Reid, McConnell Mum on Syria as Rand Paul Calls for Debate

Senate leaders Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have not yet weighed in on whether they believe Congress should have to debate and authorize military action in Syria before President Barack Obama can move forward with it.

Reid’s office says the Nevada Democrat has been briefed by the administration, “but that’s all we have to say right now.” McConnell has not yet released a statement and his office would not say whether or when he might.

Reid voted to authorize both the Gulf War and the Iraq War. In 1991, only 10 out of 55 Senate Democrats voted to support the use of military force in Kuwait. McConnell is in a difficult spot because while he has traditionally supported military engagement, he now has to consider the positions of anti-war libertarian Rand Paul of Kentucky, whose continued support is essential to maintaining the conservative vote back home for his re-election in 2014.

On Wednesday, Paul released a statement urging congressional debate and emphasizing Congress’ role in declaring war.

“The United States should condemn the use of chemical weapons. We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement. The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress not the President,” Paul said.

Attacking him from both sides is a good strategy. The left covers their bases, argues it both ways all the time, and is never held accountable. I remember one of their biggest talking points against the Iraq War was "since we ALL know Saddam has WMDs, Bush invading Iraq will GUARANTEE he uses those WMDs on us"

>> However the libs themselves all seem to be against this from <<

How the politicians on the left react is one way (most of them voted FOR invading in Iraq, in contrary to the grassroots left-wing activists). On the grassroots level, I haven't seen a single person on the left (at least, the American left), oppose Obama on this one. Their general talking point seems to be that they're wary of the idea, but since their overlord Obama is in favor it, they're going to stand by him. (and I have no doubt they'd be on the streets now demanding Bush's head on a platter if he said the same stuff that Obama is saying). It's a similar herd mentality to those grassroot conservatives in the GOP who couldn't come up with a single logical reason to back Arlen Specter over a conservative in the GOP primary, but decided they had to since Bush supported him and "we must stand by our President"

>> Lsst, McCain and Grahamnesty are giving Obama some cover on this by demanding he do it. <<

Mark Kirk thinks it's a wonderful idea too. His fan club in the GOP claims this guy is a valuable asset because of his "military expertise", AFTER Kirk said 1) He was absolutely 100% sure Iraq had WMDs, and 2) He was absolutely 100% sure the surge it Iraq would NOT work. Very few people in Washington managed to be wrong on BOTH issues (Colin Powell also gets a Doofus Award for this). The only "military expertise" I've seen from Kirk is the pathological ability to lie about his service record.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.