With the American military now aiming its weapons at a new target in the Middle East, there are differences in the carefully phrased statements reflecting the thinking of U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa and U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz.

The opinions of members of Congress may be of guidance to President Barack Obama, but in a closer-to-home dimension, it is a big political deal.

Schatz and Hanabusa are both liberal Democrats wanting to represent Hawaii in the U.S. Senate after next year’s election to fill the remainder of the late Sen. Daniel K. Inouye’s term.

As the nation hovers near a new military adventure, this time blowing up unspecified portions of Syria, voters will judge now — and remember next fall — where the pair stood.

Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons on its own people has triggered condemnation by people around the globe, and also prompted Obama to threaten a response. While both condemn the Syrian chemical attack, Schatz is willing to back Obama but Hanabusa wants more evidence before any action.

Schatz gives Obama the most wiggle room in what he should do.

"The people of Hawaii and I have confidence in President Obama’s decisions as our commander-in-chief," said Schatz.

He added that Obama should consult with Congress without specifying a need for congressional approval.

"I will continue to remain in close touch with the Obama administration as the president determines the best course of action, in consultation with Congress," Schatz said in an emailed response to my inquiry Thursday.

Hanabusa flatly disagreed that Obama should act alone.

"As it stands now, U.S. military involvement in Syria lacks a solid legal basis, a clear long-term strategy, and vital international and domestic approval," Hanabusa said in response to an emailed request for comment.

"Though intelligence has been presented by the Obama administration, I am not convinced that it serves the purpose of justifying military force or other intervention in Syria. This is an issue that deserves a rigorous and transparent debate about its ends and its means," Hanabusa said.

Although Hanabusa also called for "congressional consultation," she urged the president to "await a full review of evidence presented by the UN before considering action in Syria."

In an unsuccessful 2002 campaign for Congress, Hanabusa was sharply critical of Ed Case, who said if he had been in Congress, he would have voted to approve the invasion of Iraq.

Later, after winning his congressional seat, Case was firm in saying that there was still concern about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It was only in 2006, when he was running against former U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, that Case changed his opinion, saying he would not have supported the Iraq War if he had known there were no WMDs there.

In 2002, both Akaka and Inouye voted against the resolution calling for the Iraq invasion.

Case’s opinions about the war, even though he was not even in Congress when he expressed his concerns, haunted him for three elections.

Statements made now by Hanabusa and Schatz could be the first tests of the candidates in next year’s campaign.

———

Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.