Kentucky lawmakers in Washington are reacting to President Obama’s national address where he said he was asking Congress to postpone a vote on authorizing military strikes against Syria as the U.S. pursues diplomatic solutions.
Since the president first said he was seeking congressional approval for a limited attack on the Assad regime, members of the state’s federal delegation have voiced either opposition or skepticism to the plan.
Poll numbers show the vast majority of Americans oppose U.S. intervention.
The president acknowledged the public’s war weariness but outlined his rationale for why he believes the U.S. should get involved. At least one lawmaker was pleased with Obama’s primetime address for clearing a path to diplomacy.
From Democratic Congressman John Yarmuth:
“It is in our national interest to delay a vote on military action against the Syrian government while we pursue diplomatic opportunities to force the Assad regime to surrender its chemical weapons. I strongly support this approach and, like all Americans, will continue to monitor these developments as the international community re-evaluates its responsibilities in Syria.”
Others remained oppose to the idea of U.S. intervention, even as reports reflect the Russian government is persuading the Syrian government to release their chemical weapon stockpiles to avert U.S. strikes.
From Republican Congressman Thomas Massie:
In a response to Obama’s speech, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said a diplomatic path is a better choice than military strikes, but that opposition to the president’s plan among citizens and lawmakers brought that about.
“The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up and said ‘slow down’ allowed this possible solution to take shape,” Paul said. “If the vote occurs, I will vote no and encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. The President has not made a compelling case that American interests are at risk in Syria. The threshold for war should be a significant one.