“As a United States congressman, I take very seriously my role in ensuring the responsible use of military action. And like many of those I represent, after over a decade of war, I’m extremely wary of committing our military to another overseas conflict. As I’ve heard from many of my constituents, it should be the option of last resort. And our national interest must be at stake.
“There is no doubt that the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and extremely disturbing, and that it has serious and dangerous global implications. For two and a half years, I’ve seen the Assad regime ignore the world’s warnings to refrain from using chemical weapons. And I’ve now watched footage of Syrian men, women and children suffering the torturous effects from the use of these weapons.
“In the coming days, Congress will debate whether the President’s plan to launch a limited, targeted military intervention in Syria is the appropriate response to the Assad regime’s actions. I support the President’s decision to seek the approval of Congress. Particularly in matters so profound as those involving the use of military force, the American people deserve a voice.
“I plan to spend this time learning more about what the President’s plan would mean for U.S. interests at home and abroad. This weekend, I attended a classified briefing down in Washington to learn more about the intelligence the Administration is using to inform its decisions. As currently written, I believe the draft resolution the President has presented to Congress is too open-ended. I support efforts by many of my colleagues to craft a narrower, more targeted authorization that keeps the scope and duration of the mission limited. Additionally, as Congress deliberates, the Administration is right to continue soliciting international support for its plan. I am hopeful that whatever course the U.S. takes, we will not be going it alone.
“I will continue soliciting the input of my constituents, my colleagues, and experts on the issue. My ultimate decision will reflect a desire to balance America’s role as a global leader with protecting our national interests and the security of the American people.”
DL readers are divided on this statements letter grade. “B” was the least popular choice with 16%. “C” edged out “F” 26% to 21%. “A” & “D” both garnered 19% if the votes. Another way to look at this, “Passing” (A,B,C) got 60% and “Failing” (D,F) got 40%. That’s good news for Carney.
I gave it a “C” but I’m preparing myself for the mess that is going to be his heavy-hearted statement about how he “regrettably” had to vote for the strikes. I’m sure it is going to out Castle, Mike Castle in the hand wringing department, and I’m not looking forward to it.