ConservativeHome's The Republican

Seven Republicans back Libya lawsuit

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Less than 24 hours after Speaker John Boehner's warning to the administration in regard to it's neglect for the War Powers Act, a bipartisan group of lawmakers have taken matters into their own hands, filing a lawsuit against President Obama for his failure to seek congressional authorization for military action in Libya

The Hill reports:

Led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.), the members contend the White House broke the law when it launched military operations against Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi in March without congressional authorization...

Aside from Kucinich and Jones, eight other House members endorsed the lawsuit, including GOP Reps. Howard Coble (N.C.), John Duncan (Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Ron Paul (Texas), Tim Johnson (Ill.) and Dan Burton (Ind.), and Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.) and Michael Capuano (Mass.).

The full complaint is available to view here.

Senator Lindsey Graham: If we really care about the Syrian people now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As violence continues to escalate in Syria, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham today reiterated his calls for the US to take a greater stand against President Bashar Assad, including the potential use of military force.

Discussing the Assad government's "wholesale slaughter" against the Syrian people with CBS's Bob Schieffer, Graham urged the administration to take a bold approach to the situation, similar to recent action in Libya:

I think we need to turn our attention strongly to Syria with the regional cooperation like we have in Libya...Turkey is being overrun by Syrian refugees to put on table at the United Nations in an international way aid to the Syrian people. Humanitarian disasters are bound, what we did in Libya to protect the people against a rogue regime. If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Qaddafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi. The question for the world is have we gotten to that point in Syria? And I think we may not be there yet but we’re getting very close. So if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table.

Graham continued that:

It has gotten to the point where Qaddafi’s behavior and Assad’s behavior are indistinguishable. The reason we went in to Libya is to protect the Libyan people from wholesale slaughter when they protested Qaddafi started killing them in the streets. He took his army, turned them on his own people. That’s exactly what’s happening in Syria. If we could have a power change, a regime change in Syria that breaks Syria from Iran, the world would be a much better place but it’s going to take regional and international cooperation to get there. But if you really care about the Syrian people, preventing them from being slaughtered, you need to put on the table all options including a model like we have in Libya.

Since March, over 1,400 people have reportedly been killed as a result of the regime's brutal crackdown against anti-government protests. Earlier today Syrian troops continued their attack on the northwestern city of Jisr al-Shughour, their latest attempt at reasserting Assad's authority.

In one of the first opinion surveys in post-Mubarak Egypt, IRI reveals that Egyptians remain "extremely positive" about the direction of their country

Natalie Gonnella

The International Republican Institute today released the results of one of the "first major public opinion research" surveys within Egypt since the January revolution.

With Egyptians exuding a generally positive outlook for the nation's future and nearly 90% of citizens planning to participate in upcoming elections, here's a look at some of the key findings from IRI's first survey in post-Mubarak Egypt:

• The vast majority of respondents in the survey said that they supported the events surrounding January 25 and they feel the revolution will impact Egypt for the better.
• Despite this optimism, Egyptians are concerned about the economy with an overwhelming 81 percent of respondents rating it as poor. More than one-third of Egyptians (41 percent) said they have trouble feeding themselves and their family or providing for the most basic needs.
• The survey revealed that the upcoming parliamentary elections are wide open, with no party clearly seen as a frontrunner. In an open-ended question asking for whom they would vote, 65 percent responded that they did not know.
• The survey shows that the vast majority is either very likely or somewhat likely to vote in the parliamentary elections (95 percent).
• The survey results challenge certain widespread assumptions regarding the role of new media in the protests.  Respondents reported that they relied on television more than Facebook as their main source of information during the revolution (84 percent compared to six percent), while Twitter barely registered.  When asked what medium was the second-most relied upon, nearly half said word of mouth.  

The full analysis from IRI's Egypt survey is available to view here.

Reps. Tipton, Walsh and Coffman call on President Obama to retract his recent comments regarding Israel's borders

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In response to President Obama's Middle East speech, which included the endorsement of Israeli border concessions, Congressmen Scott Tipton, Joe Walsh and Mike Coffman are asking their fellow House members to join them in urging President Obama to retract his recent statements.

Gathering signatures from their congressional peers, the trio plan to send the following request to President Obama later this week:

Dear Mr. President:

As Members of Congress we strongly urge you to retract the statements that you made last weekregarding the Israeli and Palestinian border. During these unpredictable times in the Middle East, it is essential that that United States maintain a steadfast commitment to one of our closest allies. The security of the State of Israel has a direct correlation with the national security of our country. By calling on Israel to support a Palestinian State that reverts back to 1967 borders, your actions have placed Israel in a dangerous and difficult position. 

These unprecedented steps would mark a significant change to established U.S. foreign policy. Israel has already made and under any peace agreement with the Palestinians will make, many land concessions and calling for a return to 1967 borders would jeopardize Israeli security and does not reflect the current onthe-ground reality. Border negotiations should be part of the final status issues between Israel and Palestine and should not be individually singled out. 

Mr. President, we are extremely disappointed that you took it upon yourself to redefine the borders between Israel and Palestine. The U.S. role should be one of a mediator that seeks to help resolve this conflict but not declare a winner or loser and does not further compromise security in an already volatile region. We agree with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments last week that “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence.” Your actions are not only misguided, but inappropriate and could not have come at a worse time given the timing of your meeting with the Prime Minister the following day.  Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress and reconfirmed that a return to 1967 borders is not practical and would also further place Israel in harm’s way.

We urge you and your Administration not to pick winners and losers to appease your agenda at the expense of Israel. Given ever-changing circumstances in the Middle East, our unwavering commitment to Israel, its security and long-term viability is now more important than ever. We look forward to your response to this timely matter. 

Sincerely,

Mike Coffman, Member of Congress
Scott Tipton, Member of Congress
Joe Walsh, Member of Congress

What They're Saying: showing strong support for Israel, Republicans respond to President Obama's Middle East speech

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

President Obama yesterday "hit the reset" button on US Middle East policy, but in doing so endorsed significant concessions on the part of Israel, drawing strong criticism from Republican politicians and pundits alike.

In calling for a return to pre-1967 borders, the President appeared to publicly "throw Israel under the bus," once again undermining their position in future negotiations.  As George Will said in a post for ABC News:

Obama should have said nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his prior statements (about Israel housing construction, and a deadline for a peace settlement) having made matters worse. Obama's idea--Israel's, too--is "two states for two people." Now, there is nothing more to be said until a Palestinian leader also says that. Obama's dilation on the 1967 borders makes matters worse: Borders are what negotiations are supposed to be about, not what is to be stipulated before negotiations

And despite the fact that the President has outlined significant demands of the Israeli government, he failed to also adequately address key concerns related to the Palestinian leadership and (as Majority Leader Eric Cantor noted) "their unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism," a substantial worry considering the US is still providing aid to the Palestinian Authority (another issue Obama overlooked in his speech).

Since assuming office in January, GOP freshman have offered bold support for the state of Israel. And although Republicans welcomed the President's new found commitment to democracy and human rights within the Middle East, many have condemned yesterday's remarks for endorsing major Israeli concessions while failing to amply address concerns stemming from the policies of the Palestinian leadership.

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set to meet with President Obama today and a joint session of Congress next week, here's a look at what several Republican freshman had to say in response to the President's  remarks:

Senator Roy Blunt commented via Twitter: 

@RoyBlunt: Very concerned President believes unilateral concessions by Israel, including redefining its borders = pathway to peace. Doesn’t make sense.

@RoyBlunt: Supporting free peoples has always guided our foreign policy. Unfortunately Pres Obama has been unsteady in advocating these principles.

Congressman Allen West offered his views via his congressional website:

Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state…

...Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital. It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.

Commenting via Facebook, Congressman Robert Dold said:

Regarding President Obama's remarks today about the Middle East, it is not for the U.S. or any other outside entity to declare the terms and draw the boundaries for future Israeli and Palestinian states. Just as Israel's security must not be compromised, so too must its sovereignty as an independent nation be protected.

Also responding by way of Twitter, Senator Mike Lee tweeted:

@SenMikeLee: I condemn in the strongest possible terms the President's irresponsible suggestion that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. #utpol

In a statement on his website, Senator Pat Toomey stressed that:

The president’s reference to pre-1967 borders as the basis for peace undermines our ally Israel’s negotiating position, demonstrates insensitivity to the security threats Israel faces on a daily basis and ignores the historical context that has shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for more than 60 years...After 60 years of defending itself against aggression and brutal acts of terror, Israel deserves the right, at the very least, to maintain borders that will ensure its security.

Posting his response via Facebook, Congressman Joe Walsh commented:

This speech is another example of President Obama throwing our allies to the wolves in a vain attempt to appease our enemies. The President needs to make it clear that there will be no chance for peace unless Palestinian leadership distances itself from terrorism and recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Once more, Obama failed to demonstrate to the Palestinian people and to the rest of the world that the United States stands with Israel, and that we will only support a peace that is negotiated in good faith by both parties.

Senator Dan Coats said of the speech:

I strongly question the president’s timing in announcing this significant policy shift as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu arrives to meet with the administration and address Congress...President Obama’s support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders seriously harms prospects for successful negotiations and a peaceful region.

Referring to Obama's demands of Israel as "unbelievable" on Twitter, Governor Rick Perry added in a statement that:

President Obama's speech today continues a misguided policy of alienating our traditional allies, in this case Israel, one of our strongest partners in the war on terror. As someone who has visited Israel numerous times, I know that it is impracticable to revert to the 1967 lines. President Obama is asking our Israeli friends to give up too much security and territory as a prelude to a renewed peace process.

Congressman Jeb Hensarling commented that:

I’m pleased to hear the President articulate the United States’ longstanding support for the democratic rights of all people, especially those currently risking so much for democratic reform in the midst of the ongoing ’Arab Spring.’ However, calling on our ally Israel to reinstate its 1967 borders is a deeply wrong-minded approach that ignores the obvious reality beneath the problems that persist in that conflict—namely the Palestinian Authority’s dangerous alignment with Hamas.

Possible 2012 candidate Michele Bachmann challenged President Obama to "reverse course":

I am calling on President Obama to reverse course and clearly renounce the position which he spelled out today. This is an insult to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the day before the Prime Minister is scheduled to come to the United States. President Obama’s remarks are clearly in opposition to the position that Israel has taken in regards to its own borders. These remarks do not reflect the will of the constituents in my district, nor do I believe that they represent the will of the majority of the American people.

 America has stood with Israel since President Harry Truman recognized Israel a mere 11 minutes after Israel became a state in 1948. But during his tenure as President of the United States, President Obama has initiated a policy which shows contempt for Israel’s concern and safety. 

Pew: Arab Spring does little to improve US image in the region

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With the upcoming visit of Israel Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu (who will speak to a joint session of Congress), and as President Obama prepares to make a "major" speech tomorrow regarding US policy in the Middle East, new survey analysis from the Pew Center reveals that little has changed in relation to America's image within the region.

Despite wide spread pro-democracy movements, according to Pew's latest poll data, perceptions of the US have grown more negative since the onset of the "Arab Spring" in the Middle East:

The image of the United States remains overwhelmingly negative in predominantly Muslim countries. U.S. favorability ratings are low in nearly all of the Muslim nations surveyed, and majorities or pluralities in all seven say the U.S. does not take the interests of countries like theirs into account when making foreign policy decisions. Moreover, many continue to see the U.S. as a potential military threat to their countries.

U.S. President Barack Obama also receives low marks in largely Muslim countries...Obama’s handling of issues in the Muslim world, including the recent uprisings in the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran and Afghanistan, are met with disapproval.

Pew also adds that: 

Attitudes toward the U.S. are more negative than they were a year ago in four of the seven predominantly Muslim countries surveyed. 

The full results of Pew Center's latest analysis is available to view here.

Nearly nine out of ten Americans say the US military deserves the majority of the credit for finding Osama bin Laden

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As the debate begins over which presidents' policies were responsible for the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, a new Gallup poll reveals that an overwhelming majority of Americans feel that US troops and the CIA deserve the bulk of the credit for Sunday's operation.

According to the recent survey, "89% say the military deserves 'a great deal of credit,' while 62% say the same about the CIA."

Interestingly, when it comes to presidential praise, Gallup's latest analysis reveals that:

Americans are more reserved in giving credit to President Obama. Thirty-five percent say he deserves a great deal of credit and another 36% say he deserves "a moderate amount" of credit. More than a quarter say he does not deserve much or any credit at all.

In relation to the operation's outcome, nearly two-thirds Americans say that killing bin Laden was the preferred strategy.  However, "84% of those who say it would have been better to capture bin Laden alive still say they approve of the military action overall. This suggests that the preference for his capture is not held so strongly that it dampens support for the mission as executed."

In general, 93% of Americans approve of Sunday's events, and nearly four-fifths believe that bin Laden's death is very important for the country. In comparison to previous military efforts against al Qaeda, Gallup also notes that the latest approval for US action:

[Is] similar to the 90% of Americans who in an Oct. 7, 2001, poll approved of the U.S. taking military action against Afghanistan. These approval levels are higher than the immediate reaction to the launching of either the first Persian Gulf War in 1991 or the Iraq war in 2003, for which approval was in the mid- to high 70% range."

The full results of Gallup's poll is available to view here.

What They're Saying: Republican freshmen reflect on their week-long congressional delegation trip to Europe and Afghanistan

Natalie Gonnella

Six members of the House of Representatives arrived back in the US yesterday following a week-long congressional trip to Afghanistan and several key European allies.

The bipartisan delegation began their travels in Prague, discussing bilateral defense policy with members of the Czech government.  They then moved on to Baku, the capitol of Azerbaijan, where they met with President Ilham Aliyev to discuss "regional security as well as ways to strengthen democratic institutions" within the country.

The congressmen then traveled to Afghanistan where they discussed "the security situation and strategy for our ongoing counterinsurgency efforts against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda" with top level military and civilian commanders including General David Petraeus and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.

Concluding the trip with a stop in Georgia, "the group visited Georgia’s border with Russia, the site of continued dispute between the two nations and met with Georgian President Mikheil Saakasvili."

Chairman of the House Caucuses on Azerbaijan and Georgia Congressman Bill Shuster said of the delegation's visit:

It is important that we have the opportunity to meet with military and civilian commanders as well as our soldiers that put strategy into action...We are entering spring offensive when the fighting in Afghanistan is most intense.  We cannot lose sight of how critical our mission in Afghanistan is to our security and we must make sure our commanders have the flexibility to do their jobs and our soldiers the equipment and training necessary to do theirs.

Shuster was joined on the trip by Democrats Chris Murphy and Cedric Richmond, as well as Republican newbies Jon Runyan, Adam Kinzinger and Sean Duffy.

Their first overseas congressional visit, here's a look at what the GOP freshman had to say about their recent travels:

Congressman Jon Runyan commented:

"It was an honor to meet with our troops in the field.  They and their families suspend their lives and time to answer the call of our nation and sacrifice themselves for those the world over. There aren’t enough words of appreciation for what they do...As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and as the elected official who represents the premier military facility in my state - Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst – this trip on the ground was both invaluable and informative to better understand the needs of our personnel and the progress achieved as well as efforts that require additional attention.

Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a former air force pilot who has himself served several tours in the Middle East, said of the trip:

Over the last few days, I spent time with our men and women who are fighting for the freedom of Afghanistan, and ultimately the security of our nation...Given the difficulties we face, I was impressed with the courage of our soldiers.  I remain committed to protecting democracy, and fighting for a free and secure Afghanistan.

Congressman Sean Duffy, who has posted a number of photos from the trip, said of the experience:

There is nothing quite as humbling as getting to visit with our nation’s finest young men and women who are serving on the front lines in harm’s way...The most sobering part of the trip was also a profound reminder that it is our uniformed heroes and their families who make the ultimate sacrifices in the war on terror...I attended a memorial service for the nine Americans killed at Kabul airport last week and, as a Wisconsin Congressman, I was deeply moved and honored to participate in the ‘Angel Flight’of an Appleton native killed in action. Their service and sacrifice represent the very best of American honor and valor.

What They're Saying: Although unified in their view that the US should have a more prominent role in Libya, Republicans split over Gadhafi strike

Natalie Gonnella

With yesterday's news that one of Gadhafi's sons and three of his grandchildren were killed during recent airstrikes, NATO efforts in Libya were a popular topic among the Sunday morning political shows.

With regime loyalists ransacking the embassies of coalition allies in retaliation and government forces stepping up their attack on rebels, here's a look at what a number of conservatives had to say this morning in response to yesterday's airstrikes:

Senator Lindsey Graham said during an interview on Fox News Sunday:

I think this is a good move by NATO to go after the source of the problem...If you want to protect the Libyan people, go after his inner circle. ... In my opinion, wherever Gaddafi goes is a legitimate military target. He’s the command and control source. He’s not the legitimate leader of Libya, and the way to get this to end is to go after the people around him and his support network. So I support what NATO’s doing.

Former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said on CNN's State of the Union:

In a military operation the command and control elements are a legitimate target.  And in Libya the command and control goes up to Gadhafi.  But I think we have to focus on the narrative we want to come out of this.  The narrative that we want to come out of this is that the Libyan people overthrew a dictator, not that we came in and toppled a despot.  That’s the problem with going after command and control.  If it results in the death of Gadhafi because what we really want him to do is for him to leave or to die at a Libyan hand, not an American hand.

Unsatisfied by the US role in Libya, Senator John McCain, who has been very vocal throughout the uprisings of the "Arab Spring," commented on CBS's Face the Nation that:

I think that if you view the-- the Qaddafi himself as part of the command and control, I think you could argue that if he was in one of those places, then it would be part of it. But Bob, we tried many times to kill leaders. Remember when we-- we’re going to kill Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the last war in Iraq. We tried to kill Osama bin Laden on several occasions. So it’s not as easy as you think. And so, we should be taking out his command and control. And if he is killed or injured because of that, that’s fine. But we ought to have a strategy to help the rebels succeed and overthrow Qaddafi and everybody associated with him.