- Gentlemen, start your drones: Judge’s ruling opens door for commercial use
- Soldier who hid, bragged about not saluting flag to be punished — in secret
- ‘Maverick’ of the seas: ‘Top Gun’ school for U.S. ship officers to launch
- Putin declares Sochi Paralympics open amid Ukrainian protest
- ‘In Jesus name, we pray’ sparks ire at Ohio council meeting
- Navy’s first laser weapon ready for prime time; drone killer to deploy this summer
- Billionaire backer: Rick Santorum ‘needs to be heard’ in 2016
- Obamacare fallout: 49 percent pessimistic; 45 percent ‘scared’
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
Kerry holds objectors responsible for any future atrocities in Syria
Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Tuesday that members of Congress who refused to authorize retaliatory strikes against Syria would be responsible when the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad gasses its citizens or when North Korea or Iran attempts to use nuclear weapons.
Opening the administration’s official pitch to Congress for action, Mr. Kerry testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that he didn’t want to rule out the need for the U.S. to deploy troops to the ground in Syria — then backtracked and said if it means winning a vote, they have “no problem” with Congress writing a resolution prohibiting troops.
Late Tuesday, the top members of the committee said they had agreed on the text of a resolution that would prohibit “combat” troops from being deployed to Syria and would give the president just 90 days to conduct his strikes.
That resolution will be put to a committee vote Wednesday. The administration hopes it begins to build momentum for eventual approval by both chambers of Congress.
Whether Mr. Boehner brings any support with him, though, is questionable. Every day, more rank-and-file House members are adding their names to the list of those opposed to the authority Mr. Obama is seeking, and some lawmakers said they see little sign that the administration is winning over undecideds.
Instead, it will be up to lawmakers to try to craft a limited resolution that they can support — one that likely will dictate far more limits than the president requested.
“Our negotiations have led to a much narrower authorization that provides for the appropriate use of force while limiting the scope and duration of military action, prohibiting boots on the ground, and requiring the Obama administration to submit their broader plan for Syria,” said Sen. Bob Corker, the key Republican in the negotiations, hours after Mr. Kerry and the top two Defense Department officials — Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — testified to the Foreign Relations Committee.
In his testimony, Mr. Kerry said there no longer can be any doubt that troops loyal to Mr. Assad used chemical weapons against civilians in rebel-held territory on Aug. 21 and that the only question now is whether the U.S. will enforce Mr. Obama’s and the world’s “red line.”
In the most pointed remarks of the day, Mr. Kerry compared those who would vote against action to the case of the MS St. Louis, a ship carrying Jewish refugees from Germany that was turned away from Cuba, the U.S. and Canada in 1939 — and had to return to Europe, where many of its passengers eventually died in Nazi camps.
“Are you going to be comfortable if Assad, as a result of the United States not doing anything, then gasses his people yet again?” Mr. Kerry told his former colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee. “It’s a guarantee, if the United States doesn’t act together with other countries, we know what Assad will do. That’s a guarantee. I can’t tell you what’s guaranteed that some country will do if we do act, but I know what will happen if we don’t.”
Those claims were met with skepticism among some lawmakers, who said it was just as likely that Mr. Assad backs away from further use of chemical weapons and who said they feared that limited U.S. strikes, rather than settling the situation, would lead to a regional escalation.
“I am reluctant,” said Sen. James E. Risch, Idaho Republican. “If there was one American, if this was an attack against any American, against any American interest, this would be a no-brainer for me. But I’m reluctant at this point. And part of it stems from where this is going to go, as to the limit that we’re going to put on it.”
Still, a majority of the 18-member committee appeared to be leaning in favor of action, heeding the call of Senate leaders who appeared to be pushing for lawmakers to pass a resolution that would give a stamp of approval for Mr. Obama to act.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Stephen Dinan can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Border Patrol policy still permits agents to shoot at rock-throwers
- IRS to turn over Lerner emails in tea party targeting probe
- House defeats Democrats' attempt to rebuke Issa
- Obama declares himself 'champion in chief' for immigration
- Senate blocks Obama's civil rights nominee
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
- CPAC 2014: Rand Paul urges conservatives to fight for liberty
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- EDITORIAL: Connecticut revolts against gun controls that could criminalize 300,000
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Two liberals say Sarah Palin is right: Obama lacks substance
- Malaysia Airlines says plane on route to Beijing missing
- High schooler suing parents for money shot down by judge
- Soldier who hid to avoid saluting the flag to be punished in secret; Army won't release details
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again