What our MoCs said about Syria in 2013 vs. 2017

First of all:

A-men to that. We are not Syria experts. But we do know a thing or two about our Members of Congress, and their tendency to contradict themselves depending on who happens to be president at the time. Assad has used chemical weapons before, in 2013, and Obama considered responding with a military strike. We’ll update this post as more lawmakers issue statements.

Sen. John Cornyn




Sen. Ted Cruz


“I emphatically condemn Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people, and all Americans mourn the loss of innocent lives in Syria’s civil war.

But I do not believe a limited airstrike, as proposed by the president, will lead to success or improve conditions in Syria. There are other actions we can and should take to confront this atrocity, starting with forcing a vote in the U.N. Security Council condemning Assad for this attack; doing so would unify the world against the regime and expose China’s and Russia’s support for this tyrant.”

Source: Ted Cruz: Why I’ll vote no on Syria strike, Washington Post


“Any military action in Syria must be justified as protecting the vital national security interests of America – including decisive action to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists,” Cruz said in a statement.

“I look forward to our Commander-in-Chief making the case to Congress and the American people how we should do so in the coming days,” Cruz said.

Source: Cruz: Trump should make the case for military action in Syria (The Hill)


Rep. Michael McCaul (TX-10)


“Any U.S. military strikes against the Assad Regime will also benefit the extremists fighting him who will undoubtedly use Assad’s weapons against American allies and interests and possibly even our homeland if given the chance.”

Source: Chairman McCaul Statement at Full Committee Hearing: Crisis in Syria: Implications for Homeland Security


“I commend President Trump’s decisive actions in Syria and fundamentally believe that the United States cannot and must not accept the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime on innocent civilians to become the norm. While the U.S. would prefer a political rather than a military solution to this conflict, the fact remains that you cannot negotiate with tyrants. Passiveness in Syria is what has exacerbated this situation and allowed for adversaries such as Russia and Iran to exert their influence at the expense of U.S. national security, all the while allowing ISIS to flourish. Tonight’s military strikes in Syria are a signal to the world that the days of blank threats are long gone and under this Administration credibility will be restored.”

Source: McCaul Statement on Military Strikes in Syria

Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17)


“President Obama did not lay out a compelling case that Syria represents a clear and present danger to the U.S., nor that military operations in Syria are in the strategic interests of our country. There continues to be a lack of a comprehensive strategy to commit the U.S. military to intervene in Syria’s civil war. In addition, few Americans have confidence in the president’s diplomatic and military initiatives in the Middle East as evidenced by the administration’s failures in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Libya.”

Source: Flores Responds to Presidential Address on Syria

Rep. Lamar Smith (TX-21)


“If the House were to vote today on launching military strikes against Syria, I and a majority of Members would vote ‘no.’

“Over the last two weeks, I have spoken with hundreds of constituents who are overwhelmingly opposed to a military attack on Syria. I have received over 2,000 emails, letters, and phone calls from constituents and 95% oppose attacking Syria.

“I share my constituents’ concerns. We should not commit our Armed Forces to an uncertain goal, with few allies, and no friends in another country’s civil war. The President said on August 31 that ‘we cannot resolve the underlying conflict with our military.’ That’s a reason to oppose military action, not endorse it.”

Source: Smith Opposes Military Strike on Syria

Rep. Roger Williams (TX-25)


“It is not the responsibility of our men and women in uniform to risk their lives and enforce the president’s red line when our own national security is not at stake.”


Rep. Roger Williams announces legislation to prevent additional refugees


Rep. John Carter (TX-31)


U.S. Rep. John Carter (R-Round Rock) said Monday in Killeen that he was waiting to find out what the federal government really knows about the situation. “I think we all as members of Congress owe a duty to the American people to get all the information and find out where the intelligence comes from,” he said. “Quite honestly, we’ve had some bad situations in the past on intelligence.”

Source: Austin Congressman Opposes Military Action in Syria (KUT)

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)


“The President is right to explore international control of Syria’s chemical weapons and to postpone any Congressional action. This is a challenging approach but better than a go-it-alone strike that effectively leaves Assad controlling all of those chemical weapons. I do not support authorizing an American attack that could entangle us in a bloody, costly regional conflict.”

Source: Where Lawmakers Stand on Military Action in Syria (NY Times)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *