If you’re like most Americans, you’re depressed, frightened, tired, and/or angry in response to the Syria talk. It’s been a discouraging and painful slog through our national wounds, most notably our Post Traumatic Bush Disorder.
But something great happened on CNN’s State of the Union. Democrats Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) discussed the reasons for their votes on limited military strikes in Syria. They were not all in agreement, and all of them freely addressed their concerns and the concerns of their constituents.
Clip of the debate among Democrats:
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
Transcript from CNN (emphasis mine):
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D), DELAWARE: I think it was vital for me to move to a place of support first that we had intelligence briefings that answered my questions and my skepticism about whether or not the Assad regime was responsible, but second that we amended the resolution.
I would not have supported it as it initially came over from the White House, but the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate acted this past week to narrow it so that it was clear no boots on the ground, limited in terms of scope, and limited in terms of purpose.
Snip
And I’ve heard from many of my constituents that they’re really concerned. But I’m increasingly comfortable that we have addressed legitimate questions about whether this is a repeat of Iraq.
CROWLEY: The president is going to give his address, we are told now, at 9:00 Eastern on Tuesday night. It is going to be covered by all the networks. Obviously CNN will be covering it.
Does he not have to say here’s how I know the Syrian government did this to its own people?
REP. GERRY CONNOLLY (D), VIRGINIA: Yes, I think he does in much more detail. I think he also has to help the country understand that the analogy of Iraq, while totally understandable, is not the right analogy. The right analogy, it seems to me, really is something more recent in our history, which is Kosovo and the war in the Balkans.
Snip
And I include in that the White House resolution submitted to the Congress. It’s too open-ended. So the wording matters a lot. I’ve drafted, with Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a very restrictive resolution that only addresses this tragic incident and only on a limited basis.
Whether that can — anything can pass the House frankly is quite problematic. But let me just say I frame this issue as a matter international law. I recognize the United States as the indispensable player, whether we like it or not, and that the consequences of doing nothing are profound, moral, and will be for generations.
Snip
CROWLEY: And let me just ask you quickly, this is the biggest foreign policy request that this president has ever asked of you all. You are a member of his party, you are a strong supporter. He is the president. He’s the commander-in-chief. He’s the leader of the Western world, and the only superpower. And you’re going to have to look him in the eye and say no.
Do you worry that a defeat for the president cripples him in a way that also cripples the country and its prestige in the world?
REP. BARBARA LEE (D), CALIFORNIA (who is voting no as of now): I have supported the president from day one. Let me say that what I worry about is becoming even more isolated in the world if in fact we do not have the full backing of the international community and in fact if we don’t give this time to look at all of the non- military approaches and strategies that could lead us toward a political and negotiated settlement.
I don’t think that the public wants to see anymore violence and death and destruction in Syria. And also inserting ourselves into a civil war I think would be very, very dangerous for this administration.
Snip
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D), DELAWARE: I’ve heard a lot of concerns from Delawareans and from folks all over the country that we not repeat the mistakes of Iraq. And we did initially say no to the president in terms of adopting his authorization as it was sent over. We’ve modified it; we’ve narrowed it.
Snip
Our challenge as members of Congress is not to look at the partisan politics, not to weigh whether this is good or bad for the president or Republicans or Democrats but whether it’s in the best interests of the United States.
End transcript.
This doesn’t seem like a victory for democracy unless you sat out the lead up to Iraq. Dissent was not allowed, and the press helped Republicans brow beat reluctant Democrats and Republicans into Iraq votes with no evidence. Instead, Republicans made the case on TV with threatening rhetoric about mushroom clouds. The same could be done on Syria, especially if you’ve seen the videos. But instead, we’re getting a retraction in presidential power and vigorous debate, at least among Democrats.
Some Republicans are stuck on their hamster wheel of Obama hate. Republicans capable of debating actual issues are pushing for a full out boots on the ground regime change style invasion or supporting the President out of fear of a loss of executive powers.
We just demanded a dialogue, a check on presidential power (given to us by a Democrat) and on our representatives. We forced them to examine the evidence and not just take the administration’s word on it (let’s see if this holds under a Republican administration- not likely). CNN’s Jake Tapper ran the Syria videos shown to the Senate Intelligence Committee with the repeated disclaimer that we don’t have evidence that Assad perpetrated the attack.
(Note the difference with ABC’s unquestioned and undisclosed shilling for Republicans on Benghazi, which continues to this day.)
The dialogue is not being driven with a “You’re either with us or against us” threat, and dissenters are not being labeled unpatriotic.
Assad, who refused to allow the UN into certain areas to inspect for chemical weapons, gave an interview to CBS that will air Monday in which he urged Americans to contact their congressional representatives to tell them to vote no on Syria. Certainly Obama could pull a Bush and accuse those who aren’t voting yes of giving Assad what he is demanding, but it’s Republicans like Ted Cruz who are crazily accusing the President of giving aid to the enemy.
We used skepticism to examine and sift the motives and consequences. Senators took great care to limit the authorization, instead of offering something that could later be used as blank slate as Bush did with Iraq. We’ve demanded evidence that chemical weapons were used and that Assad is behind the chemical weapons attacks.
Having a debate instead of a President Decider is a huge victory for democracy. No one is noticing this right now because of the grim subject matter, but it is already a change for the better.
Listen to Sarah on the PoliticusUSA Pod on The Daily newsletter podcast here.
Sarah has been credentialed to cover President Barack Obama, then VP Joe Biden, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and exclusively interviewed Speaker Nancy Pelosi multiple times and exclusively covered her first home appearance after the first impeachment of then President Donald Trump.
Sarah is two-time Telly award winning video producer and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Connect with Sarah on Post, Mastodon @PoliticusSarah@Journa.Host, & Twitter.
