As the hours tick down to a possible war in Syria, congress is working, or not so much, with the president in helping him make his final decision on whether the country uses military force. While the congress, and the American people, are split on whether the United States should intervene, one Republican senator has made his opinion known. Speaking to Fox News, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated that he was against military involvement in Syria, noting that if he was president the country wouldn't even be in a position to attack Syria.
"I don’t believe we should take military action unless we have a clear and achievable goal in mind...and one of the clear goals of this action he’s arguing for is to impede Assad from using chemical weapons in the future. I am highly skeptical. Now we have a closed hearing tomorrow where classified information will be discussed, and I’ll wait until then to reserve judgment. But I remain very skeptical that the kind of attack they’re contemplating, this limited attack, is going to actually achieve that goal of preventing Assad from using chemical weapons in the future.
We have to understand, if I had been in charge, or someone else, hopefully we’d have never gotten to this stage. So if we inherited this mess, which we have now, I think our obligation is to try to figure out what is the least worst option available to us because they’re all bad."
Despite his opposition on a possible war in Syria, Marco Rubio voted against repealing the authorization for the use of force in Iraq in 2011 and supported the 2007 troop surge. The Republican party appears split on whether the U.S. should get involved in Syria, but they didn't seem so confused when a Republican president was making the case for two wars only a decade ago.