Win McNamee/Getty Images
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) questions U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry during Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the topic of "The Authorization of Use of Force in Syria" September 3, 2013 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Barack Obama is attempting to enlist the support of members of the U.S. Congress for military action against the Syrian government for using chemical weapons against its own people last month.
Dominating the news today: Syria, and the debate over taking military action.
President Obama is in Sweden today meeting with leaders of Nordic countries. He told reporters there he has high confidence in evidence showing the Syrian regime used chemical weapons. He also said a military response is "the moral thing to do."
But here at home, Americans - and their representatives in Congress - don't seem so sure.
The Senate Foreign Relations committee drafted a resolution giving the President "limited and tailored" authority for a mission of less than 90 days, with no troops on the ground. It's not clear if such a measure can pass the Senate, or the House.
A junior Senator from Kentucky has become the key spokesperson for the opposition to Syrian involvement. He also happens to be considered among the early front-runners for the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination.
Republican Senator Rand Paul has become among the loudest voices questioning the wisdom of intervening in Syria, chemical weapons or not. It's a position that might be based on pragmatism, or even moral grounds. But it's creating some interesting politics, too.
We're joined by Beth Reinhard, who has been writing about Rand Paul and Syria for the National Journal.