A political solution in which Assad stays in power, is that acceptable to you?
If the President had not started a bombing campaign on August 8th near Irbil, we might not be here today.
Do we have the political and policy backdrop with which to do so?
We've been at war since August 8.
It's just not supposed to be that way.
This is now a war, into the 10th month, without a clear legal basis.
I do not believe that there is any reasonable prospect that it will be possible to retake Mosul this year.
There has not been a declaration of war, there's not been an authorization for use of military force.
Most will agree that there can be no future for Syria with Assad in power.
Congress to this point has decided that the budget caps enacted in August 2011 is a higher national priority than defeat...
I harshly criticize the administration for not sending in a draft authorization over right when they started this legal ...
There is no evidence that Congress is concerned at all about ISIL.
The fact is that what matters is that the strategy is failing.
We do not want to have a debate and vote because we do not want to put our names on it.
If you're not winning in this kind of warfare, you are losing. Stalemate is not success.
Many of us believe that the goal the President laid out, quote, "to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL" is right.
This is unacceptable, from a moral perspective and from a U.S. national security perspective.
This appearance of success only enhances ISIL's ability to radicalize, recruit, and grow.
