On Syria request, Obama praised, warned by lawmakers

President Obama is drawing Capitol Hill cheers for seeking congressional approval to strike Syria, but signs quickly emerged Saturday that the White House faces challenges corralling enough votes for the measure. 

{mosads}House GOP leadership, in a statement, said Obama’s surprise authorization request was the right thing to do, but offered no hints about how they would vote or advise their conference.

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress. We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team said.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has been supportive of targeted military action, said “President Obama is right that the debate and authorization by Congress for action will make our country and the response in Syria stronger.”

But despite likely support from Pelosi and some other influential Democrats, it’s not immediately clear how widespread the backing for strikes is among the rank-and-file in either party.

A strike could face opposition from a number of Tea Party Republicans and liberal Democrats.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Republican Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who backs a limited military strike, said Obama could face difficult votes.

“I think it is problematic [in the House] and it could be problematic in both bodies,” he said on CNN, and urged Obama to use “every ounce of political capital that he has to sell this.”

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said on the same network that “there is absolutely no question that I would vote ‘no.’”

A pair of influential Senate Republicans – Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) – said they believe the alleged use of chemical weapons deserves a military response and said Congress should act as quickly as possible.

But they added: “However, we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President’s stated goal of Assad’s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests.”

A House Republican leadership aide said the onus for winning the vote would be on Obama.

“This vote is going to depend on the president making the case to Congress – and, more importantly, the American people,” the aide said. “We are also going to need complete, serious answers to the questions the Speaker and other have asked.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has cachet among younger conservative lawmakers and may run for president, has been skeptical about use for force.

He said via Twitter Saturday that “this is the most important decision that any President or senator must make, and it deserves vigorous debate.”

Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), has also expressed strong skepticism about hitting Syria.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised Obama but stopped short of outright endorsement for a strike.

“The president made a strong case today, and wisely chose to seek congressional support, even though he believes he is not required by law to do so. A congressional vote to authorize the use of force would strengthen the president’s decision to take military action,” he said.

House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said in a statement authorizing the use of force “should be contingent on the president setting clear military objectives that can meet articulated policy goals, including degrading any party’s ability to use these weapons again.”

“The coming days will determine if such a military operation can be identified,” McKeon said. “I look forward to the debate.”

–Jeremy Herb and Ian Swanson contributed to this report.