ShareThis Page

Pa. members in Congress divided on strike on Syria

| Friday, Aug. 30, 2013, 12:05 a.m.
Demonstrators hold signs during a rally in opposition to the proposed military intervention against Syria in San Francisco, California August 29, 2013. U.S. officials suggested President Barack Obama would be willing to proceed with limited military action against Syria even without specific promises of allied support because U.S. national security interests are at stake.
AFP/Getty Images
Demonstrators march in protest during a rally against a possible US and allies attack on Syria in response to possible use of chemical weapons by the Assad government, in Lafayette Park in front of the White House in Washington, DC on August 29, 2013.
Getty Images
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest answers questions during the daily media briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House August 29, 2013 in Washington, DC. Earnest fielded questions from reporters about the Obama Administration's stance and response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
AFP/Getty Images
A UKIP (UK Independence Party) van drives past the Houses of Parliament with the slogan 'UKIP says no to war in Syria' on the side as members of Parliament take part in a debate about possible British military action against Syria, in central London on August 29, 2013. British Prime Minister David Cameron faced an uphill struggle on Thursday to secure parliament's approval for military intervention in Syria after the main opposition party said it would vote against the motion.
Israeli soldiers drive a tank at a staging area in the Golan Heights, near the border between the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights and Syria, Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013. United Nations experts are investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria as the United States and allies prepare for the possibility of a punitive strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, blamed by the Syrian opposition for the attack. The international aid group Doctors Without Borders says at least 355 people were killed in the Aug. 21 attack.
AFP/Getty Images
Activists take part in a pro-Syria demonstration outside the Syrian embassy in Caracas on August 29, 2013.

Members of the state's congressional delegation split on the wisdom of U.S. military attacks on Syria, with two Republicans questioning whether President Obama has the legal authority to order strikes.

The Obama administration briefed congressional leaders Thursday night on intelligence tying President Bashar Assad to an apparent chemical weapons strike on two Damascus suburbs Aug. 21. The strike wounded thousands and killed at least 355, according to the aid organization Doctors Without Borders.

“Taking no action in the face of this crime against humanity means not only will the Syrian regime be emboldened to conduct more chemical attacks against their own people, but ... the Iranian regime and Hezbollah (both of which have close ties to Assad) will be emboldened to use these chemical weapons in other places,” said Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Scranton.

The War Powers Resolution limits the president's ability to attack a country without a declaration of war by Congress, said Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair. Since Syria poses no imminent threat to the United States, and the United Nations Security Council has not sanctioned an attack, “I don't think the president has the legal authority” to start one on his own, Murphy said.

“He's able to do defensive things without congressional approval, but I'm seriously concerned about what's going to happen here,” Murphy said.

Obama said in recent interviews that he has not made up his mind to attack, but that any strike would be limited and would not involve deploying troops into the 2½-year-old Syrian civil war — a war whose fractious rebellion includes al-Qaida affiliates in addition to elements more friendly to the West. U.S. warships and submarines carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles are on standby in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

Murphy is among 140 in Congress who signed a Virginia congressman's letter urging Obama to seek congressional approval for military action, as British Prime Minister David Cameron did on Thursday.

“I'm ready to have an emergency session in Congress for us to come together,” Murphy said.

Obama has not publicly detailed the case for attacking Syria, beyond accusing Assad of violating longstanding international norms against chemical warfare, said Rep. Keith Rothfus, R-Sewickley.

Neither Rothfus nor Murphy expressed blanket opposition to attacking Syria, but both said Congress needs more information.

“We don't know what the military objective is going to be. We should not just have a fireworks show over there,” Rothfus said.

Cameron's attempt to win Parliament's support for immediate strikes failed, in part because of memories of faulty intelligence that led to the Iraq War. U.N. inspectors investigating the alleged chemical attack are due to leave Syria on Saturday.

Both Casey and White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed comparisons with the intelligence claims made in the run-up to the Iraq War, in which the Bush administration's claims of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be incorrect.

“The administration, of course, has access to intelligence that not everyone has access to. I think the public record is pretty clear, and I have no doubt that if I had a more thorough review of the intel that I would come to the same conclusion,” Casey said.

The Associated Press quoted several anonymous intelligence sources Thursday who described the intelligence as “not a slam dunk,” a reference to former CIA Director George Tenet's 2002 claim that the Iraqi WMD claim was a “slam dunk.”

“I know some people want to make the comparison to Iraq. Those historical comparisons are usually wrong,” Casey said. “I think we did learn lessons from Iraq, and that's why the administration has been deliberative in reaching its conclusion.”

Mike Wereschagin is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at 412-320-7900 or The Associated Press contributed to this report.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.