Senators Returning to Hear Obama’s Case for a Syria Strike

President Obama takes questions from the media in the East Room of the White House on June 29, 2011.
National Journal
Michael Catalini
See more stories about...
Michael Catalini
Sept. 2, 2013, 8:30 a.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama’s push to per­suade Con­gress to au­thor­ize a strike on Syr­ia presses ahead on Tues­day, as two top ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials will make the White House’s case be­fore the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee.

Al­though a num­ber of law­makers have been in the Cap­it­ol for brief­ings with ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials, com­mit­tee mem­bers will be re­turn­ing nearly a week be­fore Con­gress is of­fi­cially due to re­turn from its Au­gust re­cess to con­sider Obama’s case to launch a mil­it­ary strike against dic­tat­or Bashar al-As­sad’s re­gime.

Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry, De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel and Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mar­tin De­mp­sey will make the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s case to law­makers. Over the Labor Day week­end, Obama said that any strike would be “lim­ited in dur­a­tion and scope.” The mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion would ex­clude “boots on the ground,” the pres­id­ent said.

On Sat­urday, the ad­min­is­tra­tion de­livered the text of an au­thor­iz­a­tion for the use of force to Con­gress, seek­ing ap­prov­al “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he de­term­ines to be ne­ces­sary and ap­pro­pri­ate in con­nec­tion with the use of chem­ic­al weapons.”

The ad­min­is­tra­tion ar­gues that the at­tack is ne­ces­sary to de­ter the pro­lif­er­a­tion of chem­ic­al weapons, which the White House says As­sad used against his people on Aug. 21. The ques­tion of launch­ing an at­tack arose be­cause Obama had drawn a so-called red line at the use of chem­ic­al weapons. Now that gov­ern­ment in­tel­li­gence re­portedly shows that line has been crossed, the ad­min­is­tra­tion is com­pelled to act.

Wheth­er Obama will win Con­gress’s ap­prov­al re­mains in doubt. Liber­tari­an-lean­ing Re­pub­lic­ans and lib­er­al Demo­crats ex­pressed skep­ti­cism about launch­ing an at­tack over the week­end. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the pres­id­ent pro tem­pore of the Sen­ate, told re­port­ers that the au­thor­iz­a­tion was too broad and would be amended, ac­cord­ing to me­dia re­ports. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., mean­while, cast a pos­sible at­tack as a mis­take dur­ing an ap­pear­ance on Meet the Press.

Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic lead­ers quickly offered sup­port to the pres­id­ent. Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, D-Nev., said mil­it­ary ac­tion would be “jus­ti­fied and ne­ces­sary.”

“I be­lieve the United States has a mor­al ob­lig­a­tion as well as a na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terest in de­fend­ing in­no­cent lives against such at­ro­cit­ies,” Re­id said in a state­ment.

As­sist­ant Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Dick Durbin, D-Ill., praised the pres­id­ent, but he stopped short of call­ing for mil­it­ary ac­tion.

“If we can do something to dis­cour­age As­sad and oth­ers like him from us­ing chem­ic­al weapons without en­ga­ging in a war and without mak­ing a long-term mil­it­ary com­mit­ment of the United States, I’m open to that de­bate,” Durbin said in a state­ment.

Seek­ing to shore up sup­port among sen­at­ors, Obama in­vited Re­pub­lic­an hawks John Mc­Cain of Ari­zona and Lind­sey Gra­ham of South Car­o­lina to the White House on Monday, the As­so­ci­ated Press re­por­ted. Both Mc­Cain and Gra­ham sup­port a ro­bust strike aimed at top­pling As­sad’s re­gime.

House Speak­er John Boehner, mean­while, has said his cham­ber will con­sider the pres­id­ent’s au­thor­iz­a­tion re­quest when it re­turns the week of Sept. 9. In a sign of just how much op­pos­i­tion Obama will face from his polit­ic­al op­pon­ents in the House, Armed Ser­vices Chair­man Buck McK­eon, R-Cal­if., jabbed the White House over mil­it­ary cuts due to se­quest­ra­tion.

In ad­di­tion to the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee hear­ing on Tues­day, a Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee hear­ing is ex­pec­ted this week and ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials are brief­ing mem­bers in both clas­si­fied and un­clas­si­fied set­tings, ac­cord­ing to the As­so­ci­ated Press. The White House gave a two-hour closed brief­ing to law­makers on Sunday, AP re­por­ted.

On Monday, ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials—in­clud­ing Kerry, Hagel, De­mp­sey, Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Ad­viser Susan Rice and Dir­ect­or of Na­tion­al In­tel­li­gence James Clap­per—briefed the House Demo­crat­ic Caucus in an un­clas­si­fied tele­con­fer­ence call that las­ted 70 minutes, ac­cord­ing to a House Demo­crat­ic aide.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×