|
| Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, left, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, right, arrive for a closed-door intelligence briefing with members of the House of Representatives on the situation in Syria, at the Capitol, in Washington, Monday, Sept. 9, 2013. It is the first full day of legislative business for Congress as lawmakers return from the August recess and President Barack Obama is seeking congressional approval for a military strike against Syria for its use of chemical weapons in the civil war. |
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- Battling stiff resistance in Congress, President Barack Obama
conceded Monday night he might lose his fight for congressional support
of a military strike against Syria, and declined to say what he would do
if lawmakers reject his call to back retaliation for a chemical weapons
attack last month.
The president made his
comment as a glimmer of a possible diplomatic solution appeared after
months of defiance from the Russian-backed government of President
Bashar Assad in Syria. In a rapid response, Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid cited "international discussions" in unexpectedly postponing a
test vote originally set for Wednesday on Obama's call for legislation
backing a military strike.
In a series of six
network interviews planned as part of a furious lobbying campaign in
Congress, Obama said statements suggesting that Syria might agree to
surrender control of its chemical weapons stockpile were a potentially
positive development.
At the same time, he said they were yet another reason for lawmakers to give him the backing he is seeking.
"If
we don't maintain and move forward with a credible threat of military
pressure, I do not think we will actually get the kind of agreement I
would like to see," he said on CNN.
In a
separate interview with NBC, the president took the step - unusual for
any politician - of conceding he may lose his campaign in Congress for
legislation authorizing a military strike.
"I
think it's fair to say that I haven't decided" on a next step if
Congress turns its back, the president said in an NBC interview, part of
a furious lobbying campaign aimed at winning support from dubious
lawmakers as well as a war-weary public.
The
president picked up a smattering of support but also suffered a reversal
when Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican, announced he had
switched from a backer of military action to an opponent.
"They're
in tough shape. It is getting late," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.,
after he and other lawmakers emerged from a closed-door meeting with
administration officials. The New York Republican favors the legislation
that Obama wants, but he said the president didn't need to seek it and
now must show that a strike "is in America's national security
interest."
Classified briefings for lawmakers
just back from vacation, the public release of cringe-inducing videos of
men, women and children writing in agony from the evident effects of
chemical gas, and a half-dozen network news interviews featuring Obama
were folded into the White House bid to avert a humiliating defeat over
the next 10 days. Obama met with members of the Congressional Black
Caucus during the day, and arranged a trip to the Capitol as well as a
prime time speech from the White House on Tuesday.
In the Senate, Reid said he had discussed a delay in Wednesday's scheduled initial vote with the president.
Earlier, Reid had spoken strongly in support of the president's request.
"Today,
many Americans say that these atrocities are none of our business, that
they're not our concern," the Nevada Democrat said of Assad's alleged
gassing of civilians on Aug. 21. "I disagree. Any time the powerful
turn such weapons of terror and destruction against the powerless, it is
our business."
Others came down on the other side of the question.
"I
will vote `no' because of too much uncertainly about what comes next,"
said Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican. "After Step A, what
will be steps B, C, D and E?" he added, reflecting concerns that even
the limited action Obama was contemplating could lead to a wider war.
Missouri Republican Roy Blunt also announced his opposition.
In the House, one of two female Iraq war veterans in Congress announced opposition to military strikes.
"As
a soldier, I understand that before taking any military action, our
nation must have a clear tactical objective, a realistic strategy, the
necessary resources to execute that strategy, including the support of
the American people, and an exit plan," said Rep. Tulsi Gabbard,
D-Hawaii. She said Obama's plan "fails to meet any of these criteria."
Legislation
approved in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week would give
Obama a maximum of 90 days to carry out a military attack, and it
includes a ban on combat operations on the ground in Syria.
Both of
those limitations were last-minute concessions to critics of a military
option, and it was unclear whether Reid would seek additional changes to
build support.
Despite the difficulty
confronting Obama, an AP survey indicated the issue was hardly hopeless
for the president, particularly in the Senate where Democrats maintain a
majority, and perhaps also in the Republican-controlled House.
The
survey showed 23 Senate votes in favor of military authorization and 10
more leaning that way. Opponents totaled 20, with another 14 leaning in
the same direction, with the remaining 33 senators undecided or
publicly uncommitted. That created at least the possibility of the
60-vote majority that will be necessary to advance the bill.
In
the House, there were fewer than a dozen declared in support and 150
opposed or leaning that way. But 201 lawmakers had yet to take a public
position, more than enough to swing the outcome either way.
The public opinion polling was daunting for the president and his team.
An
Associated Press poll showed that 61 percent of those surveyed want
Congress to vote against authorization of U.S. military strikes in Syria
and 26 percent want lawmakers to support such an action, with the
remainder undecided.
Adding to the uncertainty
of the debate in Congress was a flurry of diplomatic activity that
offered a potential way of achieving U. S. aims without military action.
Reacting
quickly to a comment made by Secretary of State John Kerry in London,
Russia called on Damascus to surrender control of its stockpile of
chemical weapons and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said he
welcomed the proposal.
At the White House,
Obama's deputy national security adviser, Tony Blinken, said the
administration will "take a hard look at" the proposal. "We're going to
talk to the Russians about it," he said noting pointedly that it comes
in the context of threatened U.S. military action. "So it's even more
important that we don't take the pressure off," he said, urging Congress
to give Obama the authority he seeks.
Other
officials sought to tamp down any suggestion that Kerry was making an
orchestrated effort with Russia to avoid the strikes.
The
all-out press for congressional support overshadowed the
administration's attempt to line up international backing, although the
White House said 14 more nations had signed on to a statement blaming
Assad's government for a chemical weapons attack and calling for a
strong international response. The document doesn't explicitly call for
military action against Syria, but administration officials say it's an
implicit endorsement because the U.S. is publicly discussing a
potential strike.
