U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey punted as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a compromise resolution designed to win support for President Obama’s proposed strike on Syria by limiting the scope of any military action, voting present and saying he needs more information — drawing a derisive “Profile in Courage” award from the state’s GOP for the newly elected senator.

“This is an important decision that has the potential to draw us into the Syrian civil war,” the Massachusetts democrat told the Herald in a statement after his vote. “I will be analyzing intelligence information about the Syrian chemical attacks, and I will be considering the potential for additional entanglement in that war. When I have had a chance to further analyze all of the information, I will then make a fully-informed vote of yes or no on the final resolution next week on the floor of the Senate.”

The Massachusetts Republican Party in a mocking statement titled “Profiles in Courage,” said, “This comes after a week of demanding President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry present their plan to Congress for a vote so the U.S. can “lead on this issue.” When it came time to lead today, 10 Senators voted yes, 7 Senators voted no, and Ed Markey timidly raised his hand and said ‘here’.”

“It seems Ed Markey has decided that instead of continuing to flip-flop on matters of national security, he simply won’t vote.” Said MassGOP Executive Director Rob Cunningham. “Massachusetts voters already have a reason to regret choosing Markey to fill John Kerry’s shoes.”

The Senate resolution, “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons,” hammered out yesterday by a bi-partisan group of senators, would limit Obama to 60 days of military action to deter the Bashar Assad regime from further use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war. It would also bar the use of ground troops. Pbama could extend action for 30 days, but would then have to return to Congress for further authorization. The resolution was approved 10-7, with Markey voting present, while two leading Senate Republican presidential contenders — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida — opposed the resolution today..

Markey indicated he believes the resolution is still overbroad. In a separate statement after his vote, he said, “The use of chemical weapons is a heinous and despicable act that is outside the bounds of civilized conduct.

“I participated in today’s committee consideration of the resolution and yesterday’s hearing as well as various classified intelligence briefings held since the President announced on Saturday that he would seek congressional authorization to strike the Assad regime.

“Before casting such a monumental vote, I need to review all of the relevant classified materials relating to this matter before I make a decision as important as authorizing the use of military force. The people of Massachusetts expect their representatives to have analyzed all of the facts prior to making a decision of this magnitude.

“I am concerned about the unintended consequences of a U.S. military attack on Syria and the potential that such a strike could lead, over time, to the entanglement of our brave service men and women in an intractable Syrian civil war.

“The resolution as currently drafted contains language that could be interpreted as expanding the scope of the U.S. military action beyond merely the degradation and deterrence of Assad’s chemical weapons capability.

“The current version of the resolution goes beyond the President’s objective of responding to the use of chemical weapons to call for a broader U.S. political and military strategy in Syria that includes expanded support for various opposition groups, efforts to limit support for the Syrian regime from the Government of Iran and activities to isolate terrorist groups in Syria.

“Although some of these may be desirable objectives, as written they could result in deeper U.S. military involvement in a country inflamed by sectarian violence.

“In the days to come, I will further examine the classified intelligence information and consult with experts before deciding how I will vote on the final resolution when it is considered on the Senate floor.”

Among the Republican nay votes, Rubio said he was unconvinced that the military action would work, saying the Syrian people must remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power. But in casting his vote, Rubio warned that an isolationist approach would undermine U.S. foreign policy interests.

“It is true that we cannot solve every crisis on this planet, but if we follow the advice of those who seek to disengage us from global issues, in the long run, we will pay a terrible price because America is not just another country – it’s an exceptional one,” he said.

Paul, a leading anti-interventionist in the GOP, has remained unequivocal in his opposition, tangling with Secretary of State John Kerry over constitutional powers and the possibility that a U.S. attack will further destabilize the Mideast. The tea party favorite sees only a downside to a U.S. attack.

“There’s no sentiment in Kentucky, and the people up here are so out of touch,” Paul told reporters Tuesday on a conference call after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Kerry and other national security officials. “These senators who are going to vote for this, they need to go home and talk to their people or look at what their people are saying because people do not want to get involved in Syria and, despite what the people want, their senators are going to vote the opposite way, I have a bad feeling.”

Paul didn’t rule out a Senate filibuster of a resolution authorizing the president to use military force.

The administration says it has proof that the Assad regime used deadly chemical weapons in an attack on Damascus suburbs and must respond. It places the number killed at 1,429 people, including 426 children. However, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights puts the death toll at 502.

Polls show public opposition to U.S. military intervention in Syria, regardless of whether Syria’s government used chemical weapons on its people, and doubts about airstrikes across party lines.

A war vote can make or break a candidate. In the 2008 Democratic primary, Obama used the October 2002 vote for the Iraq war as a cudgel against Hillary Clinton, who along with John Edwards voted to give President George W. Bush the broad authority to invade Iraq. Edwards said his vote was a mistake; Clinton stood by her decision — and never recovered with strong anti-war Democratic voters.

Clinton, a potential Democratic candidate in 2016, has not spoken publicly about Obama’s attempt to win congressional support for a military strike against Syria. But an aide to Clinton said Tuesday that she supports the president’s effort in Congress to pursue a targeted response to the Assad regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

In 2004, the first presidential election since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Democratic primary voters rejected the anti-war candidate, Howard Dean, and nominated John Kerry, the decorated Vietnam War veteran who had backed the Iraq war. Kerry was perceived as the stronger candidate on national security against the incumbent president, but he stumbled in explaining his Iraq war votes, saying he voted for an $87 billion war supplemental “before I voted against it.” Bush prevailed in the election.

Herald wire services contributed