By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 1 -- With US President Barack Obama saying that to strike Syria he needs nothing from the UN or its Security Council, only the US Congress, focused turned there on Sunday afternoon.
After an in-person briefing for Congress members by the Administration, a range of Representatives spoke to the media.
The reasons given for possibly voting "No" on the Authorization send to Congress by Obama ranged from Republicans like Scott Rigell of Virginia (Newport News and Virginia Beach) who said the Authorization does not go far enough in terms of regime change to Democratic like Elijah Cummings of Maryland who said the Authorization is not limited enough.
Rigell said that missile strike on a military base would just kill conscripts who are not responsible; he mused that the US prohibition on trying to assassinate heads of state might create a safe zone around Bashar al Assad. Then he said the ideal outcome would be Assad on trial as a war criminal in The Hague.
This was more than a little strange, as Inner City Press noted. Does the Republican Scott Rigell want the US to join the Hague-based International Criminal Court?
Representative Sander Levin D-Michigan said that on Obama's Authorization, he's a Yes vote. But is his brother, Senator Carl Levin?
Michael Burgess R-Texas said he was going to download Obama's Syria resolution & read on way home. Well, it's only a page and a half.
Cummings said that his constituents don't much understand chemical weapons, and that Obama will have to explain them.
It seemed that no one doubts that Assad was responsible for using chemical weapons: there was no questioning or answers about the rebels having such weapons, nor about the United Nations. It was very telling, and will be further explored in the days to come. Watch this site.
