Minnesota's Mall of America was named this past weekend as a possible target of a terrorist attack in a one-hour video released by the militant Somali group al-Shabaab. Concern about such an attack could not be higher, especially following on the heels of terrorist attacks in France and Denmark. But that has not deterred congressional Republicans from playing games with America's security.
Republicans promised things would get better if they were put in charge of Congress. Yet, due to a lack of leadership and seemingly irresolvable differences among their members, they are holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which is set to run out this Friday.
What kind of game is this? Well, House Republicans, unhappy with President Barack Obama's executive order on immigration, have attached an amendment to the DHS funding bill that would stop the president's immigration action, which they consider illegal. The strategy was to have the DHS funding bill pass with the immigration amendment attached. If the president subsequently vetoed the measure he would be attacked for failing to protect the nation.
But the Republican measure has not been able to clear the Senate because Republicans do not have enough votes to avoid a filibuster. Democrats in Congress want a "clean bill" to fund DHS, one without any amendments. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. If DHS funding runs out thousands of its employees will be furloughed, while 170,000 essential personal will have to work without pay. "We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Monday evening, "We cannot shut down the Department of Homeland Security."
With Republicans facing increased criticism and blame for the impasse, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proposed an alternative strategy. He would allow a clean vote on the DHS funding bill, which is for one year, and then have a separate vote on a bill that would stop President Obama's executive actions on immigration. His goal would be to make Democrats, who did not favor the president's executive action, have to vote on the record.
But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was more concerned that House Republicans would not go along with the proposal. This is because House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) cannot control his own caucus. And, sure enough, with McConnell's proposal only hours old, conservative House members spoke out against the gambit. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) issued a statement saying, "The Senate Majority Leader’s plan to divorce the funding bill from the unlawful actions it is restricting is tantamount to surrender, and won’t meet with support in the People’s House."
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the man responsible for the 2013 government shutdown, issued a statement of his own. "Leadership's current plan -- to pass clean DHS funding and separate legislation barring executive amnesty -- is a mistake," Cruz said. "Congress is obliged to use every constitutional check and balance we have to rein in President Obama's lawlessness, and that includes both our confirmation authority over nominees and the power of the purse."
Last week a Texas federal judge halted implementation of the president's executive order on immigration. The case is likely to take some time to work its way through the courts. This has led many observers to wonder why Republicans just don't go ahead with a clean DHS funding bill and let the courts deal with the legality of the president's action on immigration.
That would seem like common sense, especially considering the increased terrorist threats. But common sense does not apply in Washington, least of all for congressional Republicans.
Showing posts with label house. Show all posts
Showing posts with label house. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Obama's Syrian Decision
As President Obama tries to rally support for a strike against Syria, he finds himself in a high stakes diplomatic chess match with no good outcome in sight. Mr. Obama's stand on principle for the prohibition of chemical weapons use and the maintenance of international norms puts at risk the future of his presidency and his legacy.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a ruthless dictator determined to destroy his opposition using every weapon in his arsenal. On Wednesday the New York Times said of Assad, "behind the veneer of normality, Mr. Assad has grown increasingly aggressive, declaring his determination to wipe out the opposition, insisting that he is standing against an imperialist enemy."
Syria's civil war has left more than 100 thousand civilians dead in that country. Two million war refugees have fled to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and about five million Syrians have had to flee their homes. Meanwhile, Assad has been able to turn the tide of momentum to his favor. His opposition is made up of a myriad of groups with differing ideologies and competing goals, which has made it difficult for America to provide military support. So rebel fighters are inadequately trained and poorly armed.
Perhaps emboldened by his improving position, Assad has resorted to chemical weapons to kill and demoralize his opponents. The United States has overwhelming and convincing evidence that he is behind the attack two weeks ago, which killed more than a thousand civilians, including several hundred children.
One year ago President Obama told a news conference, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." He concluded, “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” He did not specify any consequences at that news conference.
This past Saturday, the president announced he had decided on the consequences. “After careful deliberation I have decided the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Mr. Obama said. But he added that he would seek Congress's approval, even though he did not need to do so.
The president and key members of his administration have "flooded the zone" in search of congressional support, as well as the support of key allies. In a series of hearings, Secretary of Sate John Kerry has stressed that military action would not be directed a regime change, it would not be an open-ended intervention, nor would America put "boots on the ground" in Syria.
But the administration has to overcome great skepticism for its case from a congress that was burned ten years earlier by false evidence of weapons of mass destruction from President George W. Bush's administration as justification for invading Iraq. Meanwhile, according to recent polls, a war-weary American public is opposed to any military action against Syria.
There are no good options for the president. Failure to attack Syria will only further embolden Assad who will continue to massacre his own civilians, and it will spur Iran to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons. Worse, it will weaken America's standing in the world, at a time that Russia and China are expanding their ambitions.
On the other hand, a "limited" attack, which the president proposes, is unlikely to be effective in significantly degrading and deterring Syria's weapon's stockpile, much of which is hidden among civilians, or deter Assad from using them again and again if he becomes desperate. An American attack is certain to result in civilian casualties, set off a wave of terrorist strikes against Western nations and Syria's neighbors, and further demonize the U.S. among some people in the region.
On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved, by a 10-to-7 bipartisan vote, a resolution that would limit military strikes against the Syrian government to a 60-day window, with the possibility of a 30-day extension, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops. The full Senate is expected to take up the measure early next week. The prospects for success in the House of Representatives are uncertain. If Congress fails to pass the measure it would be seen as a huge international embarrassment for the president.
So momentum appears to be slowly building on Capitol Hill for support of military action against Assad's government, in part because it is the best choice from several bad options. If an attack is approved and carried out by American forces, many nations may not like it. But they will recognize that America, led by President Obama, has stood on a fundamental principle for the good of humanity.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a ruthless dictator determined to destroy his opposition using every weapon in his arsenal. On Wednesday the New York Times said of Assad, "behind the veneer of normality, Mr. Assad has grown increasingly aggressive, declaring his determination to wipe out the opposition, insisting that he is standing against an imperialist enemy."
Syria's civil war has left more than 100 thousand civilians dead in that country. Two million war refugees have fled to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and about five million Syrians have had to flee their homes. Meanwhile, Assad has been able to turn the tide of momentum to his favor. His opposition is made up of a myriad of groups with differing ideologies and competing goals, which has made it difficult for America to provide military support. So rebel fighters are inadequately trained and poorly armed.
Perhaps emboldened by his improving position, Assad has resorted to chemical weapons to kill and demoralize his opponents. The United States has overwhelming and convincing evidence that he is behind the attack two weeks ago, which killed more than a thousand civilians, including several hundred children.
One year ago President Obama told a news conference, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." He concluded, “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” He did not specify any consequences at that news conference.
This past Saturday, the president announced he had decided on the consequences. “After careful deliberation I have decided the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Mr. Obama said. But he added that he would seek Congress's approval, even though he did not need to do so.
The president and key members of his administration have "flooded the zone" in search of congressional support, as well as the support of key allies. In a series of hearings, Secretary of Sate John Kerry has stressed that military action would not be directed a regime change, it would not be an open-ended intervention, nor would America put "boots on the ground" in Syria.
But the administration has to overcome great skepticism for its case from a congress that was burned ten years earlier by false evidence of weapons of mass destruction from President George W. Bush's administration as justification for invading Iraq. Meanwhile, according to recent polls, a war-weary American public is opposed to any military action against Syria.
There are no good options for the president. Failure to attack Syria will only further embolden Assad who will continue to massacre his own civilians, and it will spur Iran to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons. Worse, it will weaken America's standing in the world, at a time that Russia and China are expanding their ambitions.
On the other hand, a "limited" attack, which the president proposes, is unlikely to be effective in significantly degrading and deterring Syria's weapon's stockpile, much of which is hidden among civilians, or deter Assad from using them again and again if he becomes desperate. An American attack is certain to result in civilian casualties, set off a wave of terrorist strikes against Western nations and Syria's neighbors, and further demonize the U.S. among some people in the region.
On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved, by a 10-to-7 bipartisan vote, a resolution that would limit military strikes against the Syrian government to a 60-day window, with the possibility of a 30-day extension, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops. The full Senate is expected to take up the measure early next week. The prospects for success in the House of Representatives are uncertain. If Congress fails to pass the measure it would be seen as a huge international embarrassment for the president.
So momentum appears to be slowly building on Capitol Hill for support of military action against Assad's government, in part because it is the best choice from several bad options. If an attack is approved and carried out by American forces, many nations may not like it. But they will recognize that America, led by President Obama, has stood on a fundamental principle for the good of humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)