Ohio Congressional Delegation Undecided On Syria Strike

Republican Reps. Steve Stivers (left) and Pat Tiberi (right) are skeptical of the President's plan to intervene in Syria, while John Boehner says he supports President Obama.(Photo: U.S. House of Representatives)
Republican Reps. Steve Stivers (left) and Pat Tiberi (right) are skeptical of the President's plan to intervene in Syria, while John Boehner says he supports President Obama.(Photo: U.S. House of Representatives)

As Congress prepares to vote on President Obama’s request to intervene in Syria area members of congress are weighing the prospects and possible consequences of U-S involvement. Third District Democrat Joyce Beatty is among those in Washington today for a classified briefing on the Syrian conflict. President Obama seeks congressional approval for intervention after reported use of chemical weapons.

Fifteenth District Republican Steve Stivers represents areas south and west of Columbus. He says the President has a “hard case” to make for military action against Syria.

“I don’t want to get drawn into a long drawn-out conflict in Syria and so I would be very, very reluctant to approve anything that would involve boots on the ground,” Stivers said.

Republican 12th District Congressman Pat Tiberi says the president has sent mixed signals to U.S. Allies and enemies, but Tiberi leaves open the possibility of supporting the President.

Tiberi said the president has put the country in what he calls a “lose-lose” situation whether or not congress authorizes military action.

House Speaker John Boehner says he will support President Barack Obama’s call for the U.S. to take action against Syria for alleged chemical weapons use and says his Republican colleagues should support the president, too.

President Obama has said he wants a quick vote on a possible attack on Syria when congress returns next week.

Comments
  • Marlene

    I don’t like looking at the pictures only of men staring at me and making
    pronouncements about whether or not to support the President on Syrian
    accountability. Where are women representatives/senators and what do they have
    to say? There is no war provoking going on here. Any woman who has born a
    child will not be persuaded that the US should do nothing to confront this
    “moral obscenity” of chemical weaponry. We have to make a statement. We cannot
    “teach Assad a lesson” because he won’t learn. But that doesn’t mean we should
    not make a strong statement against the use of chemical weapons. Any woman who
    has born a child is not able to look at the lines of dead children wrapped for
    mass burial, or the living children wounded and suffering, and keep still! What
    the President proposes is a moral statement about the use of chemical weapons –
    no more and no less.. It will not determine anything about winning or losing.
    There are no winners here. But we have to make a statement. I think, until
    more women are in the legislatures, there will not be any moral pronouncements
    made beyond legalistic arguments as to what constitutes a “just war.” This kind of moral bankruptsy makes me sick.

    • 333SAL

      It is one thing to make a statement. It is quite another to fight a war. There are many options that have not been tried, including having the US join the rest of the world as a peer instead of as the “boss.” Funny how little has been in the press since the Syria “crisis” began, about participation and efforts toward diplomatic solutions. Yes, Assad is most likely a madman. Most psychologists would agree that the best route in engaging with a madman is not the direct one.

      More importantly, as long as the word is “suspicion” instead of “certainty,” we should not be making assumptions. Some now would have us believe in that certainty, but does the phrase “Trust us . . . we’re the government” ring a bell? I’d add “Trust us . . . we’re the plutocrats.” How many times does the American public need to be deceived to get the message that it’s not safe to take someone’s word anymore?

      I do agree: we need far more women in the power echelons. It might actually lead to a society led by something other than the reproductive organs.