Skip to content
View Featured Image

After Classified Briefing Members Of Congress Skeptical

Below are two articles reporting on the meeting held yesterday by Obama officials and members of Congress.  At this point in the lobbying process, the Obama administration is being met with doubt about the military strike on Syria.  They are planning on working hard to get the votes they need.

US politicians sceptical as Obama administration puts case for Syria strike

Members of Congress attend classified presentation of evidence after John Kerry mounts defence of plan for military action vote

The Guardian

The Obama administration has begun the tough task of persuading sceptical members of Congress that they should authorise military action against Syria, as secretary of state John Kerry claimed the US had evidence that sarin gas was used in an attack outside Damascus last month that killed 1,400 people.

A classified briefing was held on Capitol Hill on Sunday a few hours after Kerry made the rounds of all five Sunday talk shows in the US, mounting a strong defence of President Obama’s unexpected plan to allow Congress a vote on military action against the Syrian government.

Presented with the awkward scenario that Congress would not back Obama, Kerry stressed that the president had the power to act anyway. But Kerry said he was confident of a yes vote. “We don’t contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no,” Kerry told CNN.

As members of Congress emerged from the briefing, it was clear that the Obama administration could not be sure of the outcome of the president’s high-risk strategy. In particular, Obama could not count on his own party to deliver the votes. “I don’t know if every member of Congress is there yet,” said Representative Janice Hahn, a California Democrat who said she would vote no on authorising a military strike. “The room was sceptical,” said Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat.

The briefing took place after Kerry conducted a back-to-back round of television interviews to press home the case for military strikes. Kerry, one of the leading advocates of a military assault on the regime of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, outlined new evidence he said the administration had obtained about the chemical attacks outside Damascus in August. He said blood and hair samples from first responders who helped victims of the attacks had tested positive for indicators of the nerve agent sarin.

Kerry said the evidence had come through a “secure chain of custody”, but not from United Nations weapons inspectors. He did not give any further details of the source for the samples, nor where or when they had been tested. The new evidence bolstered the case for action, Kerry said. “Each day that goes by this case is even stronger,” he told CNN.

On Sunday, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, asked chemical weapons inspectors to speed up their investigation because of the “horrendous magnitude” of the attack in Syria.

Ban spoke by phone with the head of the team, Ake Sellström, the Swedish scientist who returned from Syria to The Hague on Saturday. The UN spokesman Martin Nesirky, briefing reporters at UN headquarters in New York, said Ban had asked for the process of analysing samples taken from the sites of the 21 August attack to be conducted as quickly as possible in keeping with the requirements of scientific stringency.

“The whole process will be done strictly adhering to the highest established standards of verification recognised by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” Nesirky said.

The samples are scheduled to be sent to laboratories in Finland and Sweden on Monday. On Friday, the UN estimated the process would take about two weeks but the findings now seem to likely to be delivered before that.

At an emergency meeting in Cairo, the Arab League called on the United Nations and the international community to take “deterrent” measures under international law to stop the Syrian regime’s crimes, but could not agree on whether to back US military action. In their closing statement, Arab foreign ministers held the Assad regime responsible for the “heinous” chemical attack, saying the perpetrators should be tried before an international court “like other war criminals”.

In Syria, Assad poured scorn on Obama, saying in comments carried by state media that Damascus was “capable of confronting any external aggression.”

Opposition figures reacted with exasperation to what they perceive as Obama’s delay in striking against Assad. While the Obama administration insists that the exclusive purpose of any such military attack would be to punish the chemical weapons attack and deter future use, the fractious and diverse opposition hopes the anticipated US strike will finally tip the military balance in their favour, something they have not managed decisively in a two-and-a-half year civil war that has killed nearly 100,000 people.

Samir Nishar of the opposition Syrian National Coalition called Obama a “weak president”, according to CNN.

Kerry reacted to the Syrian opposition’s evident disappointment by suggesting that Obama will not limit US involvement in the foreign civil war to cruise missile strikes tethered to chemical weapons. The administration “may even be able to provide greater support to the opposition”, Kerry said. Obama authorised the provision of weapons to Syrian rebels after determining earlier this year that Assad had carried out a smaller-scale chemical attack.

Deeper involvement in the Syrian civil war has prompted reluctance within the US military to bless even a one-off military strike. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and a multi-tour veteran of Iraq, has voiced such fears for more than two years.

But Congressional hawks say Obama has not gone far enough. Senator John McCain, one of the most interventionist Republicans, said the administration needed to have a more decisive plan to topple the Assad regime. He warned against the possibility of Congress defying the president. “The consequences of a Congress of the United States over-riding a decision of the president of the United States on this magnitude are really very serious,” he told Face the Nation on CBS.

McCain and his fellow Republican senator Lindsey Graham said earlier this weekend that they wanted any military campaign to “achieve the president’s stated goal of Assad’s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict”. Kerry, responding to McCain and Graham, said he was confident the two senators would become convinced that “there will be additional pressure” on Assad.

“A strategy is in place in order to help the opposition and change the dynamics of what is happening in Syria,” Kerry told ABC News, while simultaneously denying the US would get sucked into the mire of the civil war.

Before Sunday’s classified briefing, some leading legislators predicted that Obama would win a vote of the kind that his UK counterpart, Prime Minister David Cameron, unexpectedly lost last week. “At the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion,” Representative Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, told CNN. “This is a national security issue.”

Others were less sure. Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican, put the chances of an authorisation vote in the House of Representatives at 50-50. “I think the Senate will rubber stamp what he wants but the House will be a much closer vote,” he told NBC.

Legislators estimated that between 100 and 150 members of Congress attended Sunday’s classified briefing in the basement of the US Capitol, representing approximately a fifth of the Senate and House. Deputy national security adviser Antony Blinken was scheduled to be joined in the basement auditorium by four colleagues from the state department, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the military’s joint staff and the Pentagon’s policy directorate.

Scott Rigell, a Virginia Republican, praised Obama for going to Congress, even as Rigell said he would not vote for the resolution. “What I wrestle with, and of course I am continuing to wrestle with this, is how do we define success and our objective, and a full understanding and consideration of the ramifications,” Rigell said.

He said he was troubled by the likelihood that “the Assad regime is still there” after a strike.

Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said he would support a strike, declaring himself persuaded that the Assad regime had crossed “a red line that began to be drawn a hundred years ago”.

Asked how US involvement in Syria ends – with the strikes being a one-off affair or a prelude to deeper US military engagement – Levin said, “I don’t think anybody’s quite sure, but I think we know where we need to start.”

Representative Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, said he left the briefing with questions about US strategy toward Syria, but also with questions about whether Assad would be strengthened if Congress voted against a strike, as the British parliament did last week.

Cummings said the draft authorisation for a military strike that Obama sent to Congress was “very, very broad,” giving him pause. “I want to know exactly what the game plan is after this,” Cummings said. “How will this strike lead, as the resolution says, to a diplomatic resolution of this issue?”

He left the briefing unsure if Obama would abide by the final vote on the Syria authorisation, which could come as early as next week, when Congress returns from summer recess. “I don’t know,” Cummings said. “I’m pretty sure they will, but I don’t know. That’s a good question.”

Obama’s call to arms on Syria is met with skepticism at Capitol

By Ben Geman
The Hill

President Obama’s call for military action in Syria encountered broad skepticism on Sunday as lawmakers gathered at the Capitol for a classified briefing with administration officials.

Members emerged from the meeting expressing deep doubts about an assault on Syria, putting into sharp relief the challenge facing Obama as he seeks passage of a resolution authorizing the strikes.

“To me there [are] profoundly unanswered questions about effectiveness, about what happens next, about whether we have any international support out there at all for military action and whether this is a wise idea,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.).

“So I am a long way from being a ‘yes’ vote on even a narrower resolution,” Himes said.While it’s unclear how deeply the concern about attacking Syria extends into the rank-and-file, there are signs that the votes on using force could become nail-biters for the White House.

Opposition to a bombardment is coming from both parties, and is expected to be particularly strong in the House, where liberal Democrats and Tea Party-supported Republicans have questioned the wisdom of intervening in Syria’s bloody civil war.

While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has backed Obama’s push for military strikes, one of her top lieutenants on Sunday signaled that House Democrats would not be pressured to vote for Obama’s plan.

“Any time you are talking about use of military force, I don’t believe any member can be whipped into doing one thing or the other,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who stressed that he is not personally opposed to military action.

“It is a vote of conscience, and I think this is the supreme vote that any member of Congress can take, so this is not going to be a matter of trying to enforce party discipline or to vote for or against the president,” he said.

Asked whether the Syria resolution would pass if a vote were held today, Becerra demurred.

“I couldn’t tell you,” he replied.

Even in the Senate, where more hawkish views on foreign policy typically prevail, senators balked at the breadth of Obama’s war powers request. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said lawmakers planned to revise the language before bringing it up for a vote.

The White House appeared to recognize the challenge that lay ahead, and vowed to “flood the zone” with meetings and briefings intended to assuage doubts before Congress reconvenes on Sept. 9.

In addition to Sunday’s briefing, the White House invited the chairmen and ranking members of six national security committees to meet with Obama on Tuesday at the White House.

Members of Obama’s Cabinet, meanwhile, continued to make the case for targeted retaliation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons.

In a blitz of the Sunday news shows, Secretary of State John Kerry said the administration has evidence that sarin gas was used in an attack on Aug. 21 that left nearly 1,500 Syrians dead, many of them children.

“So this case is building and this case will build, and I don’t believe that my former colleagues in the United States Senate, in the House, will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norm with respect to the enforcement of the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons which has been in place since 1925,” Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Obama on Saturday made clear that he doesn’t need Congress’s approval to use force, but has not said what action he would take if lawmakers vote down the war powers resolution.

Kerry refused to even consider the possibility that the White House would be rebuffed on Syria, stating flatly on ABC: “We are not going to lose this vote.”

But Democrats suggested they were a long way from endorsing the use of military force, with some even questioning whether the evidence of a chemical weapons attack in Syria is strong enough to justify such a step.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Sunday’s classified briefing “quite frankly raised more questions than it answered.”

“I found the evidence presented by administration officials to be circumstantial,” Harkin said in a statement.

Harkin didn’t rule out voting for a Syria strike, but expressed the reservations that many lawmakers harbor about engaging in a new conflict in the Middle East.

“We should not rush into what may become a new open-ended war without broad international backing or a full understanding of the ramifications,” he said.

Across the aisle, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said he would not vote to authorize strikes.

Burgess said the mood in his district is against it, and that he “didn’t hear anything” in the briefing that would give him a different view.

“There are a lot of risks here, the downsides are great,” Burgess said.

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who led calls demanding that the White House seek congressional permission before attacking Syria, also said he’s a “no” vote, at least for the moment.

“If I had to vote today, given what I know, I would vote ‘no,’ but I’m also open to the debate,” Rigell said.

Other lawmakers appeared to be on the fence about the war resolution after Sunday’s briefing.

“I am not there yet,” said Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.).

Asked if a resolution would pass if the vote were held today, Hahn called it a “very good question” and added: “I feel right now it is evenly divided.”

“I think members of Congress were divided in terms of ‘what does that mean?’ Is this a reason to go to war, what is the objectives of going to war, what authorization are we actually giving our president? I think there was a lot of concern in the room,” she added.

But not everyone expressed qualms about a show of force in Syria.

“I think the resolution may be altered but I am basically in support,” said Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

“The evidence at this point [of a chemical weapons attack] is overwhelming,” he said.

This story was updated at 10:40 p.m

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Sign Up To Our Daily Digest

Independent media outlets are being suppressed and dropped by corporations like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our daily email digest before it’s too late so you don’t miss the latest movement news.