President Obama said the U.S. will work with a "broad coalition" of foreign partners to combat the Islamic State in his public address on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014. (The Associated Press)

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) (@GOPLeader via Twitter): “A President who has made ending the war on terrorism a central focus of his foreign policy must now make winning it a priority.”

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska): I oppose the president’s plan to arm Syrian rebels at this time. I am gravely concerned by reports of ISIS seizing and utilizing U.S. weapons intended for those fighting against the Syrian regime, and we must have greater assurance that we aren’t arming extremists who will eventually use the weapons against us.”

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)I will not give this president — or any other president — a blank check to begin another land war in Iraq.”

The War Powers Act of 1973 is a classic separation of powers struggle. President Obama has already taken military action to fight the Islamic State in Iraq, but is Syria next? Here’s what the president can do, with or without Congress. (Jackie Kucinich/The Washington Post)

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio):He has finally begun to make the case the nation has needed him to make for quite some time: that destroying this terrorist threat requires decisive action and must be the highest priority for the United States and other nations of the free world. A speech is not the same thing as a strategy, however. While the president presented a compelling case for action, many questions remain about the way in which the president intends to act.”

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.): “I believe that President Obama has existing authority to take the actions he outlined tonight. . . . I do, however, think that the president’s ability to respond forcefully and effectively to protect American interests would be strengthened by seeking authorization from Congress.”

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) “As long ago as the spring of last year, I pressed the administration to arm and empower moderate Syrian rebels, and I am glad that effort will be accelerated.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus: “Many of us have been deeply concerned by the way President Obama and his administration have handled our country’s foreign policy in the past few years. While Democrats in Congress sat by, the president continued to minimize the threat posed by ISIS and pursued a ‘wait and see’ foreign policy, putting our country at greater and greater risk as the threat continued to build.”

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine): “I think that we should be talking about something that is much more limited. For example, in duration or defining who the enemy is.”

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.): “I don’t care how it’s approved, I’ll vote for it either way. And I don’t understand why some folks are making an issue of it. Maybe there’s some politics I don’t understand. At the end of the day, we should give the president the authority and money he needs.”

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.): “No one’s convinced me that they can identify friend or foe in that part of the world right now. Anything that I have ever been able to witness shows that no matter who we are helping, it ends up that those arms are used against us sooner or later. That’s a sad scenario. So I don’t want to get into that position. I’m going to be very cautious about that.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) “There is now a broad consensus in Congress that this threat requires strong action, and tonight, the president laid out a plan to act, and to act forcefully. I hope that members of Congress will put politics aside and give strong, bipartisan support to this plan.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.): “The administration says it could take two or three years to stop ISIS, and it could take longer. Having the support of Congress is essential to uniting our country and other nations behind the president’s objective, and to making sure we have the resolve to see this through to the end.”