Not yet. But time is short
to keep it from happening at all.
For those determined to oppose a military strike against Syria, one obviously crucial step is knowing where members of Congress stand so we know where to focus attention. Those who already have made up their minds not to support a strike, thank-yous are in order. For the rest, some pressure needs to be applied.
Tim Murphy and Asawin Suebsaeng at Mother Jones have written a helpful capsule version of where various members stand and which "faction" they belong to. But we need a more thorough compilation.
To kick off the process, I've prepared a very short list of 25 members from six states together in some cases with a citation of their views on a military strike Syria. I ask that other Kossacks will seek out how their senators and representatives stand on the matter and add them in the comments thread. Sometime in the next 24 hours, with your help, I will publish a follow-up diary that includes the views of as many in Congress as have made their position known. The more complete we can make this list, the more valuable it will be.
Here's the short list:
Minnesota:
• Democratic Sen. Al Franken: Aye
• Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison: Aye. Interview—“If the facts warrant it, if the facts show that it was a gas attack authorized by the Assad regime, and if it’s true that there were 1,500 people killed. I just don't think the world can stand by and say that’s ok, that’s not our business, we don't have to worry about it.”
• Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum: Nay
• Democratic Rep. Rick Nolan: Nay
• Democratic Rep. Tim Walz: Leaning Nay. Interview—“The administration’s concern is that if you don’t give us enough leeway, we can’t fulfill what we need to do, which is to discourage the Assad regime from holding onto those weapons.
• Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann: Nay
• Republican Rep. Erik Paulsen: Nay. Statement—"I believe the president's request for military action in Syria is too broad, too open-ended, too risky and does not identify a clear U.S. national interest for military engagement and putting U.S. troops in harm's way."
New Jersey
• Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez: Aye. (He is chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Statement—“The mass atrocity committed by the Assad regime in grave violation of international law is searing to the soul and blinding to the eye. To allow a despot to gas (his) own population indiscriminately and with impunity is to fail our values and to compromise our freedoms. There is no fork in the road before us; there is no ambiguity to the evidence for the use of chemical weapons against the innocent brings us to a point of no return. The Syrian regime and others like it must understand that red lines are indelible; that our foes should never question the resolve of the United States: We say what we mean. We mean what we say and we don’t look away when undeniable war crimes are committed."
• Democratic Rep Frank J. Pallone Jr.: Undecided. Statement—“I appreciate the president’s decision to seek authorization from Congress regarding any action in Syria. Before making any decisions, Congress must be fully informed by the administration as to what the goals of any operation will be and how those goals will be accomplished. I will continue to reserve judgment on action in Syria until I learn what the specific authorization request will be.
• Democratic Rep. Rush Holt: Undecided. Statement—"The president is right to seek Congressional approval for any use of military force. I share his outrage over the atrocities taking place in Syria, and I will carefully review any and all materials he provides to Congress. I will expect, at the very least, to see clear evidence that a military strike would achieve well-defined objectives and would not escalate into another endless, costly, and ineffective American war. Let’s be absolutely clear. The approval of Congress is not a formality that the president may seek or ignore as he so pleases. Our constitution gives Congress the sole authority to declare war.”
• Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo: Undecided.
Connecticut
• Democratic Rep. Jim Himes: Leaning Nay. Interview—“I sense pretty much zero support for boots on the ground and in fact a great deal of skepticism for limited strikes. There are profoundly unanswered questions about effectiveness, about what happens next. I’m a long way from being a yes vote on even a narrow resolution.”
• Democratic Rep. John Larson: Leaning Nay. Interview—“I am not in favor of putting boots on the ground there. Before authorizing military action, Larson told a Hartford television station he wants to know “what our objective is and what our exit strategy is. I want to hear more in-depth why the administration thinks this is an imminent threat.”
• Democratic Rep. Joe Courtney: Undecided. Statement—"Last night, the administration took a good first step in crafting the U.S. reaction to the events in Syria by briefing Congressional leaders. While a course of action is still being formulated, I am pleased to hear that the administration is not considering any ground invasion or open-ended military commitment. After ten years and two wars in the Middle East, any indefinite commitment of our military forces is an unacceptable option.
• Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal: Undecided. Statement—"I'm pleased the President has heeded calls, including mine, for full Congressional consultation on the deplorable and horrific use of chemical weapons in Syria. I look forward to participating in the coming debate and hearing additional details and facts on a framework and strategy for an appropriate U.S. response."
New Mexico
• Republican Rep. Steve Pearce: Nay. Interview—“I commend the president on his decision to request congressional approval before committing the U.S. to action in Syria. I still believe intervention in Syria is a wrong and costly course. However, I look forward to reviewing all related materials, and to a thorough and detailed debate in Congress, where the issue should be decided.”
• Democratic Sen. Tom Udall: Undecided. Interview—“I remain opposed to arming the rebel forces and deeply concerned about Americans becoming further involved in the Syrian civil war, but I also believe the use of chemical weapons is an atrocity that must have consequences. The president and Congress should consult about an appropriate response, in collaboration with the international community, and if military strikes are proposed as an option, Congress should vote on whether to authorize the use of force.”
• Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich: Undecided. Statement from aide Whitney Potter—“He believes the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and warrants careful consideration of limited, military action by the United States,” Potter said. “However, Senator Heinrich has very serious concerns about entangling our troops in another Middle Eastern war and would strongly oppose putting U.S. troops in Syria.”
Pennsylvania
• Democratic Sen. Bob Casey: Aye. Interview—“It’s in our national security to make sure that both Iran and Hezbollah are not strengthened by what happened in Syria. But it’s also in our national security interest that chemical weapon use by any nation or any group at any time, is a threat to the world and a threat to our troops in the region and a threat to the American people.”
• Republican Sen. Pat Toomey: Leaning Aye. Statement—"Assad has used chemical weapons repeatedly in an indiscriminate slaughter of his own civilians. These weapons and his behavior pose a national security risk to the U.S. This calls for an American response, being mindful to avoid a long-term military engagement in the Syrian civil war."
• Republican Rep. Tim Murphy: Undecided. He told a reporter that he wanted “to know what plan, if any, exists to deal with potential retaliation from United States military strikes that could deepen and widen this conflict. Many questions must be answered if we are to move forward and go it alone.”
• Republican Rep. Charles W. Dent: Leaning Nay. Statement—"There are no good policy options for the United States in Syria. The best time for the United States to have been engaged with shaping events in Syria passed over a year ago. By avoiding the Syrian issue and 'outsourcing' the arming of opposition groups to other nations, the United States has very little influence or ability to shape the course of events in Syria."
Oregon
• Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader. Leaning Nay. Interview—He insisted that more international support is needed for a military strike. He called on the United Nations to lead the way. “Our security is not at stake. What we need right here at the Labor Day picnic is to create jobs and get our own economy going. We don’t want to spend any more damn money in some foreign country when people are suffering here at home.”
• Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden: Undecided. Statement—“The biggest challenge in my view, looking back at history, is—what are the options for our country after there is a strike particularly when there is a civil war?”
• Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley: Undecided. Interview—"We've got to make sure the facts are absolutely clear about what happened, not make another mistake like we did in Iraq," said Merkley, adding that "international support is an extremely vital part of this conversation." He noted that international law prohibits the use of chemical weapons and that he would be "extremely skeptical" about a military strike if the U.S. could not drum up international support.