|
Updated
6:23 PM ET, Tue February 10, 2015
Can Obama
drop bombs without Congress' OK? 01:58
Washington
(CNN) Lawmakers
on both sides of the aisle expressed concern on
Tuesday, as details of the Obama administration's long-awaited request to
authorize the use of military force against ISIS
spread through the halls of Congress.
Early
reaction from senators indicated that President Barack Obama may be caught
in a Catch-22 of sorts, torn between Democrats worried about giving him too
much power, and Republicans leery of constraining him.
It's clear
that despite bipartisan desire for Congress to debate and pass the war
authority measure, or AUMF, coming up with specifics that will please
enough lawmakers in both parties to actually pass will not be easy.
The White
House is requesting that Congress formally approve the plan - enhancing
Obama's legal authority to combat the terror group - which he's been doing
under authorizations that originated in the wake of the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks.
The new
measure is expected to be limited to three years and focused on combating
just ISIS. It would also repeal a 2002 measure that approved military
action in Iraq, while leaving a 2001 authorization to fight al Qaeda
intact. Senators are expecting to receive the text of the latest AUMF
on Thursday.
White House
officials, including the President's chief counsel Neil Eggleston, joined
Senate Democrats' weekly policy lunch to give a closed-door briefing on
what to expect.
Several
Democratic senators coming out of the briefing told CNN there was concern
expressed during the lunch about the language the administration is
proposing when it comes to the role of US ground troops. The AUMF is
expected to include a provision barring "enduring offensive ground
operations."
"That
to me is the crux of our debate. What does it mean? How long and how big is
enduring?" said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's
No. 2 Democrat.
"We
have some legitimate questions as to whether we open this up with a
loophole that could lead to another major war," he said.
Maine Sen. Angus
King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the term was meant
to restrict the size and aims of the military presence the US would deploy
against ISIS.
"It's
an attempt to distinguish between, for example, special forces going in for
a particular purpose, for a few days, or defensive forces defending an
American facility, versus long-term deployment of ground troops," he
said. "It's going to take some discussion to determine whether
it's the right term."
Some Senate
Democrats said flat-out they were not satisfied with the language to begin
with. Connecticut's Chris Murphy said the restriction was too vague.
"For
many of us it's going to be tough to swallow restrictions on ground troops
that [do not] seem to be much of a restriction at all," he said. "This
would have to be changed dramatically for me to support it."
And
Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski, of Maryland, complained of the same.
"I do
not know what the word 'enduring' means. I'm very apprehensive about a
vague, foggy word and enduring is not in the eyes of the beholder,"
she said.
Obama -
first elected president on a campaign to withdraw troops from Iraq - has
consistently tried to limit US military engagement in the Middle East
throughout his presidency.
But
Republicans argue the emerging contours of the AUMF indicate the President
is tying his own hands too much, setting a dangerous precedent.
Sen. John
McCain said he was fine with the three-year limit, but blasted the rest of
the administration's proposal as "totally not acceptable, and
unconstitutional in my view," because he said it may constrain the
possible actions the President can take to combat ISIS .
"If we
want to curtail the action of the commander-in-chief than we can do it
through the appropriations process - not through acting to dictate what
actions the President of the United States can take militarily," he
said.
McCain, who
chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he made his position known
to the White House on this issue.
"It
has never happened, it has never happened and never will, as long as I'm able
to breathe," McCain said of restricting the actions of future
presidents.
McCain said
he was working with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker,
adding that his committee may also weigh in on the measure.
South
Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said he had spoken with the White House
earlier Tuesday and his sticking point was the scope of the authorization,
as he understood it, which he said would not allow the US to protect its
forces against attacks by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad .
"If
you train the Free Syrian Army - one, we'll never train enough of them to
matter at this rate [and two], they go in on the ground just to fight ISIL,
Assad will attack them, because one day they 'll come [Assad's] way,
"Graham said.
Graham said
if the war authority "does not allow us to counter Assad's air power,
then we'll fail."
Even
Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who wants restrictions on ground
troops, acknowledged it is highly unusual for a president to request
military authority that restricts his own powers.
"Part
of the feedback they're getting is that, from some members, unless that is
further defined, that will be seen as too big a statement to ultimately
embrace because - forget about Barack Obama - there will be a new president
in two years and this authorization will go into that new presidency,
"he said as he left the White House briefing.
But the
timing on the eventual vote remains murky, as the White House has promised
to take into consideration lawmakers' concerns before it finalizes the text
of the AUMF.
"The
final text of the AUMF and timing for delivery will not be locked until we
are able to complete these robust consultations and consider all of the
feedback we have received," a source familiar with the White House's
outreach to Capitol Hill said.
CNN's Jim
Acosta, Ted Barrett, Deirdre Walsh, Athena Jones and Eric Bradner
contributed to this report.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment