For Congress, war is Just another photo op

Some 24 hours before President Barack Obama began talking to the nation about his strategies to defeat ISIS and his hope that Congress will debate war plans and support him with a vote, Congress members were falling all over themselves to spin other scenarios.

Some took to the airways to "demand" that the president seek congressional approval - never mind that he met with congressional leaders just hours before and "reiterated his belief that the nation is stronger and our efforts more effective when the President and Congress work together to combat a national security threat like ISIL," according to a White House news release describing the Tuesday meeting.

"The President told the leaders that he would welcome action by the Congress that would aid the overall effort and demonstrate to the world that the United States is united in defeating the threat from ISIL. The President and his team look forward to continuing extensive consultation with Congress," the statement continued.

A full nine hours before President Obama took the microphone to address the nation Wednesday night, our own Republican Sen. Bob Corker, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, shot out an email and video decrying the president's appeal before he even gave it.

"What is beyond belief to me is that, in spite of [feeling he has the authority he needs], he still is not coming to Congress," said Corker in a statement. "I think it's lacking in judgment not to come to Congress to get Congress to buy-in."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R- Ky., had a similar rant. The president should seek approval from Congress, he said. But his aide minutes later told a Washington reporter that McConnell is not necessarily calling for a vote on a new use-of-force resolution.

Didn't the president say he would welcome action by Congress that would "demonstrate to the world that the United States is united ...?"

But that's the part Congress apparently can't abide. They can't seem to comprehend that we are the UNITED states and that even though we all seem to agree that ISIS is an enemy, if Obama says war, they must say peace. If Obama says peace, they must say war. United? We'll have none of that.

Frankly most of us think all this partisan posturing is "lacking in judgment," to borrow Corker's phrase. Is it any wonder that the president also told Congressional leaders - some of whom are suing him for "overreach," by the way - that while he hopes they will support his plan to crush the Islamic State, he doesn't need their approval. The U.S. Constitution states the president must consult Congress before declaring war. But President Obama's typical strategies, such as the U.S. strategy on the Islamic State in Iraq, have relied solely on airstrikes, which Congress doesn't necessarily need to approve.

Like McConnell, Corker in his video muddled his "what is beyond belief" stance.

"Most of us, if we were in the White House, would say we have the authority under the Constitution to take these matters on ourselves," Corker said. "He (the president) would cite Article 2. There's also the 2001 original authorization relative to Afghanistan that's pretty broad. And if he wanted to pull ISIS in as one of the elements to be dealt with, I think he could. Now that's debatable, but I understand why he's taking the position that he's taking."

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 40 percent of Americans support airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, and 34 percent support airstrikes and the possible use of American ground troops. The wording of a Washington Post/ABC News poll is a little different, but 71 percent of respondents said they support U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and 65 percent support U.S. airstrikes in Syria.

Public support for U.S. airstrikes in Syria was much lower a year ago when President Obama weighed military intervention against the Assad regime. Those airstrike plans were dropped when the president struck an agreement that rid Syria of its chemical weapons stockpiles.

Clearly Americans don't like seeing beheadings.

But Congress members are worried more about keeping the blood off their own sleeves. Headlines were heavy last week about Senate and Republican leaders in the House wanting to avoid a public vote to authorize force. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., who favors a debate, cleared the air.

"A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, 'Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,' " Kingston said in a moment of candor. "It's an election year. A lot of Democrats don't know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don't want to change anything. We like the path we're on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long."

For Congress, war talk is just another Kodak moment.

Upcoming Events