constitutional authority to the White House,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the former head of the Congressional Black Caucus.
“It's not about the president,” Cleaver added, “it is about the precedent.”
The ball less are now coming out from the darkness to kinda sorta weigh in on what should be done without critisizing the illustriuos leader who is on the way out kinda sorta
Guess the pen and the phone are not enough for the Dems.
Pass the popcorn.
The president can commit the full weight of the American military for 90 days without seeking Congressional approval. As much as I’d like to muzzle the muzzy it would also hog tie a good president and reduce his bargaining power. We’ll just have to hunker down and put up with this dangerous putz until January 20, 2017. (Does anybody have a link to an Obama-leaves-office countdown clock?)
Nancy’s nuts, an embarrassment to the country.
I don’t see how the Obama could loose. If they vote against
it, he can lay the whole defeat on congress and Bush. If they
vote for military action he can say his hands are tied and
blame it all on congress and Bush. However, if either way
turns out to be the right move he will be right there ready
to take full credit. The guys an ass.
The solution is really quite simple.
Declare Syria to be no more. If ISIS is de facto controller of the new nation, there is no need to be concerned about what the former ruler Assad thinks. He has already lost the territory and is no longer the ruler. Of course that brings up the same problem in Iraq but Iraq is also rent asunder to never be whole again. Since there have been no real offensive action in Iraq into the Sunni regions by Iraqi “government forces”, it must be assumed that the partition is actually fine with the Shia.
Obama will be going to war with a new nation still in diapers.
I’ll bet there are lots of diplomats and lawyers in the US State Department and elsewhere laying awake nights chewing on this dilemma. There is no readily available precedent for application to an off the wall event involving the sudden emergence of a totally new nation yanked from two failing former nations. Tea and crumpets and cocktail parties and sumptuous dinners offer no solution to a problem that needs rolled up sleeves and real work.
THIS WILL NOT WORK:
[Instead, the United States will expand airstrikes on the ISIS militants – including those operating in Syria – while providing “support for partner forces” fighting to eradicate the terrorist threat.
Obama also amplified his call for Congress to expand Title 10 – which governs military powers – to allow the Pentagon to arm and train Syrian rebels fighting both ISIS and the Syrian government.]
This is exactly why they go by different names - but the entire effort is one big happy family...
The insurgents in Iraq did the same thing - but the end goal was control and destruction of the Shia led govt.
Simple logic that the US politicians and the US media cannot wrap their little brains around...
Airstrikes inside Syria?
The last time this was proposed...what happened? Putin stepped-in and humiliated Obama.
Does anyone notice how Putin is very silent on this issue?
He is just waiting for the right time........
Ummm...last time I looked Pelosi was minority leader and Boehner was speaker. Pelosi can squeal all she wants, but Boehner decides to call a vote.
Pelosi has no more power than Sen. McConnell has, except for the fact that she has the DBM on her side.
Pelosi, a fierce opponent of the Iraq war under the George W. Bush, has toed the line between the liberal critics and Obama by urging a congressional debate on the use-of-force question, but stopping short of calling for a vote – at least for now. “Whether we take a vote or not, we're not at that point because we believe the president has the authority,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday.It's more likely that Zero will find yet another way to surrender. Thanks Tailgunner Joe.
So it is not only about what authority Obama has or could be given to him by Congress, it is also how the next prez will use that authority. They all know that the next prez will either be the Liberal Interventionist/hawkish democrat Hillary or a NeoCon Republican Hawk.
These "liberals" mentioned in the article are not to concerned with what Obama will do because he has been very concise in what he wants from congress and what he wants to do. But they are concerned with the next prez.
So, in congress there is one group made up of Liberal Interventionists Democrats and NeoCon Republicans who want to give the prez more power/authority and a second group made up of Antiwar Democrats and Isolationist Republicans who want to give the prez less power.
But there is also in Congress another group called Realists which are made up both republicans and democrats like democrat Diane Feinstein and republican Bob Corker and how they come down on the issue will determine the outcome.
Overriding all this is the fact that congress is composed of gutless wonders more concerned with the election. They have delayed it past the primary but don't want to do anything until after the general in Nov.
They could do something vague and meaningless soon but will wait for the lame duck session before they do something substantive.
Obama has the war powers act, the Iraq AUMF, and the authority given to him in 2013 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to arm Syrian rebels and bomb Assad. He wants to trade all this in and wants congress to give him $5 billion for his "Counterterrorism Partnership Fund" that will allow him to operate in Iraq and Syria the same way he operates in Yemen, Somalia, Phillipines, and various other places in Africa.
Then, if Obama needed additional authority beyond what that gave him, he would have to go back to congress for that specific authority. Obama wants to limit his own authority and limit the authority of the next president. He wants to limit the authority that Liberal Interventionist Hawk Hillary or a NeoCon Republican Hawk would have if/when either of them becomes prez in 2017.
Pelosi, a fierce opponent of the Iraq war under the George W. Bush.
Bush told them what would happen if they pulled out and it did he gets the last laugh TOLD YA.
This mess of ISIS is caused by Obama and if they think the price was high under bush wait for this mess to end it’s going to be a very long wait.
bkmk
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.