'What I will try to do is I will try to lead the opposition,' says Paul. | John Shinkle/POLITICO Senate panel nixes Paul's Syria plan

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday rejected an amendment proposed by Sen. Rand Paul that would make the congressional authorization on Syria action a binding vote.

While the Senate’s committee did approve the resolution granting President Barack Obama the authority to strike Syria, Paul’s amendment lost in a 14-4 vote, according to the senator’s website.


Paul (R-Ky.) announced Wednesday during an interview on “Fox & Friends” his intent to propose the amendment.

“So this morning I will introduce an amendment to the resolution in committee and I will ask to make it a binding vote and that Congress acknowledge that this is congressional authority and that we have the ability to grant it to the president, but the president doesn’t have the ability to initiate war without congressional authority. That’s what the Constitution says,” Paul said.

( PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand)

Paul, who is against U.S. intervention in Syria, said he was “proud of the President” for asking Congress for authority, but said he wanted Sec. John Kerry in Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing to “admit we have the authority and if the vote goes against you, that it’s a binding vote.”

When asked if he will filibuster again, the Senator acknowledged that it “only temporarily slows things down” and added, “what I will try to do is I will try to lead the opposition.”

“As people saw when I did this previously, you can talk for only so long and eventually nature calls. So you can slow things down and sometimes get an answer to things, but you can’t permanently delay.”

( PHOTOS: International response to Syria)

In an appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show Wednesday, Paul said that he does not oppose all intervention in the Middle East.

“If Assad were rolling tanks into Israel or into Jordan or into Turkey, I think there’s without question there would be unanimous compelling interest that America has a dog in that fight,” he said.

Paul said that he does not, however, see compelling American interests in Syria, and that military action in the country could be a “slippery slope” towards war.

“Small wars sometimes become big wars,” he said. “But I’m not saying we never get involved in the Middle East. I think we do have interests in the Middle East. I think Israel is a friend, I think Turkey is a friend, I think Jordan is a friend. Right now Jordan is being overwhelmed with refugees. Does anybody really argue that when we bomb Syria there’s going to be less refugees? I think there’s going to be more refugees.”

Paul also responded to criticism from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol who on Tuesday said on CNN that Paul doesn’t have much support for avoiding military action in Syria.

Paul told Ingraham that Kristol should talk to active duty servicemen and woman and “ask them if they’d like to fight in Syria. ‘Do you see a cause worth laying your life and limbs on the line for in Syria?’ I think you’ll hear a resounding no. The country is absolutely opposed to this.”

James Arkin contributed to this report.