Colorado Lawmakers Respond To Possible Strike Against Syria
DENVER (CBS4) – All of Colorado’s U.S. congressional delegation so far has said they haven’t decided if they’ll vote to allow a limited strike on Syria.
Republican Rep. Cory Gardner’s response was similar to others in that he’s glad that President Barack Obama has decided to seek congressional approval before any military action is taken.
View all the responses from Colorado’s lawmakers below:
U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner (R)
“I am glad that President Obama has decided to seek congressional approval before any military action is taken in Syria. Allegations of chemical weapons use are extremely troubling, but the Constitution rightfully requires that any action taken by the U.S. military receive congressional approval.
“Committing to place our men and women in harm’s way is not something to be taken lightly. I will weigh the full evidence available and make a determination once I believe I have the information necessary to make an informed decision in the best interests of the United States.”
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet (D)
“Syria’s use of chemical weapons is deplorable. Congress will review the evidence presented by the administration and hold a serious debate about our country’s options. We must consider the enormous challenges in the region and the complexity of the situation that includes a military already stretched thin, a nation in civil war, and a region in transition.”
U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn (R)
“I approve of the president consulting with Congress and seeking congressional support on this important issue. I will be gathering many facts before making any decision.”
U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D)
“As a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, Sen. Udall has been following the situation on the ground very closely and stands by his position that the administration must lay out the objectives of possible military action before it can be authorized. Sen. Udall believes the use of chemical weapons — especially against civilians — is unacceptable, but he is also concerned that even a limited strike against Syria could lead the United States into deeper involvement in a complicated civil war. Above all he believes we must understand the benefits and possible consequences of any potential action before it happens.
James Dakin Owens
U.S. Senator Mark Udall
U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D)
“I look forward to studying the issue, understanding the case that the president makes, and making an informed vote. This is a serious responsibility, and since the president has chosen to consult us I will provide the best possible guidance to the president that I can in the form of my vote and advice regarding Syria.”
U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D)
“I agree with President Obama on his decision to provide information to the American people about the horrific use of chemical weapons in Syria that killed at least 1,000 innocent people, including hundreds of children. It’s important for Congress to assess this information and discuss what actions are appropriate to deter this kind of massacre in the future. As the president suggested, any action must be targeted and limited in scope.”
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D)
“I welcome the president’s decision to ask for congressional authority for the use of military force against the Syrian government. Although it is the president’s duty to protect our national security, Congress has the constitutional responsibility and power to approve the use of military force, even if the United States or our interests have not been attacked.”
“While there is no question that reported use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians by the Syrian government is abhorrent, the decision to use military force demands a vigorous debate in Congress and with the American people. Before any vote to authorize military action takes place, the president must present compelling evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people, as well as clearly define the rationale and goals of an intervention to Congress.”
U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (R)
“I’m undecided at this point. There are three questions that I will be asking during the debate on Syria before making my decision. The first is how strong is the evidence that the Assad regime directed a chemical attack against civilians? The second is whether a limited strike would be effective in deterring Assad from the further use of chemical weapons? My third question will be whether a limited strike could ultimately drag the United States into an intractable sectarian civil war in Syria?”
U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton (R)
“My heart goes out to the innocent civilians in Syria that have suffered because of the fighting in their country. The use of chemical weapons by a government on its people is unacceptable, and the reports that this has occurred are troubling.”
“I’m pleased the President is seeking Congressional authorization for the use of military force. There may be a difference however between ‘seeking’ versus ‘asking’ for Congressional authorization, and before the President proceeds with any action, I hope that he will allow for equal debate in both the House and Senate on his plan and ultimately adhere to the outcome of the votes we will take.”
“The chemical weapons attacks in Syria should be met with serious consequences and there are a number of options on the table, including the President’s proposal, which Congress will debate and consider. Americans have many questions and concerns about the use of military force as a response. I believe that they must be taken seriously. Military action should always be the last resort and the use of military force should be in the best interest of the United States and/or our interests first and foremost. I look forward to reviewing the President’s justification for the use of military force in Syria, and to the discussion and debate we will have on it in Congress.”