"I would not have referred the matter to Congress, and I think if I were a member of Congress, I would vote against an authorization to use force here," former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said on FOX News. "I donâ€™t think itâ€™s in Americaâ€™s interest. I donâ€™t think we should, in effect, take sides in the Syrian conflict. Thereâ€™s very little to recommend either side to me, and I think the notion that a limited strike, which is what the president seems to be pursuing, will not create a deterrent effect with respect either to Syriaâ€™s use of chemical weapons or, more seriously, Iranâ€™s nuclear weapons program. So, all in all, since I donâ€™t see any utility to the use of military force in Syria in this context, I would vote no.
"Now the argument that the administration makes is, the president's committed us here, itâ€™ll cause a huge blow to Americaâ€™s credibility if Congress doesn't approve the use of force. And I'd say, a huge blow to Americaâ€™s credibility compared to what? Compared to the mess the presidentâ€™s already made of it? I just donâ€™t think thereâ€™s a convincing argument here, and frankly it doesnâ€™t matter what the intelligence shows. I donâ€™t think thereâ€™s any doubt that Assadâ€™s regime used chemical weapons. I donâ€™t think thatâ€™s going to change anybodyâ€™s mind."