WASHINGTON / ATLANTA -- Georgia's two U.S. Senators were still, as of Monday night, the only Georgians in Congress who were saying they will vote Yes to the President's proposal for a military strike against Syria.
The Senators, Republicans Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, may end up being the only two.
As the week begins, the President does not have a single Yes vote from any of Georgia's 14 House members. They are silent, or non-committal, or leaning No.
First, the five Georgia Democrats in the House --
Hank Johnson is saying he is "deeply skeptical that use of force in Syria is in our national interest."
David Scott is saying "we need to put a pause button on this.... not make the same mistakes we've made in Iraq."
The other three Democrats are silent:
John Lewis's office is saying that he wants more information.
Sanford Bishop has not released any statement at all.
John Barrow has also not released a statement. He tweeted on Saturday that he'd be going to Washington on Sunday for briefings, but on Monday he was in Appling, Georgia at a Labor Day picnic.
And the nine Georgia Republicans in the House --
Rob Woodall is saying, "with the facts that I know now, I do not support an American attack on Syria."
Jack Kingston is saying he is leaning No, because "the crisis in Syria poses no direct threat to the U.S."
Lynn Westmoreland is saying "the reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime... does not mean that the United States should intervene."
Tom Price is saying that the President has failed to articulate America's security interests.
Tom Graves is saying that he's waiting to see if the President can justify a military strike.
There are not any official statements at all from Doug Collins, Phil Gingrey, Paul Broun and Austin Scott, but their Facebook pages are full of comments urging them to vote No.
Given the overall, Red-State leanings of Georgia's electorate, combined with the anti-war voting records of pacifist Georgia Democrats in specific Districts such as the 4th and 5th of the Atlanta area, this may end up being one of the rare instances where all 14 of Georgia's House members vote alike, voting No, for different reasons, when the votes are taken later in the month.
__________
Here are the responses 11Alive News had gathered as of late Monday afternoon:
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) - via web site, 8/31
"It is appropriate for the president to seek authorization from Congress, although I wish he would have called us back to vote on this immediately rather than waiting until Sept. 9. I support the use of military action in Syria. If we fail to take strong action against Syria for this horrendous attack, then we are sending a signal to Syria as well as to Iran and North Korea that they are accountable to no one."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) - 8/31
"I believe the evidence is clear that the president's red-line was crossed long ago, and the United States must respond. However, while I appreciate the president seeking congressional approval, he should have already presented Congress with a strategy and objectives for military action, including what impact this will have on our allies and enemies alike in the region. Leadership is about reacting to a crisis, and quickly making the hard and tough decisions. The president should have demanded Congress return immediately and debate this most serious issue."
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R) - via web site, 9/2
"As most of you know, Syria is in the middle of a violent civil war. According to the latest media reports, the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against its own people and now President Obama is considering some type of a military intervention in Syria.
However, Article II, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly gives Congress, and not the president, the power to "provide for the common defense" and "to declare war." Therefore, any use of military force in or against Syria must be authorized by Congress. That is why I signed on to a letter with my colleagues in the House urging President Obama to "consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of US military force in Syria." We cannot allow this president to ignore the Constitution, once again, and get our country involved in what is clearly a religious-based civil war in an unstable region without authorization by Congress. It is our constitutional responsibility and I refuse to sit by and let President Obama trample all over our Constitution any more than he already has.
There is also a larger issue here as to whether or not the United States should so cavalierly be involving ourselves in every internal dispute in the Middle East. I agree that the reports out of Syria of the staggering death toll and the reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime are troubling. But that does not mean that the United States should intervene. This is a complicated situation and there are conflicting reports about exactly what is happening. While it is certainly not easy to sit back and watch some of what is being reported on the news, we should not get involved without all of the information. We do not want a repeat of what happened with US military intervention in Libya back in March 2011. Then, President Obama bypassed Congress - like he is attempting to do now - and directed the military to conduct missile strikes to enforce a no-fly zone. Eighteen months later, the Libyan Ambassador and four other Americans were brutally murdered in Libya. And now, more than two years later, that country is still unstable and the situation is not getting any better.
Until we are able to get accurate information about exactly who the rebels are and what their long-term plans are if they win out, the United States needs to be very careful about getting involved in Syria. And the president should not unilaterally make a decision that could involve our country in an unwinnable war."
Rep. Jack Kingston (R) - 8/29
"As the crisis in Syria poses no direct threat to the US, President Obama should seek congressional authorization before sending our troops."
Rep. Tom Price (R) - 9/2
"President Obama imposed his self-determined 'red line' over a year ago warning Syria that action would follow the use of chemical weapons. He then ignored the use of those same weapons this past spring. Clearly, leading from behind has consequences. It has been my firm stance that a vote must be taken in Congress to authorize the use of military force, and President Obama has stated that he will now seek congressional approval for military action in Syria. This new-found interest in what Congress thinks about anything is enormously welcome, and Congress will thoughtfully and deliberately evaluate information presented by the administration. It will require, however, that the president coherently present his rationale and strategic goals that may be accomplished by his plan. While we condemn the horrific murder of innocent people within Syria, the United States must determine whether or not our national security interest is best served by military intervention."
Rep. Robert Woodall (R) - via web site, 9/1
"Our Founding Fathers provided the President with the power as Commander-in-Chief to use our Armed Forces in the event of attacks against the United States and its interests. Sometimes when those attacks have occurred an immediate response by a President is required. Such is not the case with Syria. In Syria, the President created a "red line" and threatened action if it was crossed, and in doing so he backed America and himself into a corner. Now that we are in that corner, but with no immediate new threat to the American homeland, the President must not act alone. He should come to Congress immediately, not behind closed doors but in a special session for all Americans to see, and he must make his case for the involvement of American forces in Syria's civil war.
I joined a group of my colleagues in the House this week in sending a letter to the President expressing our commitment to have Congress reconvene immediately, should he feel military action is necessary, so that the voice of the American people can be heard on this issue. With the facts that I know now, I do not support an American attack on Syria, but if an attack is what the President wants, I welcome him to come to Capitol Hill and make his case to Congress and all of America."
Rep. Tom Graves (R) - via Facebook, 8/31
"I welcome the president's decision to seek congressional authorization for military action in Syria, and I look forward to the important national debate in the days ahead. In seeking support and legitimacy from Congress, President Obama must clearly explain to the American people what our objectives are in Syria and to what extent our military and treasury will be used to achieve those ends."
Rep. David Scott (D) - phone interview with 11Alive News, 9/2
"We need to put a pause button on this. This President does not need to be suckered into a situation where he's out there all alone. Before we commit any resources, any of our sons and daughters on the line, we want to make damn sure we know what we're doing and not make the same mistakes we've made in Iraq."
Rep. Hank Johnson (D) - 9/2
"I don't believe the President needs Congressional approval to conduct limited strikes in Syria, however I respect his decision to seek authorization. At this time, I'm deeply skeptical that use of force is in our national interest."
Rep. John Lewis (D) - 9/2
"Once Congressional debate begins and the Congress has had a full briefing, we will make a statement. We do not want to do so without that preparation."
