Obama to Seek Congressional Vote on Syria Strike

President Says He Is Prepared to Order Military Action, but Wants Support First From Lawmakers

By CAROL E. LEE and ADAM ENTOUS, Updated August 31, 2013, 4:55 p.m. ET, Source

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama said he has decided he should order limited military strikes against Syria, but in a move laden with political and diplomatic implications, he also agreed in an about-face to solicit authorization for the mission from Congress.

Mr. Obama's announcement in a Rose Garden statement brought an unusually sudden halt to a military mobilization that for days has appeared on the cusp of a limited bombardment of Syria as punishment for its alleged use of chemical weapons Aug. 21.

It also marked a jarring shift as president for Mr. Obama, whose senior aides have been saying that he would not seek congressional authorization and that he had the legal right to order the start of military strikes.

Mr. Obama said legislative leaders have agreed to hold a debate and a vote on the issue as soon as Congress returns, which currently is scheduled to be Sept. 9. Leaders in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority, considered calling the chamber back to session before then.

The move places the president's Syria policy on an unknown course, subjecting it to a certain showdown on Capitol Hill where lawmakers are deeply divided on the issue and even more so over Mr. Obama himself.

By agreeing to a congressional debate, Mr. Obama faces some amount of risk that he will be handed a defeat by legislators, like that suffered by British Prime Minister David Cameron over Syria this past week.

By assuming that risk, Mr. Obama also faces the possibility of some consternation from U.S. allies, who have been pressed by the administration for support for its aims in Syria.

U.S. ambassadors had fanned out across the Middle East as they tried to prod Arab leaders for backing. Ambassadors have shared with Middle Eastern allies the administration's case for intervening, including intelligence about intercepted communications which the U.S. says shows the Assad regime directed the chemical weapons attack.

The Arab League took the step of moving up a planned meeting by two days, agreeing to meet on Sunday as they considered the possibility of new U.S. military action in their region.

However, the delay also could provide time to assemble the international support and to cement a military alliance on Syria with France, which has signaled it is willing to join the U.S.

Regardless of the potential consequences, Mr. Obama said he looked forward to discussing the Syria crisis with Congress and brushed off a growing body of criticism over his handling of the 2 ½-year-old civil war.

"I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets," Mr. Obama said, appearing alongside Vice President Joe Biden. "While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual."

Mr. Obama did not respond to a question about whether he would order military action even if Congress voted it down.

He said pursuing congressional approval will not diminish the effectiveness of U.S. action, which he said would be of "limited duration and scope."

Not acting in Syria could lead to an escalation of chemical-weapons use and increase national security threats to the U.S., he argued, and embolden others to resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Obama's shift came as he faced mounting pressure from members of both parties to seek a congressional authorization for military action, a procedure he advocated as a presidential candidate. More than 100 lawmakers signed a letter urging him to do so in the case of Syria. Some lawmakers have said they oppose a military response, while others—including House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), have demanded more information about any U.S. mission in advance of a presidential order.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) welcomed Mr. Obama's decision Saturday. "The president's role as commander-in-chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress," Mr. McConnell said in a statement.

Others, however, called the move a decided step back from a strenuous response to Syria.

"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents," said Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.). "The president doesn't need 535 members of Congress to enforce his own red line."

The legislative effort is likely to consume a great deal of political energy and throws the issue open to debate over the scope and goals of the U.S. action. The Obama administration wants to conduct a limited military campaign to "deter and degrade" the country's chemical weapons capabilities.

But GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said they can't support such strikes because it won't significantly change momentum on the battlefield, where the forces of President Bashar al-Assad are locked in a standoff with rebels.

To work through such questions, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) said the House should go back into session immediately.

Some GOP lawmakers questioned whether the White House was still resolved to act.

"I hope this is not a case of them having second thoughts and using Congress as a foil," said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. Boehner applauded the move to seek congressional authorization, but said a House vote would take place the week of Sept. 9. "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised," he said.

Top administration officials already were seeking to smooth over congressional concerns about a new military operation in the Middle East by briefing lawmakers on the underlying intelligence and strike planning.

Republican members of the House were notified Saturday in an email that administration officials delivered classified intelligence to the Capitol late Friday night for House members to review. Administration officials are also briefing Senate Democrats and Republicans Saturday afternoon about Syria, congressional officials said.

—Corey Boles, Janet Hook and Jared A. Favole in Washington contributed to this article.

Obama worried too much about his Nobel Peace Prize that he become too careful and careless. He will lose the window of opportunity to accomplished his surgical mission if decided to strike one or two week later. If he don't get congressional approval then what? I think Syria used chemical weapon on purpose to test the American will. Obama said a year ago if Syria use unconventional weapon then it would cross the red line. Well, they used it more than once. Obama is making a mockery of America. 

Let Asj tell you what Obama need to grow?  

It has not been unquestionably proven who committed such unacceptable actions.

If Obama said he has all the hard facts to strike Syria, it means he has evidence that Syrian regime used it. Isn't that so? America has satellite in space spying on Syrian activity since the war began. Two days ago they send a secret military spy satellite and no one can verify that? I think Syria should gassed America's allies in the region and teach them a good lesson, especially, Israel. I am agreeing with asj right now. Obama is a pu$$y.

What were the "facts" on Iraq having WMD?

WMD is the Bush man facts                                                            

Obama facts came from reliable intelligence. But he's still a coward to even slap Assad and come back.  

"Reliable sources", the same as for Bush.

D_G, on a serious note:

We can't mix oranges with apples when it comes to fact findings on International matters of WMD's. Agree, the Iraq WMD put America at odds with the International coalition and their respective countries. This is why many American allies are not taking the chance to jump the gun.

Does facts really matter?

What if the facts on Syria is true? Sit back and do nothing?

Are we going to take what happened in Iraq to denied every other facts to be false? 

Obama said today:

He is the commander-in-Chief and he is ready to action at anytime "which mean" to protect America's national security in the region and at home: "which means" The red line is crossed for Syria to used chemical weapon: "which mean" he don't need congressional approval to protect American National Security Interest: (BUT) He just wants to wait further to brief congress and get their approval. He changed his mind.

Obama Mission:

Was said to be surgical strikes against Syria to eliminate their military instillation and government facility so that Assad wouldn't be able to use chemical weapon again.

Congressional Approval:

Why does Obama want congressional approval for something he can do without the blessings of congress and the United Nations?

Assumptions:

I think Obama knows that this time it may not be a slap in the face and walk out, but is might be easier to get in and difficult to get out. It could be a trap to get American to be drawn into a regional conflict that may required an exit strategy. I think he needs congregational approval just in case this strike blows out of proportion and become an all out war. What do you think?  

D-G, the WMD question in Iraq can have a preponderance of evidence from programs, from matérial, from this and from that. Until you touch it and feel it it is not 100%. We knew then and we know now that the evidence was cooked and "Curveball" was the game-changer and we know what a dog he was.

In Syria, forget all the surveillance and spying and digital intercepts of communications and gas masks being worn by Syrian soldiers. What we have is the evidence that you can touch and feel. EVERYBODY reported it - Doctors without Borders suffered 10 gas injuries and 1 death. The BBC had people on the ground and they reported it. The difference here D-G is not to inferentially or deductively decide whether WMD existed in Iraq in 2003. Here we see, smell and feel the evidence. Obama does not need to resort to shenanigans. Now I know you want to believe that it is Obama or the Israelis who planted the gas to put blame on Assad. Or Assad did it to invite the US response and say, see it's the rebels who did it and a sovereign country comes under attack.

You see D-G you made up your mind long ago that any force fighting the US in the Middle East (Osama, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, Shiites, etc.) is right and the US is wrong.

Indeed unlike Iraq 2003, Syria 2013 is not an invasion. It is not even regime change. It is a point solution - YOU CANNOT MAKE OR USE WMD - in this case gas.

The issue thus far is- what if this, that, the other, deh tarrah, etc..

There are currently no indisputable facts; simply assumptions and finger pointing.

Until authoritative sources verify the facts, the situation is no different than Iraq.

You are absolutely wrong and cobbling words to incorrectly misinterpret and label me.

It is your choice to continue with this/your distortion.

Again, you have neither shown nor proved -- who is responsible and indeed created this event.

Well, let us see if President Barack Obama will proceed without the approval of Congress and/or the House of Representatives.

Note your -- the mission is to protect America's national security in the region and at home.

Did you miss this in the post?

Now I know you want to believe that it is Obama or the Israelis who planted the gas to put blame on Assad. Or Assad did it to invite the US response and say, see it's the rebels who did it and a sovereign country comes under attack.

Brilliant strategic move by President Obama on two fronts – (i) by feinting an imminent attack only to push it back the US military saw how Assad’s military maneuvered; and (ii) he’s sending Iran a message by involving Congress. Yes, the US President never outsources foreign policy to Congress, but in this case Obama is a brilliant tactician also.

The British Parliament saw Bush cried wolf in Iraq and just like the overhang of Vietnam led to a delay in Bosnia, so too a hangover from Iraq is causing doubts about Syria.

The over-riding point about this response is the WMD question. This Syrian attack is a message to North Korea, Iran and others on WMD – whether nuclear or gas – will not be tolerated. Gas strikes a damaging nerve (no pun intended) since the 1^st world war and the holocaust.

We will see what Congress and the U.S politicians would do in the coming days.

Which other countries have WMD?

Possibly, US_of_A, Russia, France, Britain, China, etc., etc., etc.?