“I think you’re looking at three people, four people in the administration. I lost the argument. I’ve argued for the use of force. I’m the guy who stood up and announced that we’re going to attack Assad for the use of weapons,” Kerry is heard telling the Syrian attendees, referring to internal deliberations within the administration of President Barack Obama that followed Assad’s use of chemical weapons in 2013.Kerry also faulted Congress for failing to support such a retaliatory strike, saying, “The bottom line is that Congress refused even to vote to allow that.”
“We have a Congress that will not authorize our use of force,” he added, explaining that a new military intervention would be difficult to bring about.The discussion in the recording occurred only days after the United States and Russia announced a ceasefire agreement in Geneva, an accord that has since collapsed with reports of regime bombing attacks and the positioning of some 10,000 Syrian regime-aligned troops preparing to advance on Aleppo.
I wonder if he is telling the truth here or just telling a bunch of Syrians what they want to hear. Also, I’d like more clarification on this statement:
Acknowledging that Russia’s military actions have “changed the equation” and made removing Assad more difficult, Kerry suggested that Syrian refugees could one day help eject Assad if given the right to vote.
Does Kerry mean that Syrian refugees could return to Syria and vote Assad out or that they might be given the right to vote in America and vote to support more aggressive American intervention? Given that there won’t be enough Syrian refugees to make an electoral difference in America, I have to assume that he meant the former. If that’s the case, what the heck is he smoking? Does he really think that a tyrant like Assad would allow refugees to return and cast votes against him? Assad is a totalitarian of the first order. The only way he leaves power is in a body bag.