President Barack Obama's primetime speech on possible military action in Syria hasn't changed the minds of Idaho's congressmen.
In a nationally televised address Tuesday night, Obama offered a rationale for greater U.S. intervention in Syria's sectarian civil war while acknowledging that winning the hearts and minds of Americans to back another Mideast conflict remains a struggle.
As diplomacy efforts evolve, Obama is conditionally endorsing a Russian offer for international inspectors to seize and destroy deadly chemical weapons in Syria as efforts to avert retaliatory U.S. missile strikes shift from Washington to the United Nations.
Because of that, the president said he had asked congressional leaders to delay a vote on a resolution authorizing limited military strikes.
Still, Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo said Wednesday morning if the vote were held today, he would say 'no'. Crapo believes “the U.S. should engage in military strikes against another nation, only when our national security requires it and then only when we have tried all other options.” He says President Obama has not made an adequate case that U.S. national security is at risk in Syria.
Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador said Tuesday that he's against U.S. military action in Syria. Labrador had been leaning that way, but his office issued a statement saying the Republican would vote against taking action in that country. Labrador also says the Obama administration has failed to make a case for justifying military action.
Sen. Jim Risch has already voted 'no' when it comes to military action. Last week, he cast one of the dissenting votes on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The panel Wednesday approved the president's resolution on a 10-to-7 vote.
Risch says the repercussions of a limited attack on Syria are too hazy and Americans are too war-weary to justify President Obama's proposed military strike.
Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho has said he's strongly leaning against the President’s proposal for military strikes.
