Syria update: Kline says no to attack; Franken says Senate plan ‘too broad’
WASHINGTON - Amid renewed diplomatic efforts and flagging public enthusiasm for a strike on Syria, Sen. Al Franken is slightly dialing back his support for potential a U.S. strike against Syria while U.S. Rep. John Kline, the delegation's sole Republican who had tentatively backed military action, is now opposing it.
In a statement Tuesday, Franken declared that the resolution the Senate is considering (that was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week) was "too broad" and said President Obama needed to explain to the public during his prime time address tonight how he would deal with the "unintended consequences of a possible attack."
Read: Where Minnesota's representatives stand on Syria Strike
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
Franken announced his support for a military option against Syria relatively early in the crisis, telling MPR News on Aug. 27 that Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons “cannot be allowed to stand”and emphasized that any U.S. military action, "is not about another land war in the Middle East. This is about a strike that is going to either use cruise missiles or bombers, so this is not about U.S. troops on the ground.”
Kline, a retired Marine colonel who's the only member of the delegation on the House Armed Services Committee, told MPR News on Sept. 4 he tentatively favored an attack that would degrade Syria's chemical weapons ability and send a signal to the Syrian regime.
He said he changed his position because of Obama's failure to make the case for an attack.
“For more than two weeks, the President has failed to convey to the American people a clear objective for military intervention in Syria. He continues to offer no persuasive rationale, which is why I cannot support the President’s request at this time for U.S. military strikes in Syria,” Kline said in a statement.
Here's Franken's full statement:
“There is no question that a diplomatic resolution to this crisis would be far preferable to military intervention. While the new diplomatic proposal floated by Russia needs to be treated with skepticism, I remain hopeful that it can lead to the desired result: that the Assad regime will no longer be able to use chemical weapons.
“If instead, the United States is compelled to take action in response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons, our response must be narrowly tailored as I have said all along, and we must have assurance that this will not spiral into a prolonged engagement in the region.
“Over the last several days, I've studied the resolution passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I am concerned that its scope is too broad. With the President scheduled to meet with members of the Senate and to address the nation tonight, I urge him to explain how the United States will deal with the risks and unintended consequences of a possible attack and how we will avoid getting mired in a broader conflict.
“I continue to believe that the use of chemical weapons is a violation of a longstanding international norm and warrants a response, but I want to know more about the details of that response and its scope before I decide whether to support or oppose this or any resolution in the U.S. Senate.”