- Marco Rubio: U.S. at social, moral crossroads
- ‘We’re coming for you, Barack Obama’: Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL
- White flags baffle NYPD: ‘We’re lucky it wasn’t a bomb’
- N.Y. Gov. Cuomo’s office interfered with, pressured corruption commission: report
- Brit lawmaker: I would fire on Israel if I lived in Gaza
- VA apologizes to forgotten Marine veteran locked in Fla. clinic, forced to call 911
- U.S. social and economic trends on worrisome track, survey finds
- McDonald nomination unanimously referred to full Senate
- Chuck Norris honorary chairman of NRA voter registration campaign
- GOP outraged Obamacare investigators able to get coverage with fake IDs
All sides claim win in Syria-Russia chemical weapons offer
Question of the Day
Even as Capitol Hill waited to see how the Russian chemical weapons offer played out, lawmakers on both sides of the question of Syria strikes claimed credit for helping force the Assad regime's hand.
President Obama, in a round of interviews Monday night, said it was his threat of military attack in support of his chemical weapons "red line" that made President Bashar Assad realize he had no choice but to relinquish weapons.
Meanwhile in Congress, Sen. Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the key moment was that panel's 10-7 vote last week to authorize Mr. Obama to strike.
"While at this point I have healthy skepticism that this offer will change the situation and it will be several days before we can fully determine its credibility, I do know that it never would have been floated if the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had not approved the authorization for the use of force last week," the Tennessee Republican said.
Mr. Corker's skepticism was shared by many in Congress, who said Russia's plan to have Syria turn over chemical weapons to an international body could be a breakthrough, but could also be a stalling tactic.
Still, it was enough of a real possibility that the Senate, which had been rushing to try to pass a resolution authorizing Mr. Obama to strike at the regime's chemical weapons facilities, hit the pause button and delayed forcing a filibuster vote.
Many lawmakers who were leaning against supporting U.S. strikes eagerly embraced the prospect of an international agreement to solve the chemical weapons situation, calling it a better "way forward" than an American-led attack.
"Syria's offer makes any bombing campaign aimed at neutralizing its chemical stockpile unnecessary," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, Arizona Democrat.
He said the offer showed that international diplomacy had not been exhausted and the push for strikes was premature.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Stephen Dinan can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Lois Lerner emails reveal gaping open-records loophole
- Two-thirds of illegal immigrant children approved for asylum: report
- Top Justice official denies conspiring with IRS on tea party targeting
- Boehner: No bill on border surge
- Taking Obama to court a long shot but lawsuit not folly, Congress is told
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- Latest Obama claim: I don't learn anything from the news
- Netanyahu's Wikipedia page replaced with giant Palestinian flag
- Tom Petty: 'No one's got Christ more wrong than the Christians'
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- Two Ukrainian fighter jets shot down
- HURT: The cost of 'free' water in Detroit
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq