This article is from the source 'washpo' 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.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-expected-to-give-approval-to-obamas-plan-to-fight-islamist-militants/2014/09/18/f7fc229e-3f3e-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Senate votes to approve Obama’s plan to fight Islamist militants Senate votes to approve Obama’s plan to fight Islamist militants
(about 2 hours later)
The Senate approved President Obama’s plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels Thursday, giving final congressional approval to the strategy and capping a brief debate that sets the stage for broader discussions after the midterm elections over how to counter the growing threat of the Islamic State organization. President Obama’s plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels exposed a deep rift Thursday among Democrats over waging war, with a large bloc of liberals staunchly opposed to the modest mission, fearing another long-term engagement in Iraq.
While the Senate sent the measure Thursday to the White House for Obama’s signature, votes this week demonstrated the tenuous support he has from his own party in carrying out the mission to “degrade and destroy” Islamic State forces. Several of the party’s rising stars, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, rejected the proposal, while in the House, Obama’s proposal won approval only because a vast majority of Republicans backed him.
Many rank-and-file Democrats who did support Obama said they expect a broad debate in November and December, after the midterm elections, so that legislation can be approved to place broad constraints on the U.S. military’s ability to carry out the operation and set a specific deadline for the mission’s end.
After the votes, Obama thanked Congress “for the speed and seriousness with which they approached this issue” and noted that “a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate” had voted to train and equip the rebels.
“We are strongest as a nation when the president and Congress work together,” he said.
Senators voted 78 to 22 to approve the strategy as part of a measure meant to keep the federal government operating through mid-December. Support came from 45 Democrats and 33 Republicans, while 10 members of the Senate Democratic caucus and 12 Republicans voted against the bill.Senators voted 78 to 22 to approve the strategy as part of a measure meant to keep the federal government operating through mid-December. Support came from 45 Democrats and 33 Republicans, while 10 members of the Senate Democratic caucus and 12 Republicans voted against the bill.
The vote was not a pure reflection of support for Obama’s plan. Some Republicans opposed it because the bill sets federal spending too high, but other Republicans and Democrats were opposed amid concerns about plans to vet potential Syrian rebel groups. The vote was not a pure reflection of support for Obama’s plan. Some Republicans opposed it because they felt the bill sets federal spending too high. Other Republicans and Democrats were opposed because of concerns about plans to vet potential Syrian rebel groups.
“My default is always to support this president on foreign policy, this is just one area where I’m in disagreement,” Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview before the vote. Warren said in a statement that she is “not convinced that the current proposal to train and equip Syrian forces adequately advances our interests.” She added, “I do not want American to be dragged into another ground war in the Middle East.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential GOP presidential candidate, was also opposed and used a combative floor speech to blast Obama and congressional colleagues for not holding a fuller war debate before the elections. While Gillibrand said in a statement that she supports “aspects” of Obama’s plans, she said that “previous history leads me to conclude that arming Syrian rebels would be an ineffective solution.”
“The people in this body are petrified — not of ISIS — but of the American voter. They’re afraid to come forward and vote on war now,” he said. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential presidential candidate, voted no and used a combative floor speech to blast Obama and congressional colleagues for not holding a fuller war debate before the elections.
“I want to thank leaders of Congress for the speed and seriousness with which they approached this issue,” President Obama said Thursday following the vote, noting that “a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate” had voted to train and equip the rebels. “We are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together.” “The people in this body are petrified — not of ISIS — but of the American voter,” he said, using an acronym for another name for the Islamic State. Lawmakers are “afraid to come forward and vote on war now.”
The House and Senate plan to adjourn Thursday night, capping a brief two-week congressional session held primarily to ensure the federal government won’t shut down when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. Neither chamber is scheduled to reconvene until after Election Day. Among other potential Republican presidential contenders, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas voted no, while Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida supported the bill.
Meanwhile, Democrats remain divided over the debate this fall on setting the terms of war against the Islamic State, despite the unified support of their leadership for President Obama’s initial request for training pro-Western rebels. The House and Senate planned to adjourn Thursday night, capping a two-week congressional session held primarily to ensure the federal government won’t shut down when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. Neither chamber is scheduled to reconvene until after Election Day.
Rank-and-file Democrats in the House and Senate say they are looking forward to a broad war powers debate in the lame-duck session after the Nov. 4 midterm elections, echoing similar comments from most Republicans. Despite clamoring from the Democratic rank-and-file for a broader debate later in the fall, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have been counseling patience.
But Democratic leaders are divided over that issue, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) among those counseling patience and, for now, a more narrow debate. Reid demurred when asked Thursday how expansive the post-election debate should be. He cited it along with a host of other issues, ranging from allowing states to impose an Internet sales tax to confirming more presidential nominees. “We have a lot to do in the lame duck,” Reid said.
The scope of debate is important because many Democrats supporting the initial authorization request suggested their yes votes were based on the premise of holding a bigger debate on the parameters of war later this year.
Some Democrats opposed to deeper military intervention said their colleagues had been duped into believing a big war debate was coming. “That’s the illusion,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), one of 85 House Democrats who opposed the president’s request. “This was the vote.”
Welch, like many other Democrats, is skeptical that the United States will ever be able to identify trustworthy partners on the ground in Syria. “You’re going to have a bunch of white guys vetting these people over in Syria. Our confidence abounds, but that’s tough,” he said.
The schism among Democrats became clear at a Thursday press conference of Senate Democratic leaders, during which Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said that a full war debate would take place in the lame-duck session leading to “one of the most important votes we can cast.”
“It’s long overdue,” said Durbin, citing the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations as outdated for today’s threats. “We are living on borrowed time and we’re traveling on vapors.”
Moments later, Reid demurred on how expansive the post-election debate should be. He cited it along with a host of other issues, ranging from allowing states to impose an Internet sales tax to confirming more presidential nominees. “We have a lot to do in the lame-duck,” Reid said.
He added that the National Defense Authorization Act, which he also expects to debate after the election, has language related to Syrian rebels. “It’s already in the bill,” he told reporters, suggesting a broad debate might not be necessary.He added that the National Defense Authorization Act, which he also expects to debate after the election, has language related to Syrian rebels. “It’s already in the bill,” he told reporters, suggesting a broad debate might not be necessary.
But currently that language is a small piece of a larger bill that, if enacted, would merely ratify the modest plan to train and arm rebels that Congress approved this week.But currently that language is a small piece of a larger bill that, if enacted, would merely ratify the modest plan to train and arm rebels that Congress approved this week.
Reid’s response mirrored Pelosi’s belief that, under Obama’s current war plans, there is no need for an expansive debate. “It depends on what the president does. WE believe that he has the authority to do what he is doing now,” she told reporters Thursday. Reid’s response mirrored Pelosi’s belief that, under Obama’s current war plans, there is no need for an expansive debate. “It depends on what the president does. We believe that he has the authority to do what he is doing now,” she told reporters Thursday.
The Democratic leaders’ comments conflict with those of some top Republicans, who crafted language this week that would have the authority to support Syrian rebels expire on Dec. 11 in order to prompt a broader debate on the issue. The short-term agreement “positions us for better solutions in the months to come,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday. But Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said Thursday that a full war debate would take place in the lame-duck session leading to “one of the most important votes we can cast.”
Many rank-and-file Democrats are expecting a full debate that would replace the 2001 bill, authorizing a war against terrorists, and the 2002 measure, which approved the war against Saddam Hussein’s troops in Iraq. “I feel a little bit more confident about my vote today because I have a growing faith there will be a debate on [war] authorization in the fall,” Murphy said in a separate interview Thursday. “It’s long overdue,” said Durbin, citing the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations as outdated for today’s threats. “We are living on borrowed time, and we’re traveling on vapors.”
He expects that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), to continue working throughout the fall to craft broad legislation for consideration after the elections. “There’s a growing seriousness about a debate,” Murphy said. But some Democrats opposed to deeper military intervention said their colleagues had been duped into believing a big war debate was coming. “That’s the illusion,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), one of 85 House Democrats who opposed the president’s request. “This was the vote.”
Others agreed with Reid and Pelosi, saying a broad debate would happen once Congress can measure the success of air strikes against Islamic State forces and whether a broad international coalition comes together. “It’s going to take a lot longer than a few months,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the No. 4 leader, said. Welch, like many other Democrats, is skeptical that the United States will ever be able to identify trustworthy partners on the ground in Syria. “You’re going to have a bunch of white guys vetting these people over in Syria. Our confidence abounds, but that’s tough,” he said.
Regardless of Democratic concerns, at least some debate must occur later this year because the current war uthorization is set to expire when the short-term spending expires. And several House Republicans who voted against Obama’s new strategy this week say they’re eager to revisit the issue. At least some debate must occur later this year because the current war authorization is to sunset when the short-term spending expires. Several House Republicans who voted against Obama’s new strategy expressed an eagerness Thursday to revisit the issue.
Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) – an outspoken leader in the conservative wing of the House GOP — said Thursday that Republicans will need to be cautious and deliberate. “We used to tread very carefully when it came to the use of force,” he said. “That’s what being a Republican used to be.” Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-Idaho) — an outspoken leader in the conservative wing of the House GOP — said that Republicans will need to be cautious and deliberate. “We used to tread very carefully when it came to the use of force,” he said. “That’s what being a Republican used to be.”
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said she grappled with her decision to vote no Wednesday, but is willing to reconsider after a longer debate. Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.) said she grappled with her decision to vote no and is willing to reconsider after a longer debate.
“It is going to be a profoundly difficult decision that I intend to be perched on from now until December 11th,” when the current authority expires, she said. “It is going to be a profoundly difficult decision that I intend to be perched on from now until Dec. 11,” when the current authority expires, she said.
Wesley Lowery contributed to this report.Wesley Lowery contributed to this report.