Rep. Grayson: Obama case for Syria 'doesn't make any sense'

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Monday that the administration's argument that letting Syria's use of sarin gas last month go unchecked would hurt U.S. security was "not logical" and did not "make any sense."

Administration officials have argued that the U.S. should respond to the attack because the failure to do so would send a message to other regimes — and terror groups — that the use of chemical weapons was acceptable.

ADVERTISEMENT
But in an interview with CNN's "New Day," Grayson said that too few countries had chemical weapons for that to be a concern.

"There's only four countries in the world that have chemical weapons," Grayson said. "The largest of the four is the United States. So are we trying to send a message to ourselves? That's not logical."

The Florida Democrat went on to reject the argument made by Secretary of State John Kerry on ABC News' "This Week" that a failure to respond "will be granting a blanket license to Assad to continue to gas, and we will send the wrong message to Iran, North Korea and other countries.

"I've heard that theory before somehow one country's actions will affect another country's and another country's and another country's," Grayson said. "It's just the Domino argument again. We'll call it the 'bomb-ino' argument. It's not logical, doesn't make any sense."

Grayson said the chemical attack on the Damascus suburbs "absolutely" did not threaten American national security interests.

"We are not the world's policeman," he said. "We can't afford this anymore, these military adventures that lead us into wars that last for a decade or more. It's wrong. We need to cut it off before it even happens."

The White House argues if the U.S. does not act, Hezbollah and Iran, among others, would see there are no consequences for violating the international law against using chemical weapons.

"Anyone who is concerned about Iran and its efforts in the region should support this action," a White House official said.