It is still unclear when an authorization vote might occur. Syria decision sparks confusion

President Barack Obama’s surprise announcement on Saturday afternoon to seek congressional authorization for a military strike in Syria sparked confusion in Washington.

Congress is currently on a five-week recess, and the GOP-controlled House immediately announced that it would not convene the chamber before it was scheduled to do so Sept. 9. But the Democratic-led Senate said it was thinking about an early return from vacation.


What does seem clear is that Obama won’t summon Congress back to town earlier than expected, according to senior administration officials. Under the Constitution, the president has the ability to convene Congress under “extraordinary occasions.”

( See POLITICO's full Syria coverage)

The timing of an authorization vote is now up in the air, as well as its outcome. Though many lawmakers praised the fact that the president would now seek their backing for military intervention in another Middle Eastern country, some speculated that the vote might fail — and still others said Obama seemed weak for seeking their stamp of approval.

For instance, influential Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — who have urged the U.S. to become more involved in the Syrian conflict — said they can’t “in good conscience” support isolated military strikes not part of a broader strategy that would “change the momentum” on the ground and remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power.

“Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing,” McCain and Graham said. “And it would send the wrong signal to America’s friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world — all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.”

( Also on POLITICO: Behind the scenes of Obama's decision)

Senate leaders said on Saturday that they are considering coming back to Washington early, according to senior aides. But House Republican leaders said in a joint statement that they expect their chamber to consider an authorization measure the week of Sept. 9, a timeline that would give Obama time to “make his case to Congress and the American people.”

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress,” said Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. “We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised.”

Senate leaders have made no decision about returning to Washington yet, according to aides. The second-ranking Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, has called for senators to return early to Washington to vote on an authorization measure. One top Senate aide said the White House will send the authorization proposal to Congress later Saturday.

( PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also thought Congress should return immediately to vote.

“I agree with the decision to seek Congressional approval before taking military action in Syria. And I believe Congress should return to Washington immediately and begin to debate this issue,” Rubio said.

“The United States should only engage militarily when it is pursuing a clear and attainable national security goal. Military action taken simply to send a message or save face does not meet that standard.”

( Also on POLITICO: Dueling protests outside White House)

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who said he was briefed by White House chief of staff Denis McDonough earlier Saturday afternoon, said he planned to work with Senate leaders for an authorization of use of force in Syria as “expeditiously as possible.”

But the bigger question is whether any authorization measure would pass Congress. A senior House Democratic aide said “it’s not clear at all” whether such a measure would pass. Because lawmakers are scattered away from Washington during the annual summer recess, it’s difficult to do a whip count.

And given the sensitivity of the issue, is highly unlikely Boehner’s leadership team will weigh in and pressure people to vote a certain way — meaning the White House will have to whip the vote themselves.

The House faced a similar vote in June 2011 when it rejected a one-year authorization of the use of U.S. forces in Libya, but then immediately voted against cutting off funding for U.S. intervention there, essentially rendering a split verdict for U.S. involvement against the regime of then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

That same month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under now-Secretary of State John Kerry, passed with a bipartisan vote a resolution that would authorize the limited use of force in Libya. But the resolution was not brought up on the floor.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said if a vote on Syria were held today, it would fail.

“I don’t think it passes,” Johnson told POLITICO. “Right now there are far too many questions unanswered.”

Johnson, who received a classified briefing on Syria in the White House Situation Room Thursday, said he is convinced of the White House argument that Assad used chemical weapons on his citizens. The administration released unclassified intelligence on Friday that it said shows “high confidence” Assad used chemical weapons in an attack that killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

But Johnson said Obama must make “a much stronger case” that attacking Syria is in the national interest of the United States before he would support a use of force authorization.

“If all this is about because President Obama drew a red line and he’s concerned about his credibility and restoring his credibility, that’s not enough justification for me,” Johnson said.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said in a CNN interview Saturday that “there’s absolutely no question I would vote no” if an authorization vote was held today.

Still, several other senators made it clear Saturday that they would back military force. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said he supports military action and that Obama should have called Congress back into session right away so lawmakers could vote.

And Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supports Obama’s decision, but “as far as I’m concerned, we should strike in Syria today.”

“The use of chemical weapons was inhumane, and those responsible should be forced to suffer the consequences,” Nelson said.

Obama said in his Rose Garden statement that his decision to seek congressional approval had backing from the top four leaders on Capitol Hill.

“The president’s role as commander-in-chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also said he was “very pleased” with Obama’s decision to seek Congress’s approval.

”At this point in our country’s history, this is absolutely the right decision, and I look forward to seeing what the Administration brings forward and to a vigorous debate on this important authorization,” Corker said. “Further, now that the president has decided to use force and seek authorization, it is imperative that he immediately begins using every ounce of his energy to make his case to the American people.

And Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said he “strongly supported” the president’s decision.

“The opportunity to fully debate this difficult situation will help educate the American public about the important issues at stake and ultimately provide a political consensus that our servicemembers must be able to rely on,” he said in a statement.

New York Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urged Boehner to call the House back into session “immediately.”

“The president has laid out a strong and convincing case to the American people for action in Syria,” Engel said. “However, I understand his desire to seek explicit authorization to do so from Congress.

Others criticized Obama’s move. New York Rep. Peter King, the hawkish Republican who formerly chaired the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement that Obama was “abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents.”

“The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria,” King said. “If Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians deserves a military response, and I believe it does, and if the President is seeking congressional approval, then he should call Congress back into a special session at the earliest date. The President doesn’t need 535 Members of Congress to enforce his own red line.”

Jonathan Allen and Reid J. Epstein contributed to this report.