Most New York Congressional members support President Obama’s decision to ask Congress whether the U.S. should strike Syria, with one notable exception.
“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents,” said Rep. Peter King. “The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria.”
It’s still unclear whether the President will have the votes to authorize military action when Congress returns from its August recess in a little more than week.
Rep. Chris Gibson, who for the last month has been calling on the President to consult with Congress, remains opposed to using military force in Syria.
“The situation on the ground in Syria is tragic and deeply saddening, but escalating the conflict and Americanizing the Syrian Civil War will not resolve the matter,” said Gibson. ”I urge a “no” vote on authorization to use military force.”
Rep. Charles Rangel said the draft must be re-instated before “we commit our military personnel to another war.”
A spokesman for Rep. Paul Tonko said the Congressman does not support military action.
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney said: “The use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and requires a forceful response, but we cannot engage in another ground war in the Middle East.”
Members, including Rep. Michael Grimm and Rep. Gregory Meeks, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, support targeted military action, but not boots on the ground.
Reps. Yvette Clarke, Chris Collins and Bill Owens said they are undecided, at this point, on how they will vote when this comes before Congress next month.
A number of members, including Collins, are returning to Washington on Sunday for a classified briefing on the situation in Syria.