CLOSE President Obama says he is confident he'll be able to work with Congress to pass a resolution authorizing military intervention in Syria.(Sept. 3) AP 
 
 U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-OH, looks on as U.S. President Barack Obama meets with members of Congress in the cabinet room of the White House. (Photo: Dennis Brack, Getty Images) Story Highlights President Obama meets with members of Congress about Syria 
 
 Obama wants congressional authorization for military strike on Syria 
 
 Obama leaves Tuesday for trip to Sweden and Russia 
 
 President Obama said Tuesday he believes Congress will vote to authorize a military strike against Syria over the use of chemical weapons, and he won the support of the top two Republicans in the U.S. House. 
 
 House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after a White House meeting that he supports the president's "call for action" against Syria, and he believes most other congressional Republicans will do so as well. 
 
 "The use of chemical weapons is a barbarous act," Boehner said. "The use of these weapons has to be responded to." 
 
 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., also endorsed military action, saying that the United States has "a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria." 
 
 Cantor also said he hopes Obama uses force "judiciously," and maintains "consultation with the Congress." 
 
 STORY: Will Russia lobby Congress against Syria strike? 
 
 MORE: Senate holds first hearing on Syria 
 
 Still, a Boehner aide described upcoming congressional votes on Syria as an "uphill battle." 
 
 Before the meeting with Boehner, Cantor and other members of Congress from both parties, Obama told reporters: "We have high confidence that Syria used — in an indiscriminate fashion — chemical weapons that killed thousands of people, including over 400 children." 
 
 Obama also said he is willing to work with lawmakers on the wording of a resolution authorizing the use of force as long as it preserves the mission of sending "a clear message" to the government of Bashar Assad, "degrading his capabilities to use chemical weapons, not just now but also in the future." 
 
 Some members of Congress said the resolution proposed by the White House is too open-ended on the use of force. 
 
 Congressional Democrats who met with Obama said they also support military action against Syria. 
 
 A congressional vote could be close. Some lawmakers have said the United States should not get involved in Syria; others question whether the administration has proved that Assad's government fired chemical weapons at Syrian rebels. 
 
 STORY: The six key players in Congress' Syria debate 
 
 After the announcements by Boehner and Cantor, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., tweeted that his constituents have expressed "almost unanimous opposition to U.S. strikes." 
 
 Boehner did not say he would pressure fellow Republicans into supporting action against Syria. His spokesman, Brendan Buck, said these will be "conscience votes" for lawmakers, and that the White House must lead the lobbying effort. "Everyone understands that it is an uphill battle to pass a resolution, and the Speaker expects the White House to provide answers to members' questions," Buck said. 
 
 Syria has denied using chemical weapons, attributing an attack Aug. 21 to the rebels themselves. 
 
 Asked if he was confident about upcoming votes in the House and Senate, Obama said: "I am." 
 
 Obama stressed that he envisions a "limited" and "proportional" mission designed to "degrade" Assad's chemical weapons capability. 
 
 There will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, Obama said: "This is not Iraq and this is not Afghanistan." 
 
 The use of chemical weapons violates "international norms" and increases the possibility that terrorists could obtain such weapons, Obama said. 
 
 "That poses a serious national security threat to the United States and to the region and, as a consequence, Assad and Syria need to be held accountable," Obama said. 
 
 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she is persuaded by the evidence against Assad, and that he "crossed a line" through the use of illegal chemical weapons. 
 
 The White House meeting featured a variety of congressional leaders, including Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the top Republican in the Senate. Members of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees also attended the conference in the Cabinet Room. 
 
 McConnell said after the meeting that he would encourage Obama to continue updating the American public. "While we are learning more about his plans," McConnell said, "Congress and our constituents would all benefit from knowing more about what it is he thinks needs to be done -- and can be accomplished -- in Syria and the region." 
 
 The meeting is the latest in a series of contacts by the White House after Obama's announcement Saturday that he would seek congressional authorization before striking Syria. 
 
 "We will be stronger if we take action together, as one nation," Obama said. 
 
 In addition to the White House meeting, three key members of Obama's team are scheduled to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey. 
 
 Obama and Vice President Biden met with the lawmakers hours before the president was to depart for a trip to Europe. 
 
 After a stop in Stockholm, Obama will head to St. Petersburg, Russia, for a Group of 20 nations summit that is likely to be dominated by the Syria question. The G-20 figures to be part of Obama's effort to lobby world leaders in support of a strike at Syria. 
 
 The White House announced Tuesday that Obama spoke Monday night with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about "their grave concern" regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria. 
 
 "The two leaders agreed that the use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international norms and cannot be tolerated," the White House said in a statement. "They pledged to continue to consult closely on possible responses by the international community." 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/19eYTjn ||||| Image copyright AP Image caption The president met senior Congressional leaders including Mitch McConnell at the White House to consider his options in relation to the Iraq crisis 
 
 US President Barack Obama has told Congressional leaders he does not need lawmakers' approval for any action in Iraq, the top Senate Republican says. 
 
 Senator Mitch McConnell was speaking after a meeting between the president and senior members of Congress. 
 
 Iraq has asked for US air strikes against advancing jihadist militants, who have seized key cities and towns. 
 
 But correspondents say any decision on military support from Washington could hinge on political changes in Iraq. 
 
 US Vice-President Joe Biden discussed possible "additional measures" that could help "roll back the terrorists' advances" with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki on Wednesday, but also the need for national unity. 
 
 The Obama administration has shown signs of frustration with Mr Maliki - a Shia Muslim who has long been accused of discriminating against the Sunni Arab minority community and monopolising power. 
 
 Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel told a congressional hearing: "This current government in Iraq has never fulfilled the commitments it made to bring a unity government together with the Sunnis, the Kurds, and the Shia." 
 
 Image copyright AFP Image caption The US is reported to be considering a range of military option in response to the ISIS advance 
 
 Mr Obama met Congressional leaders at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the US response to recent advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). 
 
 Speaking afterwards, Mr McConnell said the president had "indicated he didn't feel he had any need for authority from us for steps that he might take". 
 
 Correspondents say the White House has so far avoided the thorny question as to whether it needs Congressional authority for any military action in Iraq. 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's spokesman Sheikh Abdul Mahdi Karbalai: "Religious leaders sense a real danger" 
 
 Experts say Mr Obama has several options, including citing the Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda and its associated forces passed by Congress in 2001; the 2002 AUMF that led to the invasion of Iraq; and his own powers as commander-in-chief. 
 
 Last year, the president abandoned plans for punitive military strikes in Syria following a deadly chemical weapons attack once it became clear that Congress would not give its backing. 
 
 Administration officials say the president may be able to act unilaterally in Iraq because its government has requested US air strikes against ISIS, which seized the second city of Mosul last week and is advancing southwards towards Baghdad. 
 
 ISIS and their Sunni Arab allies are reported to be advancing in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces after they overran Iraq's second city, Mosul, last week. 
 
 Analysis: Nick Bryant, BBC News, Washington 
 
 The White House has been reiterating its view that the Iraq crisis is not primarily a military challenge but instead requires a political solution. 
 
 To that end, Vice-President Joe Biden telephoned Iraqi Prime minister Nouri Maliki, one of his main Sunni rivals and also a Kurdish leader to press for a new government of national unity. Republican Senator John McCain has gone further - and called on Mr Maliki to step down. 
 
 Some senior Democrats have echoed that call. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Obama administration would also prefer to see the removal of a prime minister who it believes has heightened sectarian tensions and helped give rise to ISIS. 
 
 Unquestionably, the White House is intensifying its efforts to make the new Iraqi government look more like Iraq. 
 
 They have also launched an assault on Iraq's biggest oil refinery at Baiji, north of Baghdad. 
 
 The administration has not officially responded to Iraq's request for air support in its response to the offensive. 
 
 BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says Mr Obama has a wide range of options, from air strikes to providing extra training, but that the US will - as a minimum - send in surveillance drones. 
 
 Ahead of Wednesday's meeting, Senate leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said he did not "support in any way" getting American troops involved in Iraq's "civil war". 
 
 'Danger to unity' 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Jonathan Beale in Baghdad: Special forces are "ready to take on ISIS" 
 
 Hundreds of people have been killed since the start of the militant offensive, many of them believed to be captured soldiers publicly shot by ISIS-led firing squads. 
 
 In an interview with the BBC, the representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most senior Shia cleric in Iraq, warned against "a real danger which threatens Iraq and its unity". 
 
 Speaking to BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Sheikh Abdul Mahdi Karbalai said the response should be "a stance which is adopted by people from all sects". 
 
 Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Tehran would not "spare any effort" to defend Shia holy shrines in Iraq against "mercenaries, murderers and terrorists". 
 
 The representative of the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) in Iraq told the BBC that the situation facing the at least 400,000 people displaced by the fighting in the north was "dire". 
 
 Dr Marzio Babile added that he was extremely concerned about minorities, 
 
 "We need to protect children who are Christian, Turkmen or Assyrian, belonging to different ethnic groups, who are at extraordinary high risk of violence and, obviously, retaliation." 
 
 ISIS in Iraq 
 
 Image copyright AP Image caption The rebels now control the northern cities of Mosul and Tikrit 
 
 ISIS grew out of an al-Qaeda-linked organisation in Iraq 
 
 Estimated 10,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria 
 
 Joined in its offensives by other Sunni militant groups, including Saddam-era officers and soldiers, and disaffected Sunni tribal fighters 
 
 Exploits standoff between Iraqi government and the minority Sunni Arab community, which complains that Shia Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is monopolising power 
 
 ISIS led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, an obscure figure regarded as a battlefield commander and tactician 
 
 Iraq 'massacre' photos: What we know ||||| The Post's Aaron Blake tells us what has changed on the vote for intervention in Syria. (The Washington Post) 
 
 The Post's Aaron Blake tells us what has changed on the vote for intervention in Syria. (The Washington Post) 
 
 Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) waited for the laughter to die down. 
 
 At a town hall meeting with tea party supporters, somebody had asked Yoho about a rumor. Was it true that he — a conservative veterinarian in his first term who loudly opposes any compromise with the White House — was working with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Congress’s leading liberal loudmouth? 
 
 The laughter stopped. 
 
 “I wish I could tell you it wasn’t true,” Yoho recounted saying. “But it is true.” There were gasps, he said. 
 
 Yoho and Grayson are among a group of unlikely allies in Congress: liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans, united by their opposition to a military strike against Syria. 
 
 View Graphic As of Sept. 4, lawmakers appear to be tentatively dividing into four camps over military action in Syria. 
 
 The Democrats in the group have lost faith in war. The Republicans have lost faith (or never had it) in President Obama. In this case, — as Obama seeks approval for a limited kind of warmaking — their doubts aligned. 
 
 The result was an ad hoc coalition of Congress’s unwilling. 
 
 This group has become the core of a surprising backlash in the House. At least for now, it appears that more than half of representatives are ready to defy both a Republican speaker and a Democratic president, and vote against a military strike. 
 
 “What you’re hitting on is this general consensus — across the political spectrum — that we just need to mind our own business. And that’s not a liberal or conservative concept. It’s just a universal law of life,” Grayson said. He has taken it upon himself to organize the effort to oppose the strike. 
 
 “We’re gonna win,” Grayson predicted this week. “Pretty sure.” 
 
 Converting support 
 
 Congress is not likely to hold votes on a Syria strike until next week, at the earliest. That leaves plenty of time for the tide to turn. President Obama has planned a national address from the Oval Office on Tuesday to make the case for military intervention. 
 
 But, for now, the nays appear to have it: Just 25 House members have signaled they will vote yes. 
 
 That makes this a remarkable moment on Capitol Hill. Obama, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have joined to support action against Syria. 
 
 And, in the House, the coalition that’s with them is smaller than the Congressional Cement Caucus. (The Senate is more evenly split: Roughly one-quarter of its members are for military intervention, another quarter appear against it and the other half are undecided.) 
 
 On the other side of the issue, more than 200 House members are in the “no” or “leaning no” category. That total includes people from many of Congress’s political tribes, including the centrists and party loyalists least likely to cross the leaders. 
 
 “I’m disappointed,” Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo (R-N.J.), who hails from a Democratic-leaning district and has supported most compromises this year, told reporters after a classified briefing Thursday. LoBiondo said he has “great problems” with the strike and is for now planning to vote against the resolution. 
 
 “We don’t want to make the same mistake we made before,” Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a regular supporter of Obama’s agenda, told reporters after the same briefing. 
 
 This side also includes mainstream Republicans such as Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.) and Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (Fla.), close allies of Boehner who were appointed by him to the House Intelligence Committee. If the speaker’s own allies are against this, it gives plenty of cover for conservative lawmakers to oppose it without fear of further alienating Boehner. 
 
 Previous partnerships 
 
 But many of this side’s most enthusiastic members — its recruiters, organizers and “whips” — are those from the ideological edges of both parties. 
 
 This is not their first time working together. In July, many of the same members led an effort to rein in National Security Agency spying — limiting it only to people tied to an active investigation. 
 
 Obama opposed them. Boehner opposed them. And the coalition lost. But not by much: The margin was 217 to 205. For many members, that was a sign that they could find allies across the aisle. 
 
 Some have been trying to organize a stronger effort this time. So far, they’ve attracted slightly more than half of those who voted for the NSA amendment — and dozens upon dozens of members who weren’t with them before. 
 
 In some case, the recruiting process is collaborative, gentle. 
 
 “We’re at this point trying to put a group of folks together to see what kind of language we could all support,” said Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). His aim was to gain signatures for a letter that would urge Obama to assemble a multinational coalition before taking any action on Syria. 
 
 In other cases — particularly those involving Grayson — the planned approach sounds more like serving someone with a subpoena. He has gathered 35,000 signatures on an online petition, dontattacksyria.com. When Congress returns, Grayson said, he’s going to divide up the names by congressional district. 
 
 And go looking for congressmen. 
 
 “I’m going to take actual lists of their constituents who signed the petition and show them,” Grayson said. “We’ve set up our own ad hoc whip operation,” he said, with running tallies of who’s on his side. 
 
 The job, in many cases, is not hard. 
 
 Many legislators have recounted comments from constituents that run lopsidedly against the idea of intervention. 
 
 “I have yet to speak to a member whose constituents have said, this is really important,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who is part of a solid conservative bloc normally opposed to most of the president’s agenda. 
 
 “I don’t think we’ve had a single call or comment in favor,” Chaffetz said. “It is not lighting up the phones, other than, ‘Don’t do it.’ ” 
 
 Exhibiting independence 
 
 The strong coalition assembled against action in Syria is a demonstration of something profound about Capitol Hill. There, power does not work the way it used to. 
 
 By the usual rules of Congress, for instance, Grayson would be a man with almost no power at all. He is a member of the minority party, in his second term, who gained infamy as a loud, partisan attack dog against Republicans during the health-care debate. His most famous accusation was: “The Republican health-care plan is this: Die quickly.” 
 
 But the rules have changed. So, for that matter, has Grayson. And Grayson himself seems to have changed his approach, abandoning full-time partisan warfare for an outreach to libertarians who agree with him on this issue. “You could say we have a love-hate relationship,” he said, and now is the time for love. 
 
 In the current Congress — where party discipline has broken down and members cannot plan beyond the next primary — new members are desperate to show their independence. So among the hard “no” votes in the House against a strike on Syria, many are in their first or second term. 
 
 “It’s not our civil war. It’s theirs,” said Yoho. “To attack that country — a sovereign country that did not attack us — is an act of aggression. It’s an act of war.” 
 
 Grayson says he’s just trying to be effective. Yoho thinks he’s watching a conversion experience. 
 
 “I says, ‘Alan’ — I says, ‘You’re starting to sound more like a libertarian,’ ” he recalled in a phone interview. “He said, ‘I know. But it scares me.’ ” ||||| President Obama on Friday acknowledged the American public’s deep reservations about another military engagement in the Middle East but argued that the United States has a moral responsibility to retaliate against Syria’s use of chemical weapons. 
 
 Acknowledging that he faces a “heavy lift” in persuading Congress to authorize a military strike in Syria, Obama made a direct appeal to people’s consciences. The president drew parallels to World War II, which the United States was reluctant to enter, and to its efforts helping end genocide in Kosovo in the 1990s, which was unpopular at the time but which Obama said was the right thing to do. 
 
 “I was elected to end wars, not start them,” he said. “I’ve spent the last 41 / 2 years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people. But what I also know is that there are times where we have to make hard choices if we’re gonna stand up for the things that we care about. And I believe that this is one of those times.” 
 
 The comments — which came in a news conference at the end of a Group of 20 summit in Russia — marked Obama’s lengthiest explanation to date of his decision to seek congressional authorization for a U.S.-led military strike in Syria. After returning Friday night to Washington, Obama will continue building his case for action, and he said he plans to address the nation Tuesday from the White House. 
 
 Obama faces heavy opposition on Capitol Hill. In the House, a majority of members are now on the record as either being against or leaning against a proposed administration resolution on Syria, according to a Washington Post analysis. Members of the House and Senate who have not reviewed classified information on the chemical weapons attacks will be able to do so Monday on Capitol Hill. 
 
 View Graphic As of Sept. 4, lawmakers appear to be tentatively dividing into four camps over military action in Syria. 
 
 In the Senate, a majority of senators remain undecided, according to The Post’s analysis. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) on Friday formally introduced the resolution to allow limited military strikes against Syria, setting in motion a key test vote that will probably take place Wednesday. 
 
 Reid will need 60 votes in that first vote. Democrats expect some liberal opponents of the strike to vote in favor of considering the measure but then oppose it on final passage, when a simple majority will be needed. With Senate Democrats divided, the final vote could be close or even require Vice President Biden to cast a tie-breaking vote. 
 
 During Friday’s news conference, Obama said he was not “itching for military action.” But he said an alleged Aug. 21 sarin gas attack on hundreds of civilians — which he said was carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime — could not be ignored. 
 
 “You know, over 1,400 people were gassed,” Obama said. “Over 400 of them were children. This is not something we’ve fabricated.” 
 
 He added, “Sometimes the further we get from the horrors of that, the easier it is to rationalize not making tough choices. And I understand that. This is not convenient. This is not something that I think a lot of folks around the world, you know, find an appetizing set of choices. But the question is, do these norms mean something? And if we’re not acting, what does that say?” 
 
 Obama arrived in St. Petersburg hoping to demonstrate broad international support for military action. But after several hours of private talks with other world leaders — including a dinner that stretched until 2 a.m. as each leader offered his or her opinion on the Syrian situation — Obama left with no consensus about how the United States should respond. 
 
 The White House cited progress enlisting international support, releasing a joint statement signed by 11 of the summit’s participants that calls for a “strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience” and expresses support for U.S. and allied efforts “to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.” 
 
 Timeline: Unrest in Syria Two years after the first anti-government protests, conflict in Syria rages on. See the major events in the country's tumultuous uprising. 
 
 But in his own news conference, Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, the summit’s host, reiterated his categorical opposition to a U.S. strike and said that of the 20 nations at the summit, only four — Canada, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia — had offered Obama their full support. 
 
 Also Friday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon offered his sharpest criticism of potential military action in Syria. While not referring directly to U.S. plans for a military strike, Ban made it clear that such action could be counterproductive. 
 
 “I must warn that ill-considered military action could cause serious and tragic consequences, and with an increased threat of further sectarian violence,” said Ban, speaking at the sidelines of the summit. “We should explore ways to avoid further militarization of the conflict and revitalize the search for a political settlement instead.” 
 
 Obama met privately with Putin on the sidelines of the summit for about 20 minutes Friday morning. They discussed Syria, but neither convinced the other to change positions. 
 
 “We stuck to our guns,” Putin told reporters, although the Russian leader characterized the conversation as a friendly one. Referencing Obama’s case for military action, Putin said, “We do not agree with those arguments, but still we can hear them. We’re trying to find an agreement toward a peaceful settlement of this crisis.” 
 
 Putin said that he believed a unilateral strike would be a violation of international law. He argued that the use of force against a sovereign nation is allowed only as a matter of self-defense, and that Syria has not attacked the United States. 
 
 Putin also confirmed that Russia’s support for the Assad regime would continue. 
 
 “Will we help Syria? Yes, we will,” he said. “We are doing it right now. We are supplying arms. We are providing economic assistance.” He said Russia wants to expand its humanitarian assistance to Syria. 
 
 Meanwhile, Secretary of State John F. Kerry arrived in Lithuania to begin a series of meetings with European Union and Arab League leaders aimed at mustering support for a strike on Syria. In meetings across Europe over the weekend, Kerry will seek more public and explicit condemnation of Assad’s government for chemical weapons use and backing for U.S.-led military action against him. 
 
 And in Washington, Samantha Power, Obama’s new envoy to the United Nations, made the case for military action before a generally liberal audience at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank closely aligned with the Obama administration on most issues. 
 
 Power acknowledged that Americans are weary of war and deeply concerned about the prospect of military intervention in Syria. But she said that the United States has “exhausted the alternatives” to military action, having failed to engage the Syrian government diplomatically or persuade Russia to support efforts through the U.N. Security Council. 
 
 “The diplomatic process is stalled because one side has just been gassed on a massive scale and the other side so far feels it has gotten away with it,” Power said. “What would words in the form of belated diplomatic condemnation achieve?” 
 
 She added: “There is no risk-free door number two that we can choose in this case.” 
 
 Obama and his top advisers are scrambling to drum up support on Capitol Hill for the vote to authorize military action. In the news conference, Obama sought to assure Americans weary after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan that a strike in Syria would be limited. He declined to say whether he would go ahead with a strike if Congress voted no. The president said that many of his decisions have been unpopular but that the American people, as well as their elected representatives in Washington, should trust him to offer his best judgment. 
 
 “That’s why they elected me,” Obama said. “That’s why they reelected me, even after there were some decisions I made that they disagreed with.” 
 
 Aaron Blake, William Branigin, Juliet Eilperin and Ed O’Keefe in Washington, Colum Lynch at the United Nations and Karen DeYoung in Lithuania contributed to this report.
– President Obama took a big step forward in his quest to gain Congressional approval for a strike on Syria, convincing the leaders of both parties in the House to back his play. Obama held a meeting with John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and other top lawmakers this morning, arguing that military action was necessary, but would be limited. "This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan," he promised, according to CNN. He said he was confident Congress would back him, and soon thereafter, both Boehner and Pelosi announced that they would. "The United States for our entire history has stood up for democracy and freedom," Boehner said, according to the Washington Post. "These weapons have to be responded to." Eric Cantor issued a statement saying that he, too, would vote to intervene—though he didn't sound eager to strong-arm his caucus into following suit. "It is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress," he wrote, "and I hope he is successful." Mitch McConnell was also at the meeting, but hasn't yet voiced his intentions—though Obama already has two Senate Republicans in his corner in John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But despite all that support, the vote could be close, USA Today warns, as some lawmakers worry that the resolution is too open-ended.