- Algerian airplane goes missing over Mali: ‘Emergency plan’ launched
- Colorado judge strikes voter-backed gay marriage ban, but issues stay
- Brooklyn Bridge flag-swapping suspects identified by nickname
- Christian woman in Sudan spared for apostasy flies to Italy
- Iraq: 60 dead in attack on prisoner convoy
- 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
Syria war plan advances in Senate, pushes Obama to help rebels
Question of the Day
Senators wrote a war plan Wednesday for retaliatory military strikes against Syria, narrowly winning committee approval for a bipartisan blueprint that would grant President Obama authority to bomb the Assad regime’s chemical weapons facilities.
The resolution limits Mr. Obama by giving him 90 days to act, but also goes beyond what he wanted by pushing him to take steps to help the rebels seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad — language that was added Wednesday to win over the support of hawkish Republicans.
Still, the White House said it accepted the resolution as a key show of support.
“We believe America is stronger when the president and Congress work together,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said after the vote, even though the resolution is significantly different from what Mr. Obama proposed during the weekend.
Traveling in Sweden, Mr. Obama said he would like to rally more international support behind his decision to punish Mr. Assad, but said he is prepared to act even if he has to stand alone. He also said he has the right to strike even if Congress votes against him.
The Senate resolution passed on a 10-7 vote, marking the first victory for Mr. Obama in what will be a long series of hurdles to get authorization from Congress. Still to come are a full Senate floor fight, likely next week, and then an even tougher battle in the House.
Cracks already are showing between the chambers. Senators are moving to broaden U.S. backing of the Syrian opposition, while House members are talking about limiting U.S. strikes beyond the Senate’s strictures.
The measure that passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday gives Mr. Obama up to 90 days to strike at Syria’s ability to deploy or transfer chemical weapons.
But in a twist, language was added to push him to take action that would lead to “decisive changes to the present military balance of power” between the rebels and the government.
Analysts said the resolution still gave Mr. Obama more latitude than lawmakers likely intended — including holes that could end up leading to American troops being deployed on the ground. The resolution specifically prohibits only “combat troops,” but that still could mean special operations troops for intelligence missions or search-and-rescue troops.
Sen. Tom Udall, New Mexico Democrat, tried to force the administration to abide by even stricter limits by proposing that the resolution allow only air and naval power to be used for attacks from outside Syrian territory.
But the committee turned down his proposal. Members said they felt they were intruding on Mr. Obama’s ability to fight.
“We start down this road, we are going to be running the campaign from here, and as smart as we are, I don’t think we are that smart,” said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and former Navy pilot. He wanted to grant broad authority for Mr. Obama to strike Syria’s chemical weapons and to aid the rebels seeking to overthrow Mr. Assad.
Mr. McCain was one of three Republicans and seven Democrats who voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution. Voting against it were five Republicans and two Democrats: Mr. Udall and Sen. Christopher Murphy of Connecticut.
By pushing to arm Syrian rebels, Mr. Murphy said, the resolution forces the U.S. into deeper ties with one of the sides in the bloody, 2-year-old civil war. He said such a bond could end up drawing the U.S. into a full-scale war.
© 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
The subsidies are a hit with patients who don't exist
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- EDITORIAL: Poor Hillary, rock-star wannabe
- Netanyahu's Wikipedia page replaced with giant Palestinian flag
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Hezbollah in Syria could join fight against Israel
- Hamas orders civilians to die in Israeli airstrikes
- Democratic Sen. John Walsh plagiarized War College master's thesis: report
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- FIELDS: A tale of a boy, a Bible and a gun
- '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