My opinion on the matter is further down, but where does your Congressman stand on Barack Obama’s desire to bomb Syria? So far, half of Ohio’s delegation is still undecided. But of those who have indicated their position already, the count is 7 to 1 against military action in Syria. The list below is in alphabetical order.
John Boehner – Republican – Yes. Speaker Boehner announced support for the mission early on, and so far, is the only Ohio member to do so. I was personally dumbfounded that he announced support so quickly.
Steve Chabot – Republican – Undecided. Chabot had tough words for John Kerry, but he has lobbied for doing more to help the rebels in the past.
Marcia Fudge – Democrat – Undecided. Fudge is the chairwoman of the CBC, and the author of the request to CBC members to keep quiet.
Bob Gibbs – Republican – Leans No. “The President’s current plan does not meet the threshold for an authorization of military force resolution against Syria,”
Jim Jordan – Republican – Leans No. “Jordan, whose district includes Elyria and who voted against the Libya bombing, said in a written statement Tuesday that Obama would have to go a “long way” to convince him that bombing is a good idea.”
Bill Johnson – Republican – Leans No. “The decision on whether or not to commit American troops and risk American lives when the United States is not directly threatened is a difficult one, and the President has the heavy burden of convincing the Congress and the American people of its merits. I left this afternoon’s briefing with more questions and concerns than I had when I arrived.”
David Joyce – Republican – Unknown. Your guess is as good as mine here with this relatively new addition to the delegation. I have not been able to locate any indication from Joyce where he stands.
Marcy Kaptur – Democrat – Undecided. “Kaptur, who voted against the Iraq War and funding the bombing of Libya, said she was undecided on Syria. Kaptur condemned the Aug. 21 mass killings outside of Damascus, which are suspected to be from sarin gas. But she said she hadn’t seen proof the gassings were done by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s forces.”
Bob Latta – Republican – Undecided. “As we move forward with debate on this issue, I will look to the President to outline the facts to Congress and the American people, as well as his objectives and strategy as it pertains to that region.”
Jim Renacci – Republican – No. – “There can be no doubt that the use of chemical weapons is a horrific and deplorable act, one that should be rejected by the entire international community. However, I have waited for President Obama and his Administration to lay out a clear goal for American military action in Syria and to define our mission there. To date, I do not believe they have done so. In fact, the President has shown a shocking lack of leadership to this point, even before he punted the issue to Congress. I also maintain my deep concern that through these strikes we may assist some rebel groups that have been infiltrated by radical Islamist elements like Al Qaeda. Therefore, at this time I cannot vote to put American men and women in harm’s way in any capacity as it pertains to Syria.”
Tim Ryan – Democrat – Undecided – The raisin-fondler said, “What reduces the chances of innocent people getting killed?” said Ryan. “That’s what I really want to evaluate over the next week, because quite frankly, at this point, I don’t think we can make the situation any better.”
Steve Stivers – Republican – No. U.S. Rep. Steve Stivers, R-15th District, said he does not support an attack on Syria as a response to a chemical attack that killed hundreds in Syria recently. But he said he didn’t think it rose to the occasion for a military response from the United States. He said the “going it alone” strategy also was the wrong way to go about crafting a response. “I think the American people agree with me, with recent polling saying 80 percent do not want to see military action,” Stivers said.
Pat Tiberi – Republican – Leans No. U.S. Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Delaware County, reiterated Thursday that’s he leaning against supporting a Senate resolution backing military action in Syria, but noted that he’s yet to make a decision on how he’ll vote “because I need to hear the president’s case. As the commander in chief, I think, he’s botched this. I think he looks weak, I think he looks small, sending mixed messages. And so now it’s almost like we have to do it to back up what he says,” Tiberi said of Obama.
Mike Turner – Republican No. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), member of House Armed Services Committee, explained to “New Day” Anchor Kate Bolduan why he is against the administration’s military plan against the Syrian regime over chemical weapons. When Bolduan asked him if the sequester on defense spending, one of his reasons for not supporting military action, is a good enough reason, Rep. Turner said that it shows President’s “lack of leadership,” while acknowledging that the United States is “certainly capable” to carry out an attack.
Brad Wenstrup – Republican – Undecided. First-term Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Cincinnati is an Iraq war veteran who says the president hasn’t clearly made his case. He says he has a lot of unanswered questions and remains undecided, which reflects the position of most of the delegation.
Senators Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown are also undecided.
Personally, I am 100% against getting involved in the Syrian civil war. My main reason is that the people we would be helping are tied to Al Qaeda and consist largely of Islamists. We intervened in the Libyan civil war and helped radical Islamists to power there, too. We have been paid back by the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power and persecution of Christians in Egypt is another example of what I don’t want to see, and certainly don’t want to be a part of making happen.
The most eloquent argument against intervention that I’ve seen comes from Ed Morrissey of Hot Air.
The Obama administration has stumbled from one credibility crisis to the next on Syria, and now wants Congress to rescue Barack Obama from himself. Obama declares that the stated policy of the United States toward Syria is regime change, then dithers on how to effect it. Obama draws a red line, and then does nothing at all to prepare for the possibility that Bashar al-Assad might call his bluff.
This credibility crisis goes beyond Syria, however, and extends to the whole Arab Spring, for which Obama seemed all too pleased to take credit not terribly long ago. He demanded Hosni Mubarak’s ouster and quick elections in Egypt, which turned a stable American ally into a barely-contained disaster, and then has vacillated ever since on how to handle the crisis. Obama then led a NATO intervention in Libya while claiming not to want regime change, but ended up decapitating the Qaddafi regime anyway. That replaced a brutal dictatorship that was still cooperating with the West on counter-terrorism into a failed state that has allowed for a rapid expansion of radical Islamist terror networks through the whole region.
Now Obama wants to apply the Libya model to Syria, but cannot articulate a single American interest in launching a war. Syria has not attacked American interests or allies, nor is likely to do so. The most effective elements of the opposition in Syria are comprised of the very terrorist networks that we are presently fighting ourselves.
Be sure to click and read it all. Also note that this is my opinion only and doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinion of other 3BP contributors.