Talk is cheap; I love it: "Congress has gotten a pass on these issues.'' Many lawmakers had been clamoring for an opportunity to weigh in on whether and how the U.S. should respond to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. Some 186 lawmakers, including more than 50 from Mr. Obama's own party, signed letters to the president in recent days calling on him to seek authorization for any military action.

From The Wall Street Journal:

Many lawmakers had been clamoring for an opportunity to weigh in on whether and how the U.S. should respond to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. Some 186 lawmakers, including more than 50 from Mr. Obama's own party, signed letters to the president in recent days calling on him to seek authorization for any military action.

Now that Mr. Obama has said he would seek such authorization, lawmakers will have to clarify whether they were making a procedural point and asserting what they saw as a congressional prerogative to approve military action, or whether they oppose Mr. Obama's policy on the merits.

Mr. Obama's allies on the issue say he faces a big job ahead in turning public opinion and Congress in his favor.

"It's important for the president to use every ounce of political capital and energy he has to sell this to the American people,'' said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He added that this is also a pivotal moment for members of Congress who have a long history of carping about foreign policy on the sidelines without taking a clear stand.

"Congress has gotten a pass on these issues,'' said Mr. Corker. The last time Congress formally debated and voted on a resolution authorizing the use of military force was in 2002, after the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

It is historically a familiar tension between Congress and the White House that, when military action is being contemplated, lawmakers often demand to be consulted and claim the constitutional power to authorize the use of force.
 

But this time, the call for consultation and votes has been more persistent and intense than in the past because of the rise of tea-party backed conservatives who are more opposed than establishment Republicans to the use of U.S. military force overseas.
 

Opposition to the 2002 resolution to use force against Iraq was limited almost exclusively to Democrats. Now small-government Republicans are part of the coalition of critics urging caution in Syria.
 

Just as a bipartisan House group came within seven votes in July of limiting National Security Agency surveillance of Americans, a bipartisan coalition could produce a close vote on Syria.