The actions of the president must always be clothed in the appropriate language when given to the public. This is why President Obama’s words Saturday, in a draft resolution authorizing military force against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s supposed use of chemical weapons against civilians and even children, would need to be touched up by committee. Democratic aides in the Senate are cleaning up the the language and drafting a new form, according to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who along with others, is concerned that the language better expresses the president’s desire. It was, he says, too broad.
“I know it’s going to be amended in the Senate,” Politico reported Leahy of saying
Obama had defended the president’s use of force in a “necessary and appropriate way” without the backing of the senate if necessary.
“While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our action will be even more effective,” said Saturday’s statement.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan), also questioned the language of the draft. “I think the biggest question I heard is that the president’s request is open-ended,” Roberts said. “That has to be rectified, and they simply said in answer to that that they would work with the Congress and try to come back with a more prescribed resolution. But I’m not too sure that the people who answered that are the people that have that decision to make.”