Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi called for Obama to take decisive action in Libya, but that has not always been the case. When she was Speaker of the House and Bush was president, Pelosi travelled to Syria and met with Assad to show that diplomacy is preferrable to military action. Republicans argued at the time that the SOH, did not have the right to meet leaders on treaties, which the constitution grants solely to the president.
“It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security.”
But, in 2007, Pelosi had a different opinion of Syria:
“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel."
Those talks were never held. It was unrealistic to believe they would considering the very close ties Syria has with Iran.
Pelosi's hawklike comments came after a conference call, in which the evidence was laid out. Many republicans and even a couple of democrats remain skeptical. This is due to previous White House statements, such as, the attack in Benghazi being retaliation for a 12 minute Internet film, that insulted the prophet. Two rogue agents in Cincinnati was the cause of IRS targeting of the Teaparty. If you like your doctor, you can keep him.
The president, the vice president, the former speaker of the House,and the Secretary of State all proclaim Assad ordered the attack, even though intelligence doesn't even know who controls the chemical weapons in Syria.
Obama is not expected to ask for congressional approval before launching an attack. Under the War Powers Act, he is obligated to, except in the case of an attack against the United States or the imminent attack on the United States. Otherwise, they must get congressional approval.Currently, the Syrian government is bogged down in a civil war and they do not possess weapons that could reach the US.
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Barack Obama 2007
And from Joe Biden, also in 2007.
“The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked.”
A couple of republicans , like Bob Corker, R-TN, support an attack against Syria.