The plan to attack Syria that President Barack Obama wants Congress to approve goes both too far and not far enough, says Sen. Rand Paul.
"His resolution does too much by involving us in a civil war in which there is no clearly defined American national security interest," Paul wrote in the draft of a letter obtained by Politico
that is slated to be circulated in Congress Monday.
"This resolution does too little by narrowly circumscribing the president’s power to execute war. I disagree strongly with unlimited executive power to initiate war. But I have some sympathy for the argument that once war commences, the executive should not be hamstrung by a narrowed ability to execute that war."
The double-barrel argument appears to be an effort to draw both isolationists and hawks in the Republican Party to his side. Paul has been one of the strongest voices in the Senate opposing U.S. intervention in Syria.
Syrian President Bashar Assad "is clearly not an American ally," Paul writes.
"But will his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East or destabilize the region? Are the Islamic rebels our allies? Will they defend American interests? The president has no answer to any of these questions."
Meanwhile, 72 percent of Americans believe an air strike against Syria wouldn't achieve significant goals, according to a CNN/ORC poll
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.