we forcefully engaged in empowering right moderate rebels earlier in this conflict today we would have more and better options before us but

have never supported the use of military force of U. S. military force in this conflict and I still don't I

from extremist forces. And the strategic elements in both cases are the same. We

wrong and that is why I have for over two years urged the president to pursue a more robust engagement in

the hopes of helping the Syrian people replace Assad with a stable secular and moderate government however while I have long argued forcefully for engagement and empowering the Syrian people I

think isis would be in charge of syria and we bombed saw sometimes both sides of civil war evil and

I think providing arms those people who we can trust aw and providing air support is in fact something we should be doing lit

soldiers third this prolonged conflict is creating vast and govern spaces and Syria which are turning into the premier operational area in the world for jihadists to operate and

Syrians not only from ISIS but also from Assad. Fourth, we and our partners should

this conflict you voted against going to war in two thousand three against Saddam Hussein nine and you

goals are well beyond theory simply Syria and Iraq but what we know now is that right Russia's not really targeting isis I

the west and and that and that alternately will usher in a world in which everyone was under their versions wise and is that not

a vacuum in Iraq and Syria that helped isis grow no I think the vacuum was

within Syria it should not the our objective try to resolve the civil war in Syria and and like

president Obama's and there is a red line and that he threatened forced against Syria for what was going on in Syria few

he's going into Syria one student gets in and fights isis on behalf of a song Putin