What Our Lawmakers Are Saying About Military Force In Syria
With President Obama seeking Congressional approval for a military strike in Syria, here's what our U.S. Senators and Congressmen are saying.
Democrat North Carolina U.S. Senator Kay Hagan has not specifically committed to the use of military force, but over the weekend she tweeted, "Without putting American troops on the ground, atrocities in Syria require a strong response that will prevent them from happening again."
Hagan's counterpart in the Senate, Republican Richard Burr says, "Short of putting troops on the ground, it is time for the United States and our NATO allies to take necessary, punitive military action against the Syrian regime and send a clear signal to its leadership, and others in the region who may be contemplating using weapons of this nature, that there are consequences for these actions."
In the U.S. House, Republican Congressman Walter Jones last week said that, "A decision to engage the United States military without the approval of Congress would violate the Constitution and the war powers resolution of 1973," and urged the president to heed the advice of President Ronald Reagan, whose middle east policy changed to one of neutrality following the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.
Democrat Congressman G.K. Butterfield's office tells WITN, "It is too early to state whether Congressman Butterfield will vote to authorize military intervention in Syria. He is following the situation closely and continues to give it the thoughtful and careful consideration it deserves."