This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/divided-senate-panel-approves-resolution-on-syria-strike.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Divided Senate Panel Approves Resolution on Syria Strike Divided Senate Panel Approves Resolution on Syria Strike
(35 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved an authorization of force against the Syrian government, setting up a showdown next week in the full Senate on whether President Obama should have the authority to strike.WASHINGTON — A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved an authorization of force against the Syrian government, setting up a showdown next week in the full Senate on whether President Obama should have the authority to strike.
The 10-to-7 vote showed bipartisan support for a strike, but bipartisan opposition as well. Republicans voting yes included Senators John McCain of Arizona, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona. Democrats against the authorization included Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Chris Murphy of Connecticut. The Senate’s newest member, Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, voted present.The 10-to-7 vote showed bipartisan support for a strike, but bipartisan opposition as well. Republicans voting yes included Senators John McCain of Arizona, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona. Democrats against the authorization included Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Chris Murphy of Connecticut. The Senate’s newest member, Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, voted present.
The panel had struggled to draft the resolution, with the senators deeply divided over how much force should be brought to bear to punish Syria’s government for the use of chemical weapons.The panel had struggled to draft the resolution, with the senators deeply divided over how much force should be brought to bear to punish Syria’s government for the use of chemical weapons.
The committee’s bipartisan leaders pressed forward with a resolution limiting the duration and nature of military strikes, while Mr. McCain demanded more – not less – latitude for the military to inflict damage on the government of President Bashar al-Assad.The committee’s bipartisan leaders pressed forward with a resolution limiting the duration and nature of military strikes, while Mr. McCain demanded more – not less – latitude for the military to inflict damage on the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
In the afternoon, the balance of power appeared to lie with the interventionists. The panel set aside a resolution by Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican leading the opposition to the strikes, that would have declared that the president has authority to act unilaterally only when the nation faces attack, then approved language by Mr. McCain and Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, to toughen the resolution. The approved resolution would limit strikes against the Syrian government to 60 days, with the possibility of 30 more days upon consultation with Congress, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops. But to retain the support of Mr. McCain, considered crucial to the authorization’s final passage, the committee toughened some of the language.
The McCain-Coons language noted “absent decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria, sufficient incentives do not yet exist” to force a political settlement of the Syrian civil war. It also reiterated that “it is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria,” urging “a comprehensive U.S. strategy” to not only degrade the government’s weapons of mass destruction but also to upgrade the military capabilities of “elements of the Syrian opposition.” Before the vote, the balance of power appeared to lie with the interventionists. The panel set aside a resolution by Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican leading the opposition to the strikes, that would have declared that the president has the authority to act unilaterally only when the nation faces attack, then approved language by Mr. McCain and Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, to toughen the resolution.
The McCain-Coons language noted “absent decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria, sufficient incentives do not yet exist” to force a political settlement of the Syrian civil war.
It also reiterated that “it is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria,” urging “a comprehensive U.S. strategy” to not only degrade the government’s weapons of mass destruction but also to improve the fighting abilities of “elements of the Syrian opposition.”