The Washington Post
Politics ⋅ Live Blog

Live Updates: Obama’s address to the nation

September 10, 2014

[posttv url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/politics/obama-if-you-threaten-america-you-will-find-no-safe-haven/2014/09/10/3f7def2e-3951-11e4-a023-1d61f7f31a05_video.html" ]

President Obama is delivering an address to the nation Wednesday night to outline plans for expanding the U.S. campaign to defeat Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria. Obama has already told congressional leaders that he “has the authority he needs” to take action against the jihadist group, and Congressi0nial leaders have expressed their support.

  • Sean Sullivan
  • ·

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), another Democrat up for reelection this year, issued a statement saying that he agrees with President Obama about the need to destroy the Islamic State and plans to press national security officials on details. Here’s his full statement:

“ISIL is a barbaric terrorist group, and I agree with the President that we need to degrade and ultimately destroy them. Tomorrow, the Senate will be briefed by national security officials, and I plan to ask them a number of questions. I want to find out more about the potential ramifications of these actions on the civil war in Syria, for more specifics about the coalition the administration intends to build, and about their ongoing efforts to stifle terrorist recruitment activities in Minnesota and around the country.”

  • Sean Sullivan
  • ·

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) issued a statement saying that while the strategy President Obama unveiled tonight “was a start,” she plans to press his administration on their plains beginning next week.

“I intend to question Administration officials on their plans to implement this strategy to confront the full scale of the terrorism challenge we face, particularly in Syria. And as I have made clear, I will continue to press the President to use all of the tools at his disposal, short of ground combat troops, to defeat ISIS,” she said.

Shaheen’s posture is similar to Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who offered a careful appraisal of the president’s plan. Both are up for reelection in the fall in key contests in the battle for the Senate majority.

  • Ed O'Keefe
  • ·

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats and could emerge as a key power broker in a potentially GOP-controlled Senate next year, said that he and a “coalition of bipartisan senators” are talking about drafting a resolution that would give President Obama limited authority to conduct military operations against the Islamic State terror group.

After carefully studying the formal congressional authorizations given to President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, King said he believes that they were too open-ended.

“I think that we should be talking about something that is much more limited,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post. “For example, in duration or defining who the enemy is.”

King said that “about a dozen” senators of both parties had begun talking Wednesday afternoon about possibly drafting a resolution that would set some limits, but he declined to specify what they would be, suggesting that the talks are still fluid.

No matter what, he said, Congress should take up the issue before the November elections.

“I think it strengthens the country and the effort and it sends a strong signal to the proposed allies that we’re in this,” he said, adding later: “We have a constitutional responsibility to be engaged in this. I’m frustrated by Congress’s propensity to criticize and not make decisions. This is an opportunity where we should engage in this. I think it strengthens the country if we do so.”

“I think the president did a good job. I didn’t know what to expect, but he hit exactly the points that I felt needed to be made and I think he laid out a real strategy,” King said. “Now we have to execute.”

  • Ed O'Keefe
  • ·

One of the most hawkish House Republicans signaled muted praise for President Obama’s address Wednesday night and said he strongly supports giving the president whatever authority he needs or wants to attack Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

“I don’t care how it’s approved, I’ll vote for it either way. And I don’t understand why some folks are making an issue of it,” Rep. Daniel Kinzinger of Illinois said in an interview with The Washington Post. “Maybe there’s some politics I don’t understand. At the end of the day, we should give the president the authority and money he needs.”

Kinzinger said he thought Obama began his address with a defensive posture, with a “kind of a ‘Blame Bush’ mentality even though he never said his name. “And I’m very concerned that he pulled ground troops off the table. Not that we need to use them, but it takes the psychological aspect of it away and takes away flexibility.”

“I’m not going to say that it was the worst speech ever, it wasn’t the best speech ever, but I do think he came out much stronger than he has in the past,” he added later. “Now, the key is do the actions follow the words? I’ve seen many times that he says certain things and doesn’t follow through.”

  • Sean Sullivan
  • ·

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said he opposes President Obama’s plan to train an equip certain Syrian opposition forces.

“I oppose the President’s plan to arm Syrian rebels at this time,” said Begich in a statement. “I am gravely concerned by reports of ISIS seizing and utilizing U.S. weapons intended for those fighting against the Syrian regime, and we must have greater assurance that we aren’t arming extremists who will eventually use the weapons against us.”

Begich is facing a competitive reelection race that is a key battleground in the fight for the Senate majority.

  • Ed O'Keefe
  • ·

Yet another Democratic senator seeking reelection is putting distance between himself and President Obama’s new strategy to combat the Islamic State terror group.

“I oppose the president’s plan to arm Syrian rebels at this time,” Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska said in a statement. “I am gravely concerned by reports of ISIS seizing and utilizing U.S. weapons intended for those fighting against the Syrian regime, and we must have greater assurance that we aren’t arming extremists who will eventually use the weapons against us.”

“To keep America safe, we must act through air strikes and by forming an international coalition, including Arab nations, to defeat ISIS,” Begich added. “But we cannot rush into another decade-long ground war that causes death and injury to our military and leaves us with huge debts. With more veterans per capita than any other state and many whom have already served multiple deployments, I do not believe we should be asking our troops to put their lives at risk yet again when we don’t have all the necessary answers.”

  • Sean Sullivan
  • ·

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said in a statement that any expanded military campaign beyond “airstrikes in the fight against ISIL in Iraq” must be approved by Congress.

“The American people must be assured that we are not pursuing another open-ended conflict in the Middle East, and I will not give this president — or any other president — a blank check to begin another land war in Iraq,” he said.

Udall is running in a competitive reelection race against Rep. Cory Garnder (R).

  • Ed O'Keefe
  • ·

A key moderate Democratic senator said that after watching President Obama’s address, he still has questions about his new strategy to attack the Islamic State terror group.

Manchin said he’ll reserve final judgment until attending a closed-door, all-senators briefing at 4 p.m. Thursday.

“The thing I really want to hear is the makeup of the coalition, the commitment to their involvement, if they have the same level that we have, if they have the same commitment and resolve that we have,” Manchin said in an interview with The Washington Post. “And the other thing I’m concerned about is training and equipping the Syrian rebels when I’m not convinced who our friends and foes are.”

Manchin was one of the most skeptical lawmakers earlier this summer when administration officials briefed Congress on the emerging Islamic State threat. After Obama’s speech, Manchin said he remains skeptical.

“No one’s convinced me that they can identify friend or foe in that part of the world right now,” he said. “Anything that I have ever been able to witness shows that no matter who we are helping, it ends up that those arms are used against us sooner or later. That’s a sad scenario. So I don’t want to get into that position, I’m going to be very cautious about that.”

Manchin also said he would prefer to authorize Obama’s plans to train and equip Syrian rebel groups and Iraqi military forces in a standalone measure instead of as part of a short-term spending bill, commonly referred to as a continuing resolution or “CR” on Capitol Hill.

“If it’s wrapped up into the CR, you’re voting against it, you’re voting to shut down the government and that’s not a fair position to put us in,” he said. “I think we should vote straight up or down with the ability to modify it. We should have some input in it. “

  • Masuma Ahuja
  • ·

Wesley Lowery writes on Post Politics:

Obama used the speech to tout American exceptionalism and roll out the details of how he plans to address the threat moving forward. As is always the case with a presidential address, journalists, lawmakers, political operatives and pundits live-tweeted Obama’s speech and provided insta-analysis along the way.

Read the full post and twitter round-up here.

  • Glenn Kessler
  • ·

Obama’s call to strengthen the Syrian opposition reflects a shift in his assessment of their capabilities. In June, the president twice knocked the opposition as “former farmers or teachers or pharmacists” who were difficult to train, without acknowledging that a substantial portion of the fighters are actually ex-military personnel.

  • Chris Cillizza
  • ·

Obama’s  speech will be picked through — and apart — for days and weeks (and maybe even years) but The Fix’s Chris Cillizza jotted down a few immediate takeaways. Click here to see the full post.

  • Ed O'Keefe
  • ·

President Obama said Wednesday night that he welcomes congressional support, but didn’t explicitly call for debate or approval of his plans.

That didn’t stop at least some senior senators from calling for a formal debate of the new strategy.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he supports Obama’s plans to target the Islamic State. In a statement, he added that “There is now a broad consensus in Congress that this threat requires strong action, and tonight, the president laid out a plan to act, and to act forcefully. I hope that members of Congress will put politics aside and give strong, bipartisan support to this plan.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) also called for a robust debate. “The administration says it could take two or three years to stop ISIS, and it could take longer,” he said in a statement. “Having the support of Congress is essential to uniting our country and other nations behind the president’s objective, and to making sure we have the resolve to see this through to the end.”

  • Sean Sullivan
  • ·

Things got testy on CNN between Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former White House press secretary Jay Carney.

  • Ed O'Keefe
  • ·

House Republican leaders expressed support for President Obama’s new strategy to combat the rise of the Islamic State terror group but suggested they’re seeking more action and information from the White House.

“The president tonight recanted his earlier dismissals of ISIL’s capabilities and rightly acknowledged the grave and growing threat posed by the spreading global epidemic of radicalized Islam,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. “He has finally begun to make the case the nation has needed him to make for quite some time: that destroying this terrorist threat requires decisive action and must be the highest priority for the United States and other nations of the free world.”

“A speech is not the same thing as a strategy, however,” Boehner added. “While the president presented a compelling case for action, many questions remain about the way in which the president intends to act.”

Boehner said that while he supports plans to train and equip Iraqi forces and Syrian opposition groups, those efforts could take years to fully implement “at a time when ISIL’s momentum and territorial gains need to be immediately halted and reversed.”

“The administration has made an effort in recent days to brief members of the House and Senate on the range of options the president is contemplating.  Those briefings and consultations will continue as members review his proposals, and I hope we can continue a dialogue about how to most effectively confront and destroy this enemy.  House Republicans will meet tomorrow morning to discuss next steps,” Boehner said.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also expressed support for Obama’s new plan, but said “If our efforts to combat this scourge are to be successful, it will require a level of commitment to this fight against terrorism not yet seen by this President.”

“A president who has made ending the war on terrorism the central focus of his foreign policy must now make winning it a priority,” McCarthy said in a statement. “I stand ready to work with the President to destroy ISIL, win this fight, and ensure America’s continued safety.”

  • Vincent Bzdek
  • ·

The Islamic State militant group has inflicted serious suffering on Iraqi civilians, but the United States must be careful to not act hastily in its expanded military campaign in Iraq and Syria, said the executive director of the human rights group Amnesty International USA.

Steven W. Hawkins said in a statement released following President Obama’s speech Wednesday night that without “firm rules in place,” it would be reckless for the United States or others to provide military aid to militias in Iraq.

“Islamic State has committed serious war crimes, but other militias supported by the Iraqi government have also attacked civilian populations in revenge and the Iraqi military has shelled residential communities,” Hawkins said. “Additionally, President Obama’s proposed $5 million anti-terrorism fund also risks deepening partnerships between the U.S. and highly repressive governments like Saudi Arabia, which has used its own so-called anti-terrorism laws to silence peaceful human rights criticism at home.”

  • Sean Sullivan
  • ·

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) said in a statement that “as long ago as the spring of last year, I pressed the Administration to arm and empower moderate Syrian rebels and I am glad that effort will be accelerated.”

Hagan is running against state House Speaker Thom Tillis (R) in one of the most important races in the battle for the Senate majority.

Her statement suggested she supports the president’s strategy — but never explicitly says so. The statement demonstrates the challenges that several congressional Democrats face with just a few weeks before Election Day.

Here’s Hagan’s full statement:

“ISIS presents a severe threat to our national security, and their murder of two American journalists is an attack on America and our values. We must respond, and we will respond, by taking immediate, sustained, and decisive action to destroy ISIS.

The President and our military leadership have now developed a plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels and defeat ISIS with a sustained campaign of airstrikes. As long ago as the spring of last year, I pressed the Administration to arm and empower moderate Syrian rebels and I am glad that effort will be accelerated.

Because ISIS poses a threat to many countries around the world, and especially those in the Middle East, I believe that this effort must be carried out in conjunction with our allies and other Arab states. America has urgent priorities at home as well as abroad, and the cost cannot be borne by the United States alone.

Finally, I am proud to represent the most military friendly state in the nation. At times like these, our men and women in uniform deserve our full and unwavering support, and the American people should expect better than the same political games and partisan point-scoring that too often dominate Washington debates. This is the time for us to come together, Democrats and Republicans, to confront the challenges that are facing our nation. I will continue working with my colleagues in Congress to provide the support that our military requires and deserves.”

  • Ed O'Keefe
  • ·

Almost immediately after the speech, liberal Democrats expressed concern about President Obama’s evolving strategy, suggesting it could once again set the United States on a path to a prolonged military conflict.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) said that while the Islamic State terror group poses a threat to the United States, “I have reservations about expanding airstrikes into Syria. Committing U.S. military involvement to a country that is undergoing a complicated and lengthy civil war has serious potential international implications.”

In a statement, Sanchez added that “I am concerned about the possibility of a protracted military campaign that might put American troops in future danger. I urge the administration to think ahead and develop a detailed assessment of how the U.S. would respond should airstrikes in Syria lead to more serious military involvement.”

Separately, the liberal group Democracy for America said it remains “deeply troubled by any plan for U.S. military engagement that has not been explicitly debated by the American people and voted on by Congress.”

“While regional leaders and the global community must respond to ISIS’s growing list of atrocities, after more than a decade of war, the American people and their representatives in Congress must have a calm, rational public debate of that response and the appropriate level of U.S. involvement,” said DFA’s spokesman Neil Sroka.

  • Sean Sullivan
  • ·

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that President Obama presented a “concrete and forceful strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS. I commend the President for his persistent, strong leadership in establishing a government of reconciliation in Iraq, and in his diplomatic efforts to have coordination among of our NATO allies and regional powers.”

  • Ed O'Keefe
  • ·

Calling Islamic State the most brutal terrorist group she’s ever seen, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) expressed support for President Obama’s strategy Wednesday.

But just two days after telling reporters that Obama had the power to act without congressional action, Feinstein said “it is critical that Congress and the American people come together in solidarity to support the president and our armed forces. On such an important matter of national security, we must show ISIL we have the political will, the military might and the strength of a united country.”

It is unclear when or on what Congress might vote to signal support for Obama’s plans to counter the Islamic terror group’s growing influence.

  • Sean Sullivan
  • ·

Two of the earliest reactions to the speech came from Democratic House members who issued statements that were generally supportive:

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.): “I support President Obama’s decision to expand the current airstrike campaign into Syria, and to work with an international coalition to degrade ISIL and reduce the threat they pose to that region and our interests. I also support the President’s request that Congress provide resources to arm and train moderate Syrian forces. However, I remain strongly opposed to the use of any combat troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq.”

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.): “I believe that President Obama has existing authority to take the actions he outlined tonight,” he said in a statement. “I do, however, think that that the President’s ability to respond forcefully and effectively to protect American interests would be strengthened by seeking authorization from Congress.”

Load More
No More Posts