Kerry refuses to rule out U.S. ground troops in Syria, then backtracks

[orenbus]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/3/kerry-no-doubt-assad-used-weapons-civilians/print/

Secretary of State John F. Kerry refused Tuesday to rule out putting U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, saying the president needs to retain the ability to send in forces in very select circumstances as the Obama administration officially began to make its case for retaliatory military strikes on the Assad regime.

Testifying to the Senate, Mr. Kerry accused critics of "armchair isolationism" and said there are risks to acting, but that the risks of inaction are even worse. But asked whether President Obama would accept an authorization from Congress that specifically banned putting U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, the secretary balked.

"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president that might secure our country," he said, pointing to a hypothetical situation in which the U.S. would want troops to go in to secure a chemical weapons cache from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Moments later, however, realizing his statement could be a problem, Mr. Kerry sought to clarify. He said that Mr. Obama will accept whatever restrictions Congress wants to place to make sure that the U.S. doesn't get drawn into the actual fight between the regime and the rebels.

"There will not be American troops on the ground with respect to the civil war," Mr. Kerry said.

Joined by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Kerry said there can no longer be any doubts that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, and the only question now is whether the U.S. can figure out the right level of response — and can it win congressional backing for that course of action.

"Only the most willful desire to avoid reality can assert this did not occur as described, or that the regime did not do it. It did happen, and the Assad regime did it," Mr. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I can tell you that we know these things beyond a reasonable doubt."

He said failing to act will be seen by Iran or its Hezbollah allies as a green light for them to challenge the U.S. more broadly, adding that the Iranian regime would see it as "a permission slip" to pursue nuclear weapons.

"If we don't answer Assad today, we will erode a standard that has existed for those 100 years," he said, referring to the first use of chemical weapons during World War I.

Most of Congress's leaders have said they will support President Obama in his request that Capitol Hill authorize retaliatory strikes. But that's a tougher sell for rank-and-file lawmakers, who have said they have questions both about whether Mr. Obama's initial "red line" on chemical weapons use was wise, and whether this administration has a workable plan.

Mr. Kerry disputed that the fight is over Mr. Obama's declaration last year that use of chemical weapons would be a red line

"This debate is about the world's red line. It's about humanity's red line. And it's a red line that anybody with a conscience ought to draw," the secretary told his former Senate colleagues.

The tensions over the decisions were highlighted by a protester who, even before the hearing began, rushed to the rope behind the witness table and shouted: "Say no to war in Syria."

After Mr. Kerry had finished, another demonstrator from the Code Pink antiwar group shouted: "The American people do not want this." She was taken out of the room by police.

Mr. Kerry, who first made a name in national politics protesting the Vietnam War, in which he had served, said the sympathized with the women, and said that's why it was important for Congress to have a debate.

While some analysts are still questioning whether or not the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, most members of Congress seemed ready to accept the administration's case that those weapons were used in the Aug. 21 attack, and that forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad were responsible.

"In my view there is a preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt," said Sen. Robert C. Menendez, New Jersey Democrat and the committee chairman.

Mr. Kerry punctuated that point, saying that the Obama administration has learned the lessons of faulty intelligence from the experience in Iraq, and has repeatedly scrubbed this intelligence to make sure it's correct.

 

[AngryCanadian]

What an idiot and he expects everyone to make us believe he has proof that Assad did it?

 

[jkr]

which, of course, means they will...or ARE ALREADY

liars
gunna
lie

 

[AuH20]

This guy was almost president. Pretty scary to think that he fooled alot of people.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

"There will not be American troops on the ground with respect to the civil war," Mr. Kerry said

Translation: There will be American troops on the ground under some other pretext.

-t

 

[seyferjm]

Almost everything Kerry has said contains a caveat.

 

[mosquitobite]

Translation: There will be American troops on the ground under some other pretext.

-t

Yep. You caught the same line I did. He knows what is coming down the pipeline.

 

[orenbus]

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

don't ask John Kerry any serious questions, he'll have his cronies electrocute you and drag you away.

 

[Marky]

He was for it before he was against it.

 

[fr33]

It's obvious that they are really pushing for a full scale war and regime change even though they tiptoe around how to phrase it. The troops already have enough PTSD and high rate of suicide. As if the 2 longest US wars weren't enough. They are going to completely crash this country.

 

[AngryCanadian]

It's obvious that they are really pushing for a full scale war and regime change even though they tiptoe around how to phrase it. The troops already have enough PTSD and high rate of suicide. As if the 2 longest US wars weren't enough. They are going to completely crash this country.

I doubt they are going to risk for a regime change they want to Crash the country.

 

[fr33]

I doubt they are going to risk for a regime change they want to Crash the country.

What I meant is they are going to gut the US forces if they get into another war for regime change. I didn't quite understand what you said because you left out a few words. (I do that too sometimes)

 

[fr33]

The washington times changed their title (and I think they changed the text of the story) of the link in the OP to:

Kerry holds objectors responsible for any future atrocities


I know they changed it because I copied and pasted the headline into my website and tweeted it. Now I'm removing it from my website.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Kerry holds objectors responsible for any future atrocities

So ... I guess that means we can we expect Kerry to support authorization of "surgical strikes" against Rand, Amash, Massie, etc. ...