Diplomatic corps alive today. He said, i do. We could have gotten that agreement if we had been a little more persistent, flexible and creative. But what really cost us was the political withdrawal. We cut off highlevel Political Engagement with iraq when we withdrew our troops. There were no senior visits. Very few phone calls. Secretary of state john kerry made one visit prior to this Current Crisis mainly to lecture the iraqis on how bad they were being for facilitating iranian Weapons Systems to syrian Bashar Assad Bashar Assad and we left them to their own devices, knowing if left to their own devices it would not work out well. You have mr. Blinkens comments and juks to pose them with juxtapose them with crocker. Heres what leon panetta said, secretary of defense quote it was clear to me and many others that withdrawing our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding iraq together. Thats from secretary leon panettas book. Then he went on to say my fear is i voiced to the president and others is if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that appeared in the years immediately following the u. S. Invasion it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the u. S. Iraqs stability was not only in iraqs interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for residual force that could provide training and security for iraqs military. Then he went on to say, those on our side talking about the pentagon. Those on our side viewed the white house as so eager to rid itself of iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interest. That is a statement by leon panetta. On afghanistan ill move on to afghanistan. Mr. Blinken said quote weve been very clear. Weve been consistent. The war will be concluded by the end of 2014. We have a timetable, and that timetable will not change. This is why im so worried about him being in the position that hes in. Because if they stick to that timetable, i am telling my colleagues that we will see the replay of iraq all over again. We must leave a stabilizing force behind of a few thousand troops or we will see again what we saw in iraq. So lets move on to syria. An msnbc interview in 2014 responding to a question about president obamas comment in august 2014, calling it a fantasy to say that arming the Syrian Rebels three years ago would have helped the situation. Blinken fantasy was a notion that had we started to work with these guys talking about the Free Syrian Army six months earlier that somehow would have turned the tide. That that would have turned the tide. Blinken do you know assad has been a magnet for every extremism were fighting against and it is inconceivable with syria being stable with assad as its leader. He has forfeited its legitimacy. Isil is the wolf it the door but the answer to isil is the moderate opposition. They need to be built up so they can be counterweight to assad. Near term they need to be built up so they can help on the ground to help deal with isil. Candy crowley isil is the wolf at the door but assad sphrs the u. S. Is concerned as far as the u. S. Is concerned is the next wolf at the door . Mr. Blinken as long as assad is there it is hard syria being stable, you continue to be a magnet for extremists were fighting. Crowley a transition is not the same as we will actively help you bring this guy down. Blinken the best way to deal with assad is to transition him out so that the moderate opposition can fill the vacuum. Thats what weve been working on. The more you build them up, the more you make them a counterweight, the more possible that becomes. Let me just remind my colleagues of whats happened. Theres a guy named caesar who about a year and a half ago smuggled out thousands of pictures. These pictures are the most gripping and horrifying that i have ever seen, and they were pictures, actual pictures which have been authenticated of the atrocities committed by bashar assad. They are wrenching, they are heartbreaking and they are terrible. Now, 200,000 people have been butchered in syria. Three and a half million are refugees. 150,000 are still in Bashar Assads prison experiencing things like this. You know, these are little children here. These are little children. They have been massacred by bashar assad. What have we done . What have we done in response to this . First of all, amazingly these photographs have been authenticated by this guy caesar. He did testify before the House Foreign Affairs committee. It didnt seem to rise to the interest of the senate Foreign Affairs committee or the American People or this administration. I was in a refugee camp in jordan where at that time there was some, i think, 75,000 refugees. I was being taken around by a young woman, and she said, senator mccain it was a school teacher. She said senator mccain, see all these children . I said yes. She said those children believe that you have abandoned them, senator mccain, that you americans have abandoned them. When they grow up, theyre going to take revenge on you. So here we are, this incredible slaughter, massacre, torture taking place, and what is this administration doing . Trying to make a deal with the iranians and leaving bashar assad to wreak havoc on the Syrian People that are still able to fight, butchering thing with a thing called barrel bombs. Most of my colleagues know what a barrel bomb is. Its a huge cylinder and its packed with explosives and nuts and bolts and pieces of shrapnel. And bashar assad unimpeded flies over, theres helicopters and others, and they drop these barrel bombs. Then when they capture these people, this is the kind of thing that is done. So and today it is clear its whats happening, is that we are attacking isis in syria. We are not attacking bashar assad, this butcher. In fact, bashar assad has intensified his attacks on the Free Syrian Army. Intensified them. And not surprisingly, the morale of the Free Syrian Army is very low. So general allen and others have recently proposed a nofly zone or aircraft exclusion zone, something weve been arguing for for about three years. This president still refuses to do it. Its heartbreaking. Its heart it breaking and its tragic. And it will go down in American History as one of the most shameful chapters because of our failure and the president s personal decision not to arm the Free Syrian Army when all of his Key National Security advisor his secretary of state, hillary clinton; head of the c. I. A. , general petraeus; and secretary of defense, secretary panetta all strongly recommended providing arms to the Free Syrian Army. In the case so ill move on. On ukraine, what putin has seen is the president mobilizing the International Community both in support of ukraine and to isolate russia for its actions in ukraine and russia is paying a clear cost for that, unquote from mr. Blinken. The notion that this is somehow the result of syria makes very little sense to me. Thats because its not about what we do or say in the first instance. Its about russia and its perceived instance. What mr. Blinken doesnt understand is that weakness in one place translates throughout the world. When i tell my colleagues, when i tell my fellow citizens that we will not supply the ukraine people with defensive weapons, they dont believe me. Theyve watched the country dismembered. Theyve watched crimea go, watched a shootdown nobody talks about anymore. And they continue to create unrest and killing in Eastern Ukraine and we wont even supply the ukrainians with weapons with which to defend themselves. I see that im nearly out of time. Id just like to say that i wish that mr. Blinkens words were matched by his deeds. At the Holocaust Museum october 6, 2014, he said a new notion is gaining currency, a responsibility to protect. It holds its state side responsibilities as well as interests, especially a responsibility to shield their own populations from the depraved and murderers. This approach is bold. Its important and the United States welcomes it and has included it as a core element of our National Security strategy along with our commitments to prevent genocide and hold those who organize atrocities accountable. No one can look at those pictures, the thousands, and believe that weve held bashar assad responsible. He ended up by saying endorsing the responsibility to protect is one thing. Acting on it is another. All of us in the International Community will have to muster the political will to act diplomatically, economically or in extreme cases militarily when governments prove unable or unwilling to prevent the slaughter of their citizens. That is a remarkable statement from an individual whose actions have clearly contradicted that at every turn in literally every corner of the earth. So, madam president , i know we will lose the vote probably, but i i believe that history will hold this administration accountable, and history will hold those individuals who were part of this administration who allowed these acts to go on, dismemberment of a country called ukraine, for the first time a european country has been partitioned since world war ii. The needless slaughter of thousands and thousands of ukrainian men, women and children. And the list goes on and on. Thousands and thousands of syrian children. The list goes on and on. And now we are going to promote this individual to replace probably the finest diplomat ive known, secretary burns, who is thought only is not only is mr. Blinken unqualified but he is i believe a threat to the traditional interests and values bob menendez and spoke in blinkensanthony nomination. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Menendez madam president , i come to the floor in feafer of the confirmation of tony blinken who is no stranger to this institution and no stranger to the most significant National Security issues this nation has faced in a generation. As the former staff director of the Foreign Relations committee and a close confidant of thenchairman biden and now a member of the president s National Security team, he has earned a reputation as hard working, studious and keenly analytical. And he comes from a family of diplomats and has lived his life in and around the foreign service. His nomination as deputy secretary of state comes at a time when the United States is facing a range of critical challenges. From ebola in west africa to russian aggression in ukraine to the challenging of countering isil in syria and iraq to irans continuing quest for a Nuclear Weapons program. At the same time, we are forging new global alliances and partnerships with india, in the middle east and asia and looking for opportunities to expand american exports and business opportunities. There will be no shortage of Critical Issues that well face. Foremost on our National Security agenda is countering the barbarity of isil whose terrorist ambitions threaten our National Security as well as the stability of an entire region. We also face a continued crisis in ukraine where a ceasefire has collapsed and russian tanks, troops and weapons continue crossborder incursions into Eastern Ukraine. Clearly, the list of challenges is long, the diplomatic calculations are complicated, and all of these challenges will be part of the portfolio the deputy of the deputy secretary of secretary of state. Now, i know there will be times where we agree and times where we will disagree, and i look forward to working closely with mr. Blinken should he be confirmed, and i expect that he will be. Now, i know there is opposition by some of my colleagues to mr. Blinken. As we consider his nomination considered his nomination in the Foreign RelationsCommittee Last week, several of my colleagues raised concerns which id like to take a few minutes to address. First, there is an incredible notion that mr. Blinken is somehow unqualified. Madam president , anyone who has served as the Senate Foreign relation committees staff director, two president s, a Vice President and a deputy National Security advisor to the president of the United States and has chaired the National Security councils deputys committee is more than qualified, and my colleagues know it. They simply disagree with the politics and the policies of the president , which is the responsibility of the person who is serving that president to ultimately promote, and anyone he chooses to appoint to a key position, but they cannot disagree that mr. Blinken has served the nation admirably, with dignity, diplomacy and has honored every position he has held, that he has devoted his life to serving this nations National Security interests, and he has excelled at doing it. Now, frankly, if mr. Blinken is unqualified, then the bar my colleagues have set is so high for any human being to reach. So i ask those who object to the nominee what additional qualifications can there be . Outside of already occupying the position for which he is nominated, its hard to understand what additional qualifications my colleagues would expect mr. Blinken to have to demonstrate his worthiness. Perhaps they would prefer he be nominated by a different president whose policies they agree with, but thats not how it works. This is an eminently qualified candidate who has the full trust and confidence of this president , my colleagues policy concerns notwithstanding. They may disagree with specific policy decisions of this president dutifully carried out, i repeat, carried out by mr. Blinken, and even listening to my dear friend and colleague, senator mccain, a distinguished member of the committee who i regret we are going to lose in the next congress from the committee, you know, when he made the comment that the president s personal decision im referring to on syria when all his National Security advisors recommended providing arms to the Free Syrian Army, well, mr. Blinken is clearly one of those National Security advisors, but the president is the one who ultimately makes the decision on what policy will be pursued. Which leads us separately to the questions about mr. Blinkens participation and decisions involving iraq, afghanistan and other parts of the world, as certain members of this body have taken issue with. Mr. Blinken has had to defend those decisions no matter his personal views or advice. That is his job. You can disagree with the president s policies, but you cannot blame this nominee for doing his sworn constitutional duty to carry them out. Now, i want to be very clear, we cannot judge the qualifications of this nominee, or for that fact any nominee based on the policy decisions of this president or any president. He has been part of this administration, to be sure, but if the Senate Starts to hold every nominee to account for every decision made by every president that they serve, i think that we will find that there is no one who will pass muster, no one who will be confirmed. I happen to think that president bushs decision to evade iraq invade iraq was a geostrategic blunder of the highest order. I opposed it at the time, and history tragically has proven that judgment right. The brave sacrifice of our young men and women and the squandering of hundreds of billions of our children and grandchildrens inheritance have compounded this magnitude of this error. Would my colleagues suggest that i should oppose all future republican nominees who served in the Bush Administration because no matter how qualified they are, somehow they must be held accountable for what i believe history will show in evaluating the bush presidency as a historic blunder that led to the civil and secular wars that are changing the shape of the middle east. I dont believe that that is what my colleagues would suggest, but that appears to be how they are judging mr. Blinken. But none of that is a reason to oppose mr. Blinken or any nominee. I hear these references to iraq. Well, Prime Minister malaki at the time opposed signing a status agreement, and without such an agreement, it was impossible to have our forces continued to be in iraq subject to the possibilities of any issues being pursued illegally under iraqi law versus our own law. Or in afghanistan, the question of what the force of the size should be in 2014. The president has made the statement of what it is to be. And maybe we can even have disagreements with what the size of those forces should be in 2014 as we see things evolve, but it is not for someone in an appointed position who is supposed to carry out the president s policies to say no, were not going to have that size, were going to have a bigger size. I fully expect that if confirmed, there will be a number of issues where mr. Blinken and i probably wont see eye to eye, or rather that the administration he will represent and i may not see eye to eye. When those issues arise, i fully intend to let mr. Blinken know exactly how i feel and to engage in a debate to influence the policy, and i will avail myself of all the tools that a senator can use to do so, and frankly, given his experience working for this body and given his professionalism and experience with the Sen