What's new

Voting in favor of war or military strikes has proved to have long-lasting political consequences for politicians angling for the highest office in the land.

Just ask former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose 2002 vote for the Iraq War resolution as a U.S. senator contributed to her failure to secure the Democratic presidential nomination six years later.

Or check in with current Secretary of State John Kerry. His for-it-before-I-voted-against-it position on Iraq War funding as a U.S. senator contributed to his loss to incumbent George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

Which brings us to the crop of potential 2016 White House hopefuls, and how they have decided to post up on the Syria issue.

While some remain on the fence (Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.), or say they will not weigh in (New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie), two big players in the Republican fold, Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, formally voted Wednesday against authorizing a military strike against Syria as members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The measure passed the committee, 10-7, and now moves to the full Senate.

Two potential presidential candidates on the Democratic side, Clinton and Vice President Biden, support President Obama's plan to launch a missile strike.

Here's what potential 2016 presidential candidates have had to say on Syria.

"While I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict. And I still don't. I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work."
-- Sept. 4 statement

"The goal of preventing a dominant Iran is so important that every regional policy we adopt should be crafted with that overriding goal in mind. The current situation in Syria is an example of such an approach. The fall of Assad would be a significant blow to Iran's ambitions. On those grounds alone, we should be seeking to help the people of Syria bring him down."

"But on the Foreign Relations Committee, I've noticed that some members are so concerned about the challenges of a post-Assad Syria that they've lost sight of the advantages of it. First, Iran would lose its ally and see its influence and ability to cause trouble in the region would be correspondingly reduced, but Hezbollah would lose its most important ally too along with its weapons supplier. And the prospects for a more stable, peaceful, and freer Lebanon would improve."
-- April 2012 speech at the Brookings Institution