House Dems proving a tough sell for Obama on Syria
September 5th, 2013
02:24 PM ET
1 year ago

House Dems proving a tough sell for Obama on Syria

Washington (CNN) - A Senate committee's approval of a resolution authorizing military force against Syria gave some momentum to President Barack Obama's effort to win overall congressional support for the effort, but conference calls involving members of his own party indicate that it's still an uphill political battle.

With Obama in Sweden and Russia trying in part to rally global backing to punish Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons, his chief of staff briefed two Democratic blocs - the solidly anti-war liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

FULL STORY

Filed under: House • Syria
soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. kirk

    We have spoken, not our problem

    September 5, 2013 02:28 pm at 2:28 pm |
  2. Data Driven

    Emmanuel Cleaver's questions are legit. War crimes are happening all over the world as I type and we're staying out of those. Why? And why Syria?

    Not saying we should do nothing. But why unilateral military action, when there are other options to pursue?

    September 5, 2013 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  3. jpmichigan

    Share with the UN info that the USA has regarding Syria, IF the USA has prof beyond reasonable doubt that Syria used chemical gas on its people so that the international community is involved. The only one who has their rump in a roar over the RED LINE is Obama, who stated the RED LINE prior to re-election, just like Al-Qaeda is on the run, which of coarse it isn't, unless one sees involvement in Libya , Syria and Egypt on the run to gain control!!!

    September 5, 2013 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  4. Rudy NYC

    If there is evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons, then let their be a war crimes trial in the The Hague. I say try the man in abstentia if need be. How I wish it could be done. I think the biggest stumbling block to actually conducting a trial *right now* would the U.S. revealing its' classified intellgence. A trial would likely have to rely almost exclusively on U.N. intel.

    September 5, 2013 02:58 pm at 2:58 pm |
  5. TONE

    There is proof that Assad used chemical weapons on it's people.Just recently UK scientist comfirmed this but the dems and rethugs want to give the President a hard time. why didn't they stand up to bush who had no evidence that Iraq had wmd. i guess lies about wmds are good enough to take us to war but the truth backed up by evidence is not good enough or is it because this president is black.

    September 5, 2013 03:05 pm at 3:05 pm |
  6. jsmoulder

    @tone the UK said what chemical was used not who used it.

    September 5, 2013 03:24 pm at 3:24 pm |
  7. Rudy NYC

    Tone asked:

    ... ... ... why didn't they stand up to bush who had no evidence that Iraq had wmd. ... ... ...
    --------------------
    I recall that the Bush administration had specifically stated that for national security reasons that they could not disclose the exact nature of the evidence publicly. As to what exactly was said within the classified briefings for members of Congress, I have no idea. But it wouldn't surprise me if the briefings consisted of isolated facts and figures, woven together through a slick narrative, and ending with a disclaimer on revealing their sources similar to what was said in public.

    September 5, 2013 03:31 pm at 3:31 pm |
  8. Fair is Fair

    TONE

    There is proof that Assad used chemical weapons on it's people.Just recently UK scientist comfirmed this but the dems and rethugs want to give the President a hard time. why didn't they stand up to bush who had no evidence that Iraq had wmd. i guess lies about wmds are good enough to take us to war but the truth backed up by evidence is not good enough or is it because this president is black.
    -------
    I don't think there's any question that the stuff was used. The question that's up for debate is what is / are the appropriate measure(s) to take as a response, who should be taking them, and with the support of which allies and / or the United Nations. From reading the article, it appears that there are members of the Congressional Black Caucus that are against military measures, so I really don't think that they're opposed because of the color of the President's skin.

    September 5, 2013 03:33 pm at 3:33 pm |
  9. just saying

    if obama hadn't uttered his infamous red line statement, he wouldn't be doing this. he'd be busy out on the golf course. assad called his weak bluff and now obama is looking even weaker than assad had hoped. it is pretty sad and pathetic that obama can't even get a hand full of countries to support him. even many in his own party won't support him. at this point, obama is a lame duck deluxe. and if he attacks syria with no support or approval, the democrats can kiss 2014 and 2016 elections good bye. the democrats will be cooked. but what does obama care? he doesn't have to run again and as we all have seen, it is always about him.

    September 5, 2013 03:37 pm at 3:37 pm |
  10. Ol' Yeller

    You go TONE! That is a very good question I have asked around my office myself. Why is lack of evidence backed, while proof is not? There must be a 'logical' reason for that and if it isn't because they are playing politics (which I think they are to large extent – the talking points for the repugs now includes throwing Powell under the bus; as if he were the only repug spinning the intel) then what is it? Betting you won't get a 'logical' answer on here.

    September 5, 2013 03:40 pm at 3:40 pm |
  11. Evergreen

    As Americans we feel an obligation to protect the innocent and support the good guys fight against evil. However in Syria there are no good guys. That is the problem for us, our President and our allies.

    September 5, 2013 03:53 pm at 3:53 pm |
  12. Silence DoGood

    @data driven "Why? And why Syria?"
    here's the plan for our past and current corporate presidents:
    Iraq – oil – attack
    Libya – oil stability – attack
    Somolia – no oil – ignore the suffering
    Syria – oil stability – attack

    I see some kind of pattern here.....

    September 5, 2013 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  13. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    I don't think there's any question that the stuff was used. The question that's up for debate is what is / are the appropriate measure(s) to take as a response, who should be taking them, and with the support of which allies and / or the United Nations.
    -----------------------
    You skipped over a major question. You're getting ahead of the facts. Before you reach that point you have ask, "Who?"

    Who actually introduced the weapons into the area? Who ordered putting the weaopns to use, whether it was intentional or accidental?

    September 5, 2013 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  14. Jules

    I donate to a lot of Democrats across the country during the election season – House and Senate alike. I will not only be watching the IL reps and how they vote, but those I have financially contributed to across the country. If they do not support the president on this vote I will save a lot of money leading up to the 2014 election. A no vote to support the president means a no to their requests for financial contributions.

    September 5, 2013 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  15. Rudy NYC

    here's the plan for our past and current corporate presidents:
    Iraq – oil – attack
    Libya – oil stability – attack
    Somolia – no oil – ignore the suffering
    Syria – oil stability – attack

    I see some kind of pattern here.....
    -------------------------
    I see a pattern of lies being woven. Syria has no significant oil exports. It's value to Russia is that it allows the Russian navy access to a warm water port. If you do not understand the significance of that, then I suggest you do your homework. You can start by lookng at what type of ships made up the Soviet navy prior to its' breakup. Here's hint: submarines that traveled under the polar ice cap.

    September 5, 2013 04:13 pm at 4:13 pm |