As the Obama Administration makes it case for limited action against Syria, some members of Congress are expressing deep reservations about the use of American force.
Congressman David Scott, a Democrat representing parts of metro Atlanta, says an attack, even a limited one, doesn’t seem warranted.
“Where is our national security threatened with what is happening there? There are regimes poisoning their people, shooting their people from the Congo of Africa all over the world. Do we go to every place?”
Scott is asking President Obama, whom he refers to as a “dear friend,” to engage more with Congress and better explain why an attack is in the national interest.
“Do we have the evidence that it was Assad who did this or was it a part of a faction that he has to appease that did this? Do we know that it was done by him or maybe the rebels to pull the United States into this?”
Scott worries military action will send the region even further into chaos.
“What will Iran do? What will Lebanon do? What will Russia do?” said Scott. “We have not been attacked. U.S. strikes will allow them to say, ‘hey, we can go after Israel now.'”
The White House held a conference call Thursday to brief congressional leaders on Syria. Scott was not part of the call.
The Obama administration has since released a four-page intelligence summary claiming ”high confidence” the Syrian government used chemical weapons Aug. 21 on its own people.