HOW THEY VOTED
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 Wednesday in favor of a resolution authorizing President Barack Obama to order a “limited and tailored” military attack “against legitimate military targets in Syria.”
Voting yes were Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; Chris Coons, D-Del.; Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Ben Cardin, D-Md.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Tim Kaine, D-Va., Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Voting no were Tom Udall, D-N.M.; Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; James Risch, R-Idaho; Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; Ron Johnson, R-Wis.; and John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., voted “present.”
DEVELOPMENTS
— A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the use of force against Syria, setting up a showdown next week in the full Senate on whether President Barack Obama should have the authority to strike.
— Obama said the “red line” he talked about a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons wasn’t his but an international standard. “I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” he said.
— Russian President Vladimir warned the West against taking one-sided action in Syria but also said Russia “doesn’t exclude” supporting a U.N. resolution on military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used chemical weapons.
News services
President Barack Obama’s request for speedy congressional backing of a military strike in Syria advanced Wednesday toward a showdown Senate vote, while the commander in chief left open the possibility he would order retaliation for a deadly chemical weapons attack even if Congress withheld its approval.
Legislation backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad’s government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote after it was toughened to include a pledge of support for “decisive changes to the present military balance of power” in Syria’s civil war. It also would rule out U.S. combat operations on the ground.
The measure is expected to reach the Senate floor next week, although the timing for a vote is uncertain. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who opposes U.S. intervention, has threatened a filibuster.
The House also is reviewing Obama’s request, but its timetable is even less certain and the measure could face a tougher time there.
The administration blames Assad for a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 and says more than 1,400 civilians died, including at least 400 children. Other casualty estimates are lower, and the Syrian government denies responsibility, contending rebels fighting to topple the government were to blame.
The Senate panel’s vote marked the first formal response in Congress, four days after Obama put off an anticipated cruise missile strike against Syria last weekend and instead asked lawmakers to unite first behind such a plan.
In Stockholm, Sweden, where Obama was traveling Wednesday, the White House praised the vote, and said it would continue to seek support for “a military response that is narrowly tailored to enforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and sufficient to protect the national security interests of the United States of America.”
Earlier, at a news conference Obama said, “I always preserve the right and responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security.” In a challenge to lawmakers back home, he said Congress’ credibility was on the line, not his own, despite saying a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line.”
Secretary of State John Kerry said he believes Obama will address the nation on Syria in the next few days. The president returns home Friday night.
Obama’s request also received its first hearing in the House during the day.
Kerry responded heatedly when Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., said the secretary of state, Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden all had advocated for caution in past conflicts. “Is the power of the executive branch so intoxicating that you have abandoned past caution in favor of pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly?” Duncan asked.
Kerry, who fought in Vietnam in the 1960s and voted to authorize the war against Iraq a decade ago, shot back angrily: “I volunteered to fight for my country, and that wasn’t a cautious thing to do when I did it.” When Duncan interrupted, the secretary of state said, “I’m going to finish, congressman,” and cited his support as senator for past U.S. military action in Panama and elsewhere.
The Senate committee’s vote capped a hectic few days in which lawmakers first narrowed the scope of Obama’s request — limiting it to 90 days and banning combat operations on the ground — and then widened it.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a proponent of aggressive U.S. military action in Syria, joined forces with Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware to add a provision calling for “decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria.”
At their urging, the measure was also changed to state that the policy of the United States is “to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.”
McCain, who has long accused Obama of timidity in Syria, argued that Assad will be willing to participate in diplomatic negotiations only if he believes he is going to lose the civil war he has been fighting for more than two years.
In his comments in Sweden, the president sought to shift the onus for responding to Assad to Congress and the world at large. “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line” with a treaty banning the use of chemical weapons. He added that “Congress set a red line” when it passed legislation a decade ago demanding Syria stop production of weapons of mass destruction.
His comments drew a disbelieving response from one Republican back home.
“He needs to go back and read his quote,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said, referring to a comment the president made slightly more than a year ago. On Aug. 20, 2012, Obama said, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”
Kerry said Assad had used chemical weapons 11 times but until the most recent attack the president did not have a “compelling” enough case to push for a U.S. military response.
Few if any members of Congress dispute the administration’s claim that Assad was responsible for the attack, and lawmakers in both parties appear far more focused on determining how they should respond.
Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., said that while it would be important to deter the use of chemical weapons by Assad and others, there remained many unanswered questions, including what the U.S. would do if Assad retaliated.
“The administration’s Syria policy doesn’t build confidence,” he said.
About the Author
