Barbara Boxer, Humanitarian or Partisan Politics?

                On Tuesday, September 10^th, Barbara Boxer appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”, in an interview Matthews framed by playing clips displaying turmoil Congress is facing over the Syria issue, such as an argument between Secretary of State John Kerry, and Republican Representative Jeff Miller regarding the delay in the Senate to vote on military action caused by the lack of support for the initial Syrian Resolution which involved military strikes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was then shown addressing the media discussing a meeting with the President where the two deliberated diplomatic solutions to Syria instead of military actions stating, “I’m not a blood and thunder guy” (MSNBC).  Matthews began Boxer’s interview by stating she had met with the President that morning, supported Obama’s previous calls for military intervention, and further questioned “what’s the future look like in terms of Syria and whether or not we’re going to attack?” (MSNBC).   Immediately, she changed the tone of the interview by asserting the illegality of the use of chemical weapons by Assad, highlighting the fact that he used them on “Babies, infants, children” [sic] (MSNBC).  Boxer plugged the humanitarian aspect of the issue in order to justify her active support of the use of military force when she voted yes, through her seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the initial resolution to use military action in Syria due to the regime’s use of chemical weapons (USA Today).  This vote occurred on September 3, 2013, before Syria admitted to possessing weapons, and prior to their cooperation with Russia and the U.S. on a path towards diplomatically resolving the issue.  In her interview on MSNBC, Boxer has changed her stance in light of Syrian cooperation and instead insists on avoiding a military solution if a diplomatic solution can be reached.  She calls the initial resolution “forced” and prefers a diplomatic resolution if an agreement can be reached among the involved nations (MSNBC). 

                In this situation, Boxer is switching her stance on the issue in order to align with what the President, who is of her own party, supports.  Boxer’s support of the initial resolution, like many Members of Congress who supported it, contradicted her constituency’s views (SF Gate).  This could act as an instance of partisan politics, veiled by Boxer’s ascertainment that it is the violence against civilians that fueled her decision (MSNBC).  Ultimately, Boxer has been consistent with her view to intervene in Syria, whether militarily or diplomatically, her intentions, according to her official website lie with national security and the fear that chemical weapons use could appear in other enemy nations, if inaction by UN sets a future precedent.

“So why should we take any targeted action against Syria? Not only is it important to keep North Korea in mind, but also allowing the continued use of chemical weapons to go unanswered makes it much more likely that we’ll see it used again in Syria, and we’ll see it used maybe elsewhere, and terrorists could obtain those and use them on America or our allies or our troops, use them, for example, against Israel, and other friends. It makes it more likely – and this is key – that Iran will view us as a paper tiger when it comes to their nuclear program, and that is dangerous not only for us and our friends, but for the world.” –Barbara Boxer, Sept. 3, 201: Statement at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Syria

References:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/vp/52977447#52977447

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/04/senate-syria-committee-vote/2762415/

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-Boxer-buck-constituents-on-Syria-strike-4793945.php

http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/09032013.cfm