It remained unclear on Thursday whether a U.S. Senate committee-passed resolution on use of force against Syria would win endorsement on the Senate floor or if an alternate measure would pass in the House of Representatives, which are expected to debate potential strikes against the Middle East nation next week, USA Today reported.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday backed President Obama’s proposal to employ armed force against President Bashar Assad’s regime, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Obama’s high-stakes political push for military intervention in Syria has gained little traction among GOP members of the lower chamber, despite winning the support of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) earlier this week. Some of the president’s longtime Democratic allies also are among the proposal’s greatest critics, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.
Questions also persisted on the scope and tactics of a possible attack, according to the Journal. The text approved on Wednesday by the Senate committee states that any military action against Assad’s government should last no longer than 90 days. However, it would also commit Washington to altering “the momentum on the battlefield” in Syria’s civil war, now in its third year.
Despite the proposed strike’s stated aim of punishing Assad’s regime for allegedly using nerve gas to kill more than 1,400 people late last month and deterring future such attacks, Secretary of State John Kerry said the action would have a “downstream collateral benefit” of eroding the Syrian government’s armed forces capabilities.
The Defense Department previously said it would not plan to employ bomber aircraft in a potential attack, but the Pentagon is now examining possible use of such planes in addition to four missile-equipped warships fielded off the Syrian coast, the Journal reported. An offensive might involve missile-capable B-1 or B-52 bombers, or B-2 aircraft able to accommodate large gravity munitions.
What We're Following See More »
"Some Republicans are running so far away from their party’s nominee that they are threatening to sue TV stations for running ads that suggest they support Donald Trump. Just two weeks before Election Day, five Republicans―Reps. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), David Jolly (R-Fla.), John Katko (R-N.Y.) and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican running for an open seat that’s currently occupied by his brother―contend that certain commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee provide false or misleading information by connecting them to the GOP nominee. Trump is so terrible, these Republicans are essentially arguing, that tying them to him amounts to defamation."
Former Illinois GOP Congressman Aaron Schock "recently agreed to pay a $10,000 fine for making an excessive solicitation for a super PAC that was active in his home state of Illinois four years ago." Schock resigned from Congress after a story about his Downton Abbey-themed congressional office raised questions about how he was using taxpayer dollars.
If you need a marker for how confident Hillary Clinton is at this point of the race, here's one: CNN's Jeff Zeleny reports "she's been talking to Republican senators, old allies and new, saying that she is willing to work with them and govern."
On Tuesday, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines threatened to kick U.S. troops out of the country, adding that if he remains president for more than one term he will move to terminate all military deals with America. Last week, Duterte called for a separation between the two countries, though other government officials immediately said he did not mean that literally.