By Joe Anuta
The Queens congressional delegation is unanimously behind President Barack Obama’s decision to seek authorization for military intervention in Syria, where apparent chemical weapon attack last month killed about more than 1,400, but lawmakers had differing views on whether the United States should ultimately get involved.
Obama delivered a speech from the Rose Garden Saturday indicating he would seek authorization from Congress under the War Powers Act to intervene in the ongoing civil war in the Middle Eastern country, which is ruled by President Bashar Assad.
The president’s announcement set off a chorus of condemnation from conservative lawmakers and support from Queens elected officials.
“I applaud the president’s decision to seek congressional approval before ordering military action against Syria. This is the right thing to do, and I’ll be listening closely as the president makes his case to Congress,” U.S. Rep. Grace Meng (D-Flushing) said in a statement Monday.
The lawmaker was one of 61 Congress members to sign a letter urging the president to get approval.
On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to allow Obama a strike of no more than 90 days with no American troops on the ground for combat operations, Associated Press reported. The full Senate was expected to vote next week. The similar committee in the House seemed more skeptical, according to reports out of Washington Wednesday, and had not made a decision as of press time.
U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-Ridgewood) lauded the commander in chief’s course of action, but would not support the use of military force.
“The use of chemical weapons by Syrian leaders is unconscionable, deplorable and must be condemned,” she said in a statement. “However, just as I have forcefully opposed previous military actions, I oppose this one.”
Conversely, U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (D-Melville) supports action, but only if it excludes U.S. ground troops.
“I am convinced more than ever that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, and we cannot allow that use to continue and proliferate. That means employing a multilateral military operation surgically and precisely targeted at degrading Syria’s chemical weapons capacity,” he said in a statement. “President Obama has repeatedly stated that the operation will be swift and without U.S. boots on the ground. I take the president at his word, but would like those words explicitly included in the congressional resolution.”
But Capitol hawks ripped the president, accusing him of passing the buck.
“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents,” neighboring U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-Massapequa Park) said in a statement. “The president does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria.”
Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-Astoria) and Gregory Meeks (D-Jamaica) were waiting to hear more details before making a decision.
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-Jackson Heights) did not respond to a request for comment.
Reach reporter Joe Anuta by e-mail at januta@cnglocal.com or by phone at 718-260-4566.
