Putin Bails Out Obama on Syria?

Vladimir rides to the rescue?

The latest turn of events as the Obama administration confronts the use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war is interesting to say the least, as the UK Guardian reports:

Barack Obama welcomed a Russian proposal on Monday for Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control, opening up the first real chance of a political settlement to the crisis since hundreds of civilians died in an attack on a Damascus suburb last month.

In a series of primetime television interviews, Obama described Russia's offer as a "possible breakthrough" and a "potentially positive development" in the standoff with the regime of Bashar al-Assad. With the prospect of a deal with the Syrians in the offing, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid postponed a crucial vote to authorise military action. Obama conceded in an NBC interview on Monday night that he might lose his campaign in Congress for authorisation. "I wouldn't say I'm confident" of the outcome, he said, adding that he had not decided what to do if it voted against him.

Russia's proposal came after an apparent stumble by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, which set off a diplomatic scramble in Washington as administration officials sought to assess whether it offered a way out for Obama from what has become an increasingly intractable problem.

Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly made a less-than serious suggestion that Syria "hand over its chemical weapons within a week" to avoid an attack, which was taken seriously by the Russians. And it may be just as well, as the Boulder Daily Camera reports on the latest vote in Congress against taking action:

“The president has chosen to ask for the advice and counsel of Congress, and with my voice and my vote, I respond: do not attack Syria,” [Rep. Jared] Polis wrote.

He concluded that the use of chemical weapons in Syria deserves a response, but the reasons not to attack Syria and the risks of escalation outweigh the benefits from the proposed military action.

An attack on Syria doesn't make the American people safer, Polis wrote, and the possible death of innocent Syrian civilians as collateral damage from missile strikes may increase local and regional anti-Western sentiment — and risks increasing the ranks of terrorists.

Even President Barack Obama has now conceded that he may not have the votes in Congress to authorize military action against Syria. At the same time, if the crisis resolves in a way that prevents further use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, most preferably fully surrendering the weapons to Russia or another responsible nation, Obama can claim some victory there just for having threatened to attack.

One thing's for sure, times have changed since George W. Bush was President.

View the original article here

Colorado Congressional Delegation Continues to Ponder Syria

As The Denver Post reports:

Colorado's members of Congress were universally uncommitted Tuesday on whether to take any military action in Syria, saying they want more time to gather information before casting a vote probably next week.

When Congress officially reconvenes next week after its August recess, it is Colorado Republicans who will initially be in the spotlight thanks to House Speaker John Boehner's public support of President Obama on military intervention in Syria. As TPM explains, Boehner's move has D.C. in a bit of a tizzy:

“I appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the Congress over the last couple of weeks. I also appreciate the president asking the Congress to support him in this action,” the Speaker said. His remarks were backed by his deputy, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who also announced his support for Obama’s mission shortly after the morning meeting at the White House.

Boehner’s support changes the politics because scores of lawmakers in both parties have remained skeptical of military intervention in Syria despite the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus. Republicans, in particular, are deeply divided between the foreign policy hawks and a growing strain of isolationists within their tent. (Democrats are also split between war-weary progressives and humanitarian interventionists.)

This sets up a potentially nasty debate between GOP leaders and conservatives like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who have been making the case against intervening. The debate will also test the instincts of 2016 presidential contenders like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to remain on the opposite side of Obama.

This puts Colorado Republicans such as Rep. Cory Gardner in a tight spot; Gardner has been a committed foot soldier for Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who stood behind Boehner in his support for intervention in Syria.

View the original article here

Leadership Unites on Syria While Coffman Flops Like a Fish

Rep. Mike Coffman.

Politico's Reid Epstein reports today that GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner has signed on to the President's request for congressional authority to attack Syria after that nation's alleged use of chemical weapons:

Boehner announced his position after a Tuesday morning meeting with congressional leadership in the Cabinet Room. In a 90-second statement to reporters, Boehner echoed Obama’s earlier sentiment that the United States has a unique responsibility and capability to enforce international law forbidding chemical weapons.

Boehner was joined in his support by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), putting the onus on House leadership to secure enough votes to pass a use-of-force resolution that remains unpopular among both the American public and rank-and-file members of both parties.

As we discussed this weekend, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado is providing little in the way of leadership on an issue he should be an expert on as a former Marine officer. Instead, Coffman has seemingly reversed full circle from his original statement last week:

Since the United States is not in danger of an "imminent attack" the President must follow the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973 and come to the Congress for support before going forward with a military strike of any kind. [Pols emphasis]

To, as CBS4 reported yesterday:

Coffman says the delay in striking Assad has wasted precious time. [Pols emphasis]

“The Assad government has had all the time in the world to move their assets around so they don’t present themselves as easy targets,” he said.

If we're reading this right, Coffman has gone from demanding President Barack Obama obtain approval from Congress before attacking Syria to criticizing Obama for doing so, since "the delay in striking Assad has wasted precious time." We've been trying to figure out a way that President Obama could have made Coffman happy here, but between Obama being obliged to ask Congress, but having "wasted precious time" by asking Congress, we've basically got nothing. It would appear that Obama can do nothing right at all in Coffman's eyes.

And you know what, folks? He might really be that infantile.

View the original article here

Obama Asks Congress For Permission To Bomb Syria

UPDATE: CBS4 Denver has a new report on fresh skepticism from Rep. Mike Coffman today, including an interesting new possible GOP line of attack: should Obama not have gone to Congress then?

Coffman says the delay in striking Assad has wasted precious time.

“The Assad government has had all the time in the world to move their assets around so they don’t present themselves as easy targets,” he said. [Pols emphasis]

Coffman is not gung-ho for a strike. Not until it’s proven to him it would not lead to a protracted military engagement. He also wonders if Assad is chased from power, what then?

This wouldn't be the first time President Obama has been damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, of course.

—–

US Navy photo

As the Washington Post reports:

Syria on Sunday gloated over a "historic American retreat," deriding President Barack Obama for his decision to delay what had appeared to be imminent military strikes and dealing a further blow to U.S. credibility among the Syrian opposition and its allies.

The announcement Saturday by Obama that he would seek congressional approval for any U.S. military intervention in Syria, effectively pushing back any potential strike for at least 10 days, was seized upon by Syrian officials and state media, presenting it as a victory for the regime…

Back on the home front, there's bipartisan support in the Colorado congressional delegation for President Barack Obama's choice to seek congressional approval ahead of any military action by the United States against Syria, though from our read of the statements issued by lawmakers, considerably less evident appetite for actually going to war. Colorado Springs Gazette:

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet and Reps. Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton, applauded the president's plan to put the matter before Congress.

"I approve of the president consulting with Congress and seeking congressional support on this important issue. I will be gathering many facts before making any decision," Lamborn, a Colorado Springs Republican, wrote in an email to The Gazette.

Bennet, a Democrat, also stressed in a statement to The Gazette the need for Congress to weigh its options carefully.

"Syria's use of chemical weapons is deplorable. Congress will review the evidence presented by the administration and hold a serious debate about options," he wrote. "We must consider the enormous challenges in the region and the complexity of the situation that includes a military already stretched thin, a nation in civil war, and a region in transition."

9NEWS carried reaction from Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis: 

Congressman Ed Perlmutter released the following statement after the president's remarks on Syria:

"I agree with President Obama on his decision to provide information to the American people about the horrific use of chemical weapons in Syria that killed at least a thousand innocent people including hundreds of children. It's important for Congress to assess this information and discuss what actions are appropriate to deter this kind of massacre in the future. As the President suggested, any action must be targeted and limited in scope."

Congressman Jared Polis released the following statement after the president's remarks on Syria:

"I look forward to studying the issue, understanding the case that the President makes, and making an informed vote. This is a serious responsibility, and since the President has chosen to consult us I will provide the best possible guidance to the President that I can in the form of my vote and advice regarding Syria."

Rep. Mike Coffman, via the Denver Post's Allison Sherry earlier in the week:

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, said he wouldn’t support extended involvement since the United States is not “in danger of an imminent attack.”

“I will support the president should he conduct a limited strike on Syria in order to deter (Syrian President) Assad from further use of chemical weapons, but I would not support involvement beyond that because this is an intractable sectarian struggle,” Coffman said.

We haven't seen a statement from Sen. Mark Udall since President Obama's speech this weekend, but as reported Wednesday:

"The president needs to explain his plan to the American people, who are understandably reluctant to support further military engagement in the Middle East. I have real concerns that any surgical strike could lead us into deeper involvement in a complicated civil war, but last week's attacks — and the Syrian regime's years-long war against its people — demonstrate that staying on the sidelines may carry risks just as grave," Udall said.

Rep. Cory Gardner:

"I am glad that President Obama has decided to seek Congressional approval before any military action is taken in Syria. Allegations of chemical weapons use are extremely troubling, but the Constitution rightfully requires that any action taken by the US military receive Congressional approval.

"Committing to place our men and women in harms way is not something to be taken lightly. I will weigh the full evidence available and make a determination once I believe I have the information necessary to make an informed decision in the best interests of the United States."

Rep. Scott Tipton sounds a bit skeptical about the President's decision to ask for permission:

I'm pleased the President is seeking Congressional authorization for the use of military force. There may be a difference however between 'seeking' versus 'asking' for Congressional authorization, and before the President proceeds with any action, I hope that he will allow for equal debate in both the House and Senate on his plan and ultimately adhere to the outcome of the votes we will take.

But interestingly, Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette's statement seems the most skeptical of the actual proposal to go to war:

I welcome the President's decision to ask for congressional authority for the use of military force against the Syrian government. Although it is the President's duty to protect our national security, Congress has the constitutional responsibility and power to approve the use of military force, even if the United States or our interests have not been attacked.

Bottom line: the President's decision to ask permission before engaging in military action in Syria is extremely risky from a foreign policy viewpoint, as it leaves a decision as consequential as military action to the whim of perhaps the world's most famously dysfunctional body. The constitutional debate over the President's authority to take any military action without consulting Congress is unresolved, and the Obama administration has already tested the limits by committing American forces to action over Libya two years ago without congressional approval.

On the other hand, if Congress, particularly the GOP-controlled House, fails to deliver the authorization Obama is looking for, that could be powerful political ammunition for the president in his long fight against partisan obstruction. We shouldn't have to remind readers that Republicans and the institution of Congress as a whole are losing that fight, as evidenced by the body's historically low approval ratings. Will it take a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, one that could have been prevented by Congress taking action, to demonstrate to the public that Congress is no longer capable of doing its job?

These questions will factor heavily, rightly or wrongly, while debating the original point of whether to go to war.

View the original article here