Posted on 09/04/2013 4:03:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that Arab countries were offering to bear all the financial costs of unseating President Assad if the United States took the lead on military action during Wednesday’s House hearing on the Obama Administration’s proposal for Syrian intervention.
The hearing, held by the House Committee of Foreign Relations, hosted Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey to provide testimony on the Administration’s proposed resolution to use military force against the Assad Regime for its use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
The House’s hearing come the just one day after the Senate Foreign Relations committee held their own hearing with the Secretaries and General.
The Chairman of the committee, Congressman Ed Royce, called upon Congressman Engel to deliver his opening statement. Engel sponsored the 2003 Syria Accountability Act, which stated that Syria’s use of weapons of mass destruction would be a direct threat to U.S. national security interests; he also sponsored the “Free Syria Act of 2013” that would have “(authorized) the President to provide lethal and non-lethal weapons to the moderate (Syrian) opposition.”
Engel called on the House to support the President’s push for a ‘limited’ strike against Syria for its direct violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention:
“We should not give the president a blank check…any strike should be of a limited nature, and that there should absolutely be no American boots on the ground in Syria.”
Engel reminded the committee that the crisis in Syria is an “ongoing humanitarian crisis,” and the goal is to “find a path forward that brings a lasting peace for the Syrian people.”
Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey reiterated almost verbatim their testimonies from the Senate hearing, making a point to emphasize certain elements of their proposals that came under fire from Senators the day before.
Secretary Kerry reiterated his sentiments from the night before concerning the United States’ credibility in the eyes of its allies and enemies.
“I don’t think, I know, it’s no exaggeration to say that the world is not just watching to see what we decide here, but its watching to see how we decide…can we achieve a single voice?”
Kerry reinforced his absolute certainty that the Assad regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels and civilians, and suggested that more information regarding the attack on August 21st, provided by “friends of Syria” would be released soon. He went on to assert that Assad’s conscious overstep of the President’s “red line” was a direct threat to U.S. national security:
“Only the most willful desire to avoid reality, only the most devious political purpose could assert that this did not occur. It did happen, and the Bashar al-Assad Regime did it.”
”This is about the world’s red line, this is about humanity’s red line…this is also about Congress’ red line…Congress passed the Syria Accountability Act,” he reminded the committee.
He urged Congress to avoid “consent through silence…Syria is important to America and our security.”
The Secretary made an obvious effort to clarify his statements from the Senate hearing, when he suggested that he “[didn’t] want to take off the table an option…to secure our country” by putting U.S. military troops on the ground in Syria. He alluded to a new draft of the resolution formed by the Senate that strongly prohibited the use of military forces on the ground.
“We are not asking America to go to war. (Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey) know the difference between going to war and what the President is asking for. We all agree there will be no American boots on the ground. We have no intention of assuming responsibility for Assad’s civil war; that is not in [the] cards.”
Defense Secretary Hagel also shared a similar testimony to the one he delivered during the Senate hearing; notably, he emphasized the increased threat on U.S. national security if terrorist organizations linked with the Syrian regime were able to gain access to chemical weapons:
“If Assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like Hezbollah…could acquire them and use them.”
“We cannot afford for any terrorist group with interest to strike to U.S….to acquire nuclear weapons.”
General Dempsey only provided a few comments in his statement, but made it clear—to the distraught of many Representatives—that “militarily, the broader the resolutions, the more options [he] can provide.”
While many of the House members were quick to condemn the use of chemical weapons and sympathized with the victims, the Secretaries and General met ample criticism and skepticism from House members who raised a variety of concerns about the looming attack, from potential military repercussions to the costs that will be put on the American taxpayer.
Secretary Kerry was asked by various Representatives, most noticeably Congressman Wilson, why there was no military response in April, 2013 when the Assad regime used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. Wilson went on to ask if the proposed resolution was “a diversion” from the scandals that have plagued Washington over the summer, including the NSA surveillance of American citizens, the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups, the new revelations regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate, and the ineffectual implementation of Obamacare provisions.
The Secretary explained that the President felt the previous attacks “merited an increase of assistance” to the opposition, but did not explain what criteria was used to determine why the attack on August 21st was one that specifically deserved a military response.
Congressman Poe asked General Dempsey to comment on the Administration’s plan if Assad and his allies “shoot back at Americans” after the U.S. carries out its military strike. Dempsey could not guarantee that there would be no push-back from the regime, but cited, “the contribution we will seek from others begins to eliminate that risk”; however, the General did not give examples of other nations that would be asked to support the United States if the crisis were to escalate.
Congressman Higgans painted a different picture of the Syrian conflict -- one that portrayed the conflict as a fight between a “brutal dictator” and “Islamic affiliates,” that left the United States with “no good military options,” and very little reason to become involved in the region.
“This is nothing more than a fight for control between two sectarian factions.”
“There is no democracy movement in Syria.”
The biggest surprise came late into the hearing, when Secretary Kerry revealed that Arab countries have offered to burden the financial costs of unseating President Assad if the United States handles the military action. This information contracts his previous statements that assured discussions of escalating military action in Syria were off limits:
Though the Secretaries and General tried to clarify the “limited” and “narrow” scope of the planned military attack against Syria, Kerry’s references to hypothetical plans involving military action and direct involvement in the civil war may have further blurred the lines concerning the Administration’s real purpose for Syrian intervention. When Congress reconvenes on September 9th, supporters and skeptics on both side of the aisle will debate what goals in Syria, if any, are linked directly the U.S. national interest; they will also determine if they trust the Administration to faithfully execute their decision.“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said.
“That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.”
What...so now Ghengis Khan Kerry wants to sell off U.S. miltiary involvement to the highest bidder? What are we now, the world’s mercinaries?
Who is running US foreign policy? The Saudis?
Sounds like the Sunnis want their own caliphate and want to pay for the U.S. to be the muscle to obtain it.
To hell with that. Impeach and remove these idiots and let’s get some bonafied Americans, who care about American interests and traditional American values back in charge!
This is getting more bizarre by the day.
AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY.
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
Al Qaeda wants to pay us to help them? How nice.
I think Kerry, like Obama, makes things up on the fly.
There people are responsible for the direction our country takes. Be very afraid.
So now we’re hired mercenaries fighting to put Al Qeada in power in Syria?
So now the Al-Qaida Air Force becomes the Mercenary Al-Qaida Air Force.
Me thinks that family Assad is not going to be happy at all that family Kerry, who had dinner with the Assads and rubber toes and played footsies with them are now trying to get them deposed and possibly killed.
Assad’s intelligence arm is not half bad and I have the feeling that Assad is not going to look kindly at all on what John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are doing to him...especially after they supp’ed together and broke bread.
Those two better watch tehir backsides real close.
List of Arab countries that will pay the US to bomb Syria please.
Wait a minute now...that was GWB's argument for going into Iraq.
What flaming hypocrites!
Let those camel jockeys sacrafice their own sons and daughters first.
We are headed towards and illegal war. There is no defense of the constitution here in any form or fashion.
If these countries want to finance an attack on Syria,Let them use their money on their own military forces.
The Saudi’s have a Highly Capable U.S. made Air Force.Let them use it.Besides they are right in that neighborhood.
Why is it we’re always called upon to be the Bad guy?I’m as pro-military as anyone but I can’t see putting our kids at risk over something that hasn’t been proved.
Does anyone remember the Vietnam War?That John Kerry just happened to get out of in less than a full tour.
We're being sucked into a vortex of unknown matter.
Satan has worked very hard to acquire powerful positions and I believe we're seeing his opening gambit.
Ephesians 6:12
King James Version (KJV)
12 ... For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
The evil communication(s) from people in high, powerful positions can ONLY be the work of minions in obedience to an evil, supernatural entity.
It's like watching one of those tornado videos where we see the sky darken, a funnel sort of forms .. maybe dipping down then going back up again and finally touching down and moving along ... killing all in its path.
We don’t have any business there, Syria didn’t attack us and like Sarah Palin said “let Allah sort it out”.
It sure is
They consider us to be expendable mercenaries, who will do the work that Muslims won’t
1) What countries are offering to "pay" for U.S. involvement;
and,
2) What is the agenda these countries have with respect to eliminating Assad from power? What is their end game?
I guarantee they do NOT have the interests of the American people in mind!!!
And these are the same people that have been preaching that we need to become energy independent (only through green energy of course) because it is against our security interests to depend on those ME oil nations.
Yeah right
Sickening. How much are the Arabs paying Congresscritters for their
votes? How much cash are these corrupt hacks putting in the freezer?
(Like Jefferson, LA)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.