Scope of Syria vote scrutinized in Iowa race

A comment by Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) during a debate with his Republican opponent on Sunday is raising questions over the scope of the authority Congress gave the president to deal with the threat from Islamist militants. 

Braley described his vote to arm rebels in the Free Syrian Army as giving President Obama “limited authority to begin strikes against terrorists in Iraq and Syria” during his debate against state Sen. Joni Ernst (R). The Republican also agreed with his support on the vote to authorize strikes. 

{mosads}
Republicans quickly circulated a video clip of Braley’s answer, claiming the candidate, who earlier in the campaign made a derisive comment about Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) second job as a farmer, had committed another misstatement. 

The state party later trumpeted in a press release that “Braley is clueless about his Syria vote.”

Democrats argue that neither the debate’s moderator nor Ernst challenged his characterization of the vote during the debate.

The moderator asked Ernst, “Would you have voted as Congressman Braley did to allow that attack to go forward?”

Ernst replied: “Yes, I would have supported that vote also.” 

Braley’s campaign spokesman pushed back against the insinuation that Braley misspoke.

“On Sunday, Bruce clearly spoke of his vote in Congress to facilitate strikes against ISIS in Syria by training and equipping Syrian rebels, and Joni Ernst agreed that Braley was right to have taken that vote. As Bruce said, the terrorists of ISIS have perpetrated a grave injustice against the American people and must be brought to justice or to the grave,” said Sam Lau, a spokesman for Braley’s campaign. 

Gretchen Hamel, a spokeswoman for Ernst’s campaign, said, “Joni was referring to the vote to arm Syrian rebels.”

“Having said that, if Congress were to vote on authorization of airstrikes against ISIL, she would support it also,” she added, using another acronym for ISIS. 

The topic came up on Tuesday during Braley’s meeting with the Sioux City Journal editorial board when he was asked whether he had claimed the vote authorized Obama to conduct airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

“I did not say during the debate airstrikes. I said strikes, that’s what training troops on the ground to do to coordinate with the airstrikes is, training people to engage in strikes against ISIS. I did not use the word airstrikes,” he told the paper.

Braley argued that arming Syrian rebels in anticipation they will use those weapons to fight ISIS is a way to strike ISIS. 

However, PolitiFact, an independent fact checker run by The Tampa Bay Times, on Wednesday ruled that Braley’s statement was “false.”

“Braley did cast votes recently on U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq, but they concerned supplying and assisting the Syrian rebels — not whether to give the president authority to launch strikes,” PolitiFact wrote. 

Legal scholars who have played a role in the presidential war powers debate say the issue is not merely a matter of semantics. They argue it symbolizes the problems that arise when Congress shirks its responsibility to authorize military action.

“Members [of Congress] now routinely treat collateral, marginal votes as equivalent to declarations [of war],” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School.

“Members of Congress routinely campaign on giving authorization to kill terrorists but when these wars become quagmires they then deny that they ever intended the scope of operations,” Turley said. “What’s dangerous is the president is not only wildly misconstruing authorization votes but now members of Congress are doing essentially the same thing.” 

Turley said the Constitution’s declaration-of-war clause is being effectively read out of the document.

In 2011, he represented 10 members of Congress in a bipartisan lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s military intervention in Libya.

Bruce Ackerman, the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale Law School, said Braley mischaracterized the vote.

“They authorization of money to train Syrian rebels does not remotely amount to an authorization of American attacks on ISIS in Syria,” he said. “It is perfectly consistent for a senator or representative to vote for the money appropriation and yet strongly oppose American initiation of ‘hostilities’ against ISIS in Syria or Iraq,” he said.

Lawmakers voted last month to authorize the arming of Syrian rebels largely to give Obama’s broader strategy for fighting ISIS some buy-in from Congress. Party leaders, however, avoided scheduling a politically dangerous votes on directly authorizing strikes before the election.

Vulnerable Democratic candidates balked at voting on a measure that some liberals worried could lead to an open-ended military intervention in Iraq.  

House Republicans weren’t eager to schedule it either at a time when many Tea Party voters are skeptical of foreign entanglements.