Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. – WAITING FOR MORE INFORMATION
“I commend the President for the decision to seek authorization from Congress. The decision about whether or not to use military force in response to the Syrian atrocities raises significant issues that should be considered and debated by Congress. This debate will help define how America views its role as a world power.
“The tone we use while having this discussion also is vitally important. These are issues that should not break down along typical partisan lines, and the debate will provide an opportunity to demonstrate America’s elected leadership can come together to resolve serious issues. People across the country and indeed around the world will be watching closely as the world’s greatest democracy debates, and then decides, these important questions.”
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. – SUPPORT
“[Wednesday] I voted for a limited authorization for the use of military force in Syria to respond to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons to kill civilians, including more than 400 children. A failure to respond to such a blatant violation of longstanding international norms not only signals an acceptance of this atrocity, it also jeopardizes the lives of our service members in combat both today and in the future. For years, countries have refrained from using chemical weapons on our servicemembers because of this international standard and for their safety, we must continue to defend this principle.”
Rep. Robert Hurt, R, VA-5 – WAITING FOR MORE INFORMATION
“The recent tragedies in Syria have been devastating. Details regarding what has transpired continue to surface, and once we have all of the information, we should evaluate the situation and act accordingly. Before any action is taken, it is imperative that the President clearly articulate our national interest in doing so, as well as the outcome he intends to achieve, the way in which he plans to achieve that outcome, and what our exit strategy will be.”
Rep. Randy Forbes, R, VA-4 — OPPOSED
“I have no intention of voting to authorize American intervention in Syria. While the President’s decision to seek congressional authorization for military involvement in Syria shows a regard for the Constitution that has been noticeably absent for much of his presidency, I remain strongly opposed to an action that I believe will in no way contribute to America’s national security interests. I also find it concerning that the President is again seeking to use military power even while he has accepted nearly a trillion dollars in cuts from our national defense over the last four years. The President’s willingness to use our military without ensuring that it is properly funded should alarm all who view the maintenance of unparalleled American military power as a principal Constitutional duty of our Commander-in-Chief.”
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R, VA-6 — WAITING FOR MORE INFORMATION
“The President should fully brief and consult with Congress about any possible actions in Syria. There is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians is unacceptable. Last year, President Obama said the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians may constitute crossing a ‘red line,’ which would compel the Commander in Chief to change his approach. The President must now consult with Congress, and explain to the American people, whether this action has indeed crossed the ‘red line.’ The President must explain and justify the necessity and the scope of any proposed military action by the United States in Syria, and Congress must authorize any use of force should it be necessary.”
Rep. Eric Cantor, R, VA-7 — SUPPORT
“I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria. While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States.
“There are no easy solutions and a one-off military strike is not by itself an adequate strategy, but I am convinced that the risks of inaction outweigh the risks of a limited intervention. And a well-designed and well executed strike that both deters the use of chemical weapons and diminishes the capacity of the Assad regime can contribute to the achievement of a clear and attainable goal: the ultimate displacement of the Assad regime by moderate elements within the opposition. That is why it is imperative that the Administration continue to identify and support those moderate elements who are battling both Assad and Al Qaeda.”
Rep. Jim Moran, D, VA-8 – SUPPORT
“President Obama was absolutely right in setting a red line against the use of weapons of mass destruction by Bashar al-Assad. The United States has the only true ability to prevent the use and proliferation of such weapons. Abdicating this responsibility will only allow for their deployment to become the new norm.
“Now it is up to one of the most divisive, least productive Congresses in history to authorize an intervention and protect the credibility and viability of a US response to Assad’s horrific crimes against humanity.”
Read More
Remembering a tragedy: A look at the aftermath of Nov. 13 over the past year
By Grace Thrush | 21 hours agoOver the past year, several developments in the aftermath of the shooting, from an independent review of the University’s response to a settlement for the victims’ families, have transpired.
Out-of-state students endured a series of obstacles in obtaining absentee ballots
By Bennett Galper and Jackie Bond | 22 hours agoFour states — Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Dakota — require notarization to either receive an absentee ballot or have it be officially counted.
Honor Committee debates Counsel training for new sanctioning process
By Lexie Stadler | 22 hours agoThe Committee is currently training support officers on the updated process.
