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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: “Aurora Has Fallen”–Boebert, Gabe Evans Board The Crazy Tren
BY: ParkHill
IN: “Aurora Has Fallen”–Boebert, Gabe Evans Board The Crazy Tren
BY: Genghis
IN: “Aurora Has Fallen”–Boebert, Gabe Evans Board The Crazy Tren
BY: spaceman2021
IN: “Aurora Has Fallen”–Boebert, Gabe Evans Board The Crazy Tren
BY: Gilpin Guy
IN: “Aurora Has Fallen”–Boebert, Gabe Evans Board The Crazy Tren
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: “Aurora Has Fallen”–Boebert, Gabe Evans Board The Crazy Tren
BY: Genghis
IN: Boebert’s Most Horrifying “Resurfaced” Video Yet?
BY: harrydoby
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
The US strike will apparently involve hundreds of Cruise/Tomahawk missiles.
What happens if Hezbollah retaliates against Israel?
What happens if Syria uses chemical weapons again?
The latest Congressional resolution does nothing to prevent escalation beyond placing a limit on the number of days a first strike can be made. Clearly, an extension would be granted if retaliation occurs. In fact, this is fodder for late night comics. David Letterman started a joke with, "We are about to attack Syria and our leaders are saying it will only last two days." The audience burst out in laughter and he didn't even deliver a punch line!
The Free Syrian Army is the only "friendly" rebel group in Syria (and I'd have to learn a lot more about them before I would agree that they are worthy of US support). Otherwise, we have Assad (and Iran) on one side, and Al Queda-related groups on the other side. So, other than possibly the FSA, both sides hate the US! That is ridiculous.
Yet again, we are about to enter a war where there is no clear definition of success. Don't do it. Please.
This is almost exactly how I feel.
John Kerry keeps saying that the president "isn't asking America to go to war." How not? If we attack Syria, Syria will retaliate. What then?
This is where the calculation of targets comes in, I think. What can we take out of Syria's military system that is sufficient to send the message, yet either not sufficient to provoke retaliatory strikes or debilitating enough that they'd think twice about it?
The two answers are probably: (1) something directly related to chemical weapons capabilities or the units that were involved in the attack, and (2) their air defense network. Unless Assad is completely mad, he is probably at least embarrassed by the chemical attack; striking directly at that might give him at least a private "out". On the other end, if his air defense network is taken out, it won't make a difference to the civil war, but it would make a huge difference if he tries to retaliate against anyone, US or other (e.g. Israel). No air defense means his forces are extremely vulnerable to future air attacks.
Let's hope that Obama spends as much time going over options for this as he did when he ordered the strike on Osama bin Laden.