home

Hillary Clinton Backs Obama Syria Policy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:02:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I obviously disagree with the policy, but I also have to question the politics of this:

Secretary Clinton supports the president’s effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons,” a Clinton aide told POLITICO.

I think the President has not presented a plan that makes sense. And I see no reason why Hillary Clinton needed to comment on it now.

< The DEA, AT&T and the Hemisphere Project | Senate Syria Compromise: Foreign Relations Comm. to Vote >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Clinton Backs Obama Syria Policy | 140 comments (140 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It isn't really a new comment (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:19:18 PM EST
    she made a similar statement August 11 of last year saying chemical weapons were a red line. It was 9 days before the President used the same term that everyone highlights.

    Hillary in Istanbul 8/11/2012

    Has Hillary presented (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:08:56 PM EST
    any "evidence", or is it still "classified", with her, obama, kerry, and all of their cheering squads still relying on the JustTrustUs Administrations empty assertions that only they know the real truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and if they trusted their cheering squads they could tell them what it is but, well, it's classified, you know...

    Evidence? (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:12:12 PM EST
    Is that all you need? Or is this a side track of the issue?

    IOW it is not for lack of evidence that many are against bombing Sytia.


    Parent

    I take that as "no". (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:17:11 PM EST
    Carry on trusting...

    Parent
    Trusting? (1.00 / 2) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:21:39 PM EST
    OK Edger, to put it more directly, if you found out that there was inconvertible truth that Assad used his nerve gas on his civilians, would you be ok with the US bombing Syria?

    I believe that is the question of the day.

    Parent

    No, the question of that day is (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:32:56 PM EST
    let's see some evidence. Not subject change. I'm not here to engage in silly meaningless arguments and pander to evasions.

    Parent
    OK (2.33 / 3) (#36)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:42:44 PM EST
    Looks to me like we are gong to bomb Sytia, whether or not you get proof you need.

    So the question that seems more pertinent is whether bombing Syria even if Assad gassed and killed 1000 of his people is ok to do.

    My guess is that even if Obama personally gave you Assad's fingerprints on an exploded gas canister and connected it directly do dead Syrians you would not believe him anyway.

    So I do not see your point.

    Parent

    More evasion (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:43:54 PM EST
    Goodbye.

    Parent
    hahahaha (2.33 / 3) (#39)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:46:58 PM EST
    Guess you do not want to discuss bombing Syria,

    Parent
    Don't wast your time. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:48:53 PM EST
    I used to have some respect for you.

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:01:01 PM EST
    you must be missing my point, but so be it.

    Parent
    First of all, your numbers are (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    in some doubt.

    McClatchy:

    Another point of dispute is the death toll from the alleged attacks on Aug. 21. Neither Kerry's remarks nor the unclassified version of the U.S. intelligence he referenced explained how the U.S. reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children. The only attribution was "a preliminary government assessment."

    Anthony Cordesman, a former senior defense official who's now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, took aim at the death toll discrepancies in an essay published Sunday.

    He criticized Kerry as being "sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number" of 1,429, and noted that the number didn't agree with either the British assessment of "at least 350 fatalities" or other Syrian opposition sources, namely the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has confirmed 502 dead, including about 100 children and "tens" of rebel fighters, and has demanded that Kerry provide the names of the victims included in the U.S. tally.

    "President Obama was then forced to round off the number at `well over 1,000 people' - creating a mix of contradictions over the most basic facts," Cordesman wrote. He added that the blunder was reminiscent of "the mistakes the U.S. made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell's speech to the U.N. on Iraq in 2003."

    An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities, though it more broadly agreed with the United States that the regime had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack.

    Another eyebrow-raising administration claim was that U.S. intelligence had "collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence" that showed the regime preparing for an attack three days before the event. The U.S. assessment says regime personnel were in an area known to be used to "mix chemical weapons, including sarin," and that regime forces prepared for the Aug. 21 attack by putting on gas masks.

    Of course, anytime you can add "thousand" to any number, it becomes a more important number - but apparently, if the fatalities are of the conventional variety, we don't feel any moral or other kind of obligation to intervene or punish or whatever it is this limited strike is supposed to be about.

    As for Hillary and Syria, if you can stand a sports metaphor, those are her runners on base in this game, and Kerry's just the relief pitcher who inherited them.  I don't see her having a choice about supporting whatever it is that's going on or planned.

    [And as a complete and probably shallow aside, what the heck is wrong with John Kerry's face?  He doesn't even look like himself - has he had some work done?  He just looks weird.]

    Parent

    That McClatchy article raises (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:21:38 AM EST
    extremely important questions:

    Another eyebrow-raising administration claim was that U.S. intelligence had "collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence" that showed the regime preparing for an attack three days before the event....

    That claim raises two questions: Why didn't the U.S. warn rebels about the impending attack and save hundreds of lives? And why did the administration keep mum about the suspicious activity when on at least one previous occasion U.S. officials have raised an international fuss when they observed similar actions?

    Did the U.S. have a responsibility to warn people in Syria of the pending attack? Could the attack been adverted if they had raised an international fuss prior to the Aug. 21st. attack? How many lives could have been saved if the U.S. disclosed the information they claimed they had 3 days prior to the attack?

    Parent

    Not My Numbers (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:40:06 PM EST
    I read emptywheel, so can it princess.

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#76)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:41:10 AM EST
    for those who saw Kerry answering questions before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -  did he seem well-versed on the subjects of the questions posed to him?

    Parent
    You didn't link to your source for (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 06:48:57 AM EST
    the numbers, so that's why they're "yours;" and you referred to them as if there were no question they were good, reliable numbers.

    So, if you read emptywheel, sparky - I mean, squeaky - why'd you toss the numbers out there as if they were carved in stone?

    Your comment read like the very same talking points being disseminated by a stenographic media that can't be bothered to question the message the WH wants out there.

    We're being massaged with messages, and I'm over it.

    Charlie Pierce:

    Enough, OK? If you want to argue that we should make war in Syria because of what the regime did to people, then make that case on the merits. (Of course, if you do that, then you have to get behind regime change, which we don't seem to want to do, except for Senator Angry Grampy.) But don't tell me that the national security of the most powerful nation on Earth is suddenly in peril, because you sound like an idiot, and you sound like you think I'm one, too.

    "With impunity, there is opportunity," John Kerry said a few minutes later. "North Korea is hoping ambivalence carries the day." And then he cited Justice Jackson from the Nuremberg tribunals because, you know, Assad is this year's Hitler.

    We're going to make war in Syria to keep Kim Jong Un in a box?

    Seriously - enough already from them, and more than enough already from your backpedaling self.

    Parent

    Not My Number (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:59:42 AM EST
    So the question that seems more pertinent is whether bombing Syria even if Assad gassed and killed 1000 of his people is ok to do.

    Guess you skimmed..

    Parent

    Kerry does look like (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:48:22 PM EST
    he has had some work done.....

    Parent
    Count me in (none / 0) (#87)
    by Nemi on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:47:18 AM EST
    in the 'shallow pool'.

    "... what the heck is wrong with John Kerry's face?"

    That's what I've been wondering too.

    Parent

    Kerry (none / 0) (#140)
    by star on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 06:56:42 AM EST
    Does look different.I have been wondering about it too.. maybe he got a nose job done?

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:50:22 PM EST
    cannot answer for Edgar, but I can for myself.

    I would not be in favor of what amounts to unilateral military action in yet another country's civil war even if it were proven that Assad had used chemical weapons - which to date it has not.

    The "outrage" being expressed by the likes of Clinton, Kerry and Obama seems to me to be the outrage of the elite. We have the right to do what we like, kill whomever we want to, kill as many as we want to, kill in any manner we want to, but you can't, you slobs.

    It seems arbitrary to me to declare that Assad's killing of 1000 innocent people is somehow worse than our killing of 100,000 innocent people in Iraq using "legal" weapons. Would you be in favor of some country bombing us to teach us a lesson about the evils of killing civilians in other lands?

    And, as I have mentioned before, we are circling the globe 24/7 with enough nuclear weapons, which are apparently legal, to kill every living creature on Earth several times over. And, although it was quite awhile ago, we have let the world know that we will use them.

    Another thing I have to consider is that the type of military action being proposed is sketchy at best. It doesn't make sense. The objective is unclear. We can't blow up the places where the alleged chemical weapons are being stored - and we are not proposing that we send our soldiers in to remove them. So what are we going to be bombing? To what end? And when will it end? What are our objectives and how will we know when we have achieved them?

    None of those questions were posed or answered with respect to our interventions in the civil wars in iraq or Afghanistan - and both have turned into unmitigated disasters.

    Lastly, there will be many innocent deaths as a result of the proposed bombing - or "strikes" as they like to call them. Even if we try to smooth this over by calling those people "collateral damage", it is not smooth. I  for one, want my country to discontinue this killing rather that give it yet another theatre in which to practice it.

    Parent

    Well said! (none / 0) (#70)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:38:37 PM EST
    I continue to be shocked and amazed that our leaders are even considering this! Haven't they learned anything?  

    Parent
    very well said.. (none / 0) (#141)
    by star on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 07:02:51 AM EST
    There is so little discussion about what happens if Syria or Iran or Hezbollah launches an attack on Syrians or Israelis in retaliation to our 'Surgical' strikes ..then will boots hit the ground?

    When we did the Iraq blunder, there was full on support from majority of people in the nation, congressional approval, UN approval, a coalition of all our major partners ...Russia was not a player as it is now and china was muted in its protest.. In spite of all these, it was a disaster. So without all these in place,how do we know what cascading events happen after Syria strike?

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:17:32 PM EST
    you're going to ask permission to go out and kill people, it should be incumbent upon you to present incontrovertible evidence of the need to do so.

    Parent
    But for the gassing (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    While my saying "but for the gassing" kind of echoes an "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play" statement, it is for me a dividing line, an international humanitarian red line (with or without anyone, President or not, having recently voiced it.)  

    Looking back again & again at late twentieth century and early twenty-first century military wars/strikes/incursions, I would easily agree with your underlying skepticism. lentinel.  Although I do think the Kosovo situation was handled well and appears to have saved more lives in a genocidal situation than would have occurred absent US action, my mind and heart remains with diplomacy, followed by hard diplomacy, followed by imaginative sanctions & international pressures, followed by more diplomacy.

    Yet, as I've said in one way or another probably too many times, the use of these chemical weapons with their horrific effects is something from which I cannot turn away.  That one fact makes all the difference for me in terms of whether there should be military response.  The August 21st horror cannot be overstated; and, if we as humans have the kind of empathy we often profess to have or believe we have, that fully-displayed horror cannot be overlooked.  Of course, there are and should be arguments from all directions about whether a response would destabilize or settle the matter or degrade delivery systems as intended or ....  And, eventually, there will be a return to diplomacy, discussion, and some sort of broader resolution.

    Goal, strategy, tactics.  As part of all that, there must be a punitive component.  Change and rehabilitation and redirection ... we want all that, everyone says they do.  But, the reality is that there is not even partial incentive to change if there are no stinging direct consequences (aka punishment.) If there is any worth in the convention to outlaw the use of chemical weapons, then such use must be met in such a way stronger than getting the user to say "oops"  (only to do it again, and plan on saying "oops" again.) It is not an attitude of vengeance, but a necessary & appropriate response to a violation of international societal norms ... and, the other reality is that the US is best positioned in terms of capability & delivery & realpolitik to provide a firm response.


    Parent

    It's her responsibility (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:54:14 AM EST
    to present you with evidence? Why is that? She is a private citizen.

    Parent
    I would (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:11:08 PM EST
    surmise that Clinton chose to comment, albeit through an aide in her "camp", to put herself in solid with the Democratic party regulars. Part of her quest for the nomination in 2016.

    I believe this will backfire, as I believe this whole enterprise in manipulation will backfire.

    As BTD says, Obama hasn't presented a plan that makes sense.

    And that is very telling imo.

    To add to the smoke, Kerry has been trying to spin this thing into a matter of "national security" in order to properly frighten the public and intimidate members of Congress into giving another blank check to yet another dishonest administration with a hidden agenda.

    By the way, Clinton's support states as fact that Assad has used chemical weapons. Perhaps he has, but I would just as soon wait until the UN inspectors have made their analysis and presented their conclusions before making my mind up about that.

    Obama, who has the time for this scripted spectacle, does not seem to have time for that.

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    ...to put herself in solid with the Democratic party regulars.

    She is the epitomy of a Democratic Party Regular.

    Parent

    That she (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:21:16 PM EST
    may be.

    My point is that for her to make that kind of statement in the manner in which she did it has about it the familiar odor of politics for personal gain.

    Parent

    She Is a Politician (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:45:34 PM EST
    Considering that it fits directly in line with her position on Syria, it really should come as no surprise. What would be shocking is if she took a position against bombing Syria,

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:53:01 PM EST
    I would have been shocked had she done so, but also I would have had to have given her some points for courage.

    As it is, I give her no points for anything on this boilerplate statement from her aide.

    Parent

    If it were truly about (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:00:51 PM EST
    personal gain, she would have waited until she knew who would win the vote first.  Here she has jumped in when the matter is very much in doubt.  

    Parent
    My guess---the vote isn't in doubt (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:41:42 PM EST
    The books are cooked, they must know that it's going to pass or they wouldn't have come out so strongly for it.  If by some miracle it fails, they can always blame republicans.  

    Feeling cynical......

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:10:40 PM EST
    you're right about the matter being in doubt.

    But the combination of the dog-arsed Democrats and the rabid Republicans seems to me to be definitively lethal...

    And really, how much longer could she wait?

    Parent

    Talk about missing the point... (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    ...and focusing on the trivia.

    Parent
    Not Clear What Hillary Favors (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by RickyJim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:00:05 PM EST
    Secretary Clinton supports the president's effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime's horrific use of chemical weapons," a Clinton aide told POLITICO

    Strong and targeted doesn't necessarily mean just bomb something.  All the quote says is that she endorses having the Congress join in the search for the best policy.

    I think your interpretation (none / 0) (#75)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:36:16 AM EST
    is too generous in that it was not as vague, i.e., did not sidestep supporting a military strike, as perhaps it was intended to be.  It's an attempt to be able to interpret the statement either way, I'm sorry to say.

    Parent
    It appears that it's 2003 all over again (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:00:47 PM EST
    Faith, certainty, and blah, blah, blah...

    They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

    ''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes [and] Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''
    [...snip...]
    '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''

    [he] said that [el presidente] stood up and put his hand on the [his] shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

    Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough...'''



    a non specific comment (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:49:19 AM EST
    about a non specific policy and it was made by an aide. What is it exactly she may or may not be supporting? For those of you opposed to any bombing of Syria, what should be our response? Remember that we are the USA. We chose to be "the indispensable nation". Now we have to live with the consequences.

    The context and meaning are clear (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:19:21 AM EST
    If Hillary were to later say she meant some mush of a nothing response, she would look horrible.  

    Parent
    Too bad she isn't male (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sj on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 05:35:44 PM EST
    Then [s]he could backtrack all day long. Heck, no need to backtrack. Just ignore previous statements and do what [s]he wants.

    That's the ticket.

    Parent

    Too bad her first name doesn't (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:58:52 PM EST
    start with an O. We could spend years playing WORM.

    Parent
    WHAM (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 10:02:05 PM EST
    and so on...

    Parent
    She needed to take a stand (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:12:19 PM EST
    as former Secretary of State.  

    She did not wait to see if the resolutions would pass.  

    She "needed" to? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:18:15 PM EST
    Why? Especially if there's no clear agreement on what the goal is, or what the realistic outcomes are? I disagree, MKS. I don't think she needed to, unless she's being hounded by media to make a statement. Even so, I wish she would have not weighed in. I think she did so because she wanted to show support for Obama and Kerry, and because it makes her look like the DLC hawk who can gain centrist votes for a 2016 WH run.

    Parent
    It is an important issue (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    I think she is running.  If she is, she needs to go on record on the important issues of the day.  Everyone else will be on record.  For her to not take a position would be ducking....

    So, Howard Dean has his opening.

    Parent

    Goal (3.00 / 1) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:31:03 PM EST
    Isn't the goal clear. To get Assad et al. to never use CW again in his civil war? Or on a Meta level, the goal is to get congress to support Obama's intention to bomb Syrian military bases.

    Is it reasonable to expect that the outcome will reach the goal?

    Most likely the congressional goal will be met.

    As for the gassing problem, well maybe Assad will not use gas again.... But, then again, he sure does have a lot of it stockpiled, so who knows?

    Parent

    Moving goal posts (none / 0) (#6)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:37:18 PM EST
    In the other thread you just posted that the goal is to remove Assad from power. In this thread you post that the goal is to make sure Assad never uses chemical weapons again. Those are two very different goals. I'm not going to post your other comment here because that is against site rules. But which of those two goals is really the goal?

    Parent
    Well it could be both (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:41:42 PM EST
    However, the goal of any strike should be to deter further chemical weapon use....

    The goal of removing Assad could be the goal of our non-military efforts....  

    Parent

    I worry about the vacuum created (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:46:46 PM EST
    if we get him removed from power. It is not clear from any reports, or from anything being stated by the WH or the politicians, who "the rebels" are. I have heard reports in recent days on NPR and the BBC that the Al Quaida affiliated groups have pretty much pushed the more moderate rebels into the background. Who steps into power should the Assad regime fall? I certainly don't know, and I don't believe anyone in the Obama administration knows.

    Parent
    Clearly a problem (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    The current civil war in Syria appears to be a Sunni-Shia split, with the rebel/al Qaeda side comprised of Sunnis and the secular Assad gaining support from the Shia Hezbollah and Shia Iran.

    Truly a mess.  But we can still deter chemical weapon use....

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:01:02 PM EST
    The ruling group is Alawite, not Shiite, which represents about 12% of Syrina population. The main rebel force is sunni which is represented by 70% of the population.

    Parent
    Alawites are a sect of Shia Islam (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:20:46 PM EST
    Why else would Iran be supporting Assad so heavily if not to counter Sunni power that threatens them?

    Parent
    That is Incorrect (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:22:05 PM EST


    Parent
    No, it's not (none / 0) (#131)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    The entire schism in Islam, still playing out idiotically today, is between two sides, and the Alawites fall on the Shia side. Period.

    Parent
    Great That The World Is So Simple (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    For you.  Good for Comix, I guess..  

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 11:11:27 AM EST
    Simple? How so? You have the military industrial complex doing their thing? You have the military leadership doing their thing, the same leadership that phucked my brother's life into the ground. You have the regular corporate complex more than ready to profit off any opportunity that arises in permanent warworld.

    Gimme a break, Squeak. Your POV isn't the be all and end all. Nor is mine. The difference, I can admit that.

    Go phuck yourself, you beautiful free American.

    Do you get the love I mean?

    Parent

    And, of course... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    ...you have all the Syrian/Alwaite/Schism stuff that neither you nor I have five cents worth of insight about in the real world of such things, not for all our reading, research, or heartfelt feelings.

    Parent
    Not The Ideal Approach IMO (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 11:45:17 AM EST
    But suit your self:

    you nor I have five cents worth of insight about in the real world of such things, not for all our reading, research, or heartfelt feelings.

    I guess the dollar value of insight is debatable, but it seems a mistake, IMO, to simplify things with a them v us approach, as opposed to thinking about difference and exploring complex variables that are not pre packaged for US consumption.

    It is not all Shi v Sunni, and that ends it all.  Alawites are an offshoot from Shia as I conceded above but are unique. They are not part of the twelver school, they drink, celebrate christmas and were not even considered related to Shia until 1974.

    And to go back to the original point, the fact that they are related to Shia, an offshoot, has zero to do with their alliance with Iran.  They are strategic allies, Russia is not Shia.. which perhaps makes the best point of Iran and Syria alliance.

    And thanks for the advice to have sex with myself..  it was great!

    Parent

    The question is (none / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    does anyone have some real insight into these things?

    The shia/sunni catchall explanation as the root cause of conflict often seems like yet another chapter in the ongoing American media dumbing-down-the-public project..

    The same way they were constantly simplistically spinning "the troubles" in Northern Ireland as about little more than some age-old blood feud between Catholics and Protestants..

    Meanwhile we continue to violate the establishment clause of the constitution by funding religious settlements on the West Bank, but no one's allowed to talk about it presumably because the subject's too complicated and upsettng to too many people..  

    Parent

    Iran (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:27:09 PM EST
    Iran is persian and Alawites are ethnic arabs. Iran supports Syria because it is strategic, They are are fighting western hegemony, not because of religious alliance.  Alawites have no religious connection with Iranian shiites, while technically they are an offshoot of chi, they are unique.

     

    Parent

    There is a religous connection between (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    the Shia and the Alawite even though they are unique. Both are based on the belief that Ali was the rightful successor to Muhammad.

    From a religious viewpoint, Muslims later split into two groups, Sunni and Shia. Sunnis assert that even though Muhammad never appointed a successor, Abu Bakr was elected first caliph by the Muslim community. The Sunnis recognize the first four caliphs as Muhammad's rightful successors. Shias believe that Muhammad explicitly named his successor Ali at Ghadir Khumm and Muslim leadership belonged to him who had been determined by divine order.[2][3]

    Shia Muslims further believe that Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, was the first of these Imams and was the rightful successor to Muhammad and thus reject the legitimacy of the first three caliphs.

    Alawite:

    -- The Alawite religion is often called "an offshoot of Shi'ism," Islam's largest minority sect, but that is something like referring to Christianity as "an offshoot of Judaism."

    -- Alawites broke away from Shi'ism more than 1,000 years ago and retain some links to it, including the veneration of Ali, the cousin and son-in law of the Prophet Mohammad. Alawi literally means "those who adhere to the teachings of Ali."

    -- But several beliefs differ sharply from traditional Islam. Named after Ali, Alawites believe he was divine, one of many manifestations of God in a line with Adam, Jesus, Mohammad, Socrates, Plato and some pre-Islamic sages from ancient Persia.

    -- To orthodox Muslims, this eclectic synthesis of Christian, Gnostic, Neoplatonic and Zoroastrian thought violates Islam's key tenet that "there is no God but God."

    -- Alawites interpret the Pillars of Islam (the five duties required of every Muslim) as symbols rather than duties. They celebrate a group of holidays, some Islamic, some Christian, and many Alawite practices are secret. They consider themselves to be moderate Shi'ites.
     



    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:43:46 PM EST
    Sorry for the typo:

    Alawites have no religious connection with Iranian shiites, while technically they are an offshoot of shia , they are unique.


    Parent
    Cable news network (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    -- sorry don't know which one I was watching -- had Colonel on who commented that the only way to assure that chemical weapons are not used again in Syria is to remove those weapons, but the way that Syria has stored them and the large number of locations, he said, makes this impossible to accomplish.

    Not only do I think a strike by us in Syria should not be undertaken but I see no meaningful purpose, no effective means to any stated goal.  And, I don't understand what the Admin conceives of as the long-term goal/strategy.

    Parent

    HUH? (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:48:02 PM EST
    Please, the longstanding goal, for the international community has been for Assad to step down.

    What I wrote was to contextualize where we were coming from. The international community aligned to condemn Assad and to demand that he step down,

    NYT from August 2011:

    The United States and several of its major allies on Thursday called on Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, to give up power. The carefully choreographed announcements came after months of popular protests and increasingly deadly reprisals that the United Nations commissioner for human rights said amounted to crimes against humanity by the Syrian authorities.


    Parent
    That's fine, but that's August 2011 (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    My question was what is really the goal for September 2013, but you knew that already. In any event, MKS is more forthcoming with a reasoned position on the issue, so I'd rather bandy it about with him.

    Parent
    OK Maxwell (1.25 / 4) (#19)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:05:27 PM EST
    I get it that your namesake was not the sharpest tool in the box.

    Parent
    A petty insult instead of an answer (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    Surprise, surprise. As I said, MKS is more serious in exploring the issue, so, even though I don't agree with him, I find his responses are more thoughtful and thought-provoking.

    Parent
    Answer (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 06:06:32 PM EST
    In the other thread you just posted that the goal is to remove Assad from power. In this thread you post that the goal is to make sure Assad never uses chemical weapons again. Those are two very different goals. I'm not going to post your other comment here because that is against site rules.

    Of course you are not going to post my other comment because it would make you look foolish for accusing me of moving goal posts or whatever your are accusing me of.

    And when I reiterate my comment from the other thread

    Please, the longstanding goal, for the international community has been for Assad to step down.
    What I wrote was to contextualize where we were coming from.

    you go on to say:

    That's fine, but that's August 2011
    My question was what is really the goal for September 2013, but you knew that already.

    I answered your question about 2013 aka now in this thread,  and you brought up my comment regarding Obama's 2011 comments regarding Syria, from in the other thread which has nothing to do with your question because I was not responding to your future question here, it was an entirely different discussion. So Maxwell, not the sharpest tool in the box, seems quite apt here, imo.


    Parent

    Many seem to assess this (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:38:22 PM EST
    issue as if we were going to invade.  We are not.

    So, gaming out all the strategies and potential outcomes does not really apply.  We will not have a pottery barn rule in effect.  We did not remake Serbia after the bombing campaign there.

    We do not need an "exit" strategy as we will never "enter" Syria.

    Parent

    I never proposed that we're going to invade (none / 0) (#9)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:41:58 PM EST
    Maybe someone else did. I merely asked what the real goal is. Is it Assad's removal from power or is it securing CW from being used again? Ot is it merely "sending a message" (something that has been stated by Obama and others)?

    Parent
    I assume the goal of any strike (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:46:45 PM EST
    is to degrade Assad's chemical weapons capability as much as possible and to deter any further use.

    An broader goal would be to set one up for failure....

     

    Parent

    Shouldn't we know the goal (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:44:17 PM EST
    Before we do anything in Syria? What is the President's end goal?  To prevent deaths using chemicals but allow other deaths?  Something else?  

    Parent
    Don't Think So (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:49:45 PM EST
    There is no intention, as far as I have read to do anything to his chemical weapon stockpile. It would be too dangerous.

    Parent
    Delivery systems (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:54:55 PM EST
    could be degraded...

    But not really eliminated....

    So just flat out deterrence should be the goal.

    Parent

    Never is a very long time (none / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:52:36 PM EST
    I have not had time to read the new text of the AUMF but according to bmaz

    read closely it is pretty open in its permissions.

    The original draft of the AUMF prepared by the Obama administration:

    The phrase "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" would include authorization for ground troops, should the President decide they were "necessary and appropriate."

    No one really knows what the unintended consequences of the military bombing of Syria or arming the rebels will be.

    Will it deter the use of chemical weapons?

    Will further action be taken if chemical weapons are used again?

    Will it result in a takeover of the government by Al Qaeda forces?

    Will Al Qaeda forces get access to chemical weapons? Will the U.S. stand by and let them have them.

    If things deteriorate even more will Obama or his successor, decide that further action including "boots on the ground" is necessary?    

    Parent

    How can you be so sure? (none / 0) (#74)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:33:48 AM EST


    Parent
    We have no troops massing (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:01:21 AM EST
    You can't just fly the troops in.  It would take months to mobilize for an invasion....

    Parent
    We have no troups massing NOW (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:26:38 AM EST
    Your original statement said ....we will never "enter" Syria.


    Parent
    The point being it would take (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    months to prepare for something like that, and nothing is going on.   It is not something you can hide.

    The idea that Obama secretly wants to invade Syria makes no sense.  There is no evidence of that.  He has pulled out of Iraq and is doing so in Afghanistan.  He did not invade Libya in spite of comments here skeptical that he would keep his promise not to.

    There is simply no basis to assume a ground invasion will ever occur.

    Parent

    Once again, I agree that nothing is (none / 0) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:40:29 AM EST
    going on right at this moment but that does not mean that Obama might decide that boots on the ground are necessary at some time in the future.

    Per Kerry, Obama is not taking that option off the table.

    Kerry was asked specifically about how he felt about explicitly prohibiting boots on the ground. He answered by saying the Administration didn't want boots on the ground but might need them if Syria imploded and we needed to put people on the ground to secure the CW. He also said, with respect to securing CW, he didn't want to take any tools away from General Dempsey.

    The administration might not want boots on the ground but they may feel that they need them based on circumstances at a future date.

    The U.S. did not have boots on the ground in Iraq immediately after the Iraq AUMF was signed either.

    Parent

    Kerry misspoke (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 10:35:29 AM EST
    You have to assume a lot of things that there is no evidence of to get there.

    We had this same conversation about Libya, too.

    Parent

    Did Kerry misspeak by telling the truth? (none / 0) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 05:33:44 PM EST
    We are currently building a large military installation in Jordan

    The Pentagon will send some 200 U.S. soldiers to Jordan to control spillover violence from the Syrian civil war, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Senate.

    But the troops, near Jordan's border with Syria, could be the forerunner of 20,000 or more U.S. troops deployed if the Obama administration decides to intervene in the 2-year-old civil war, senior U.S. officials told the Los Angeles Times.

    The 200 or so troops from the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, will work alongside Jordanian forces to "improve readiness and prepare for a number of scenarios," Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    Those scenarios could include securing chemical weapons arsenals or to prevent the war from spilling into neighboring countries, he said.

    But the Pentagon has drawn up plans to possibly expand the force to 20,000 or more, the officials told the Times.

    These forces could include special operations teams to find and secure Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, U.S. air defense units to protect Jordan's airspace and conventional military units capable of moving into Syria if necessary, the Times said. link



    Parent
    Ft. Bliss is home to (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    armor. They used to have the Patriot Missiles but those were re-assigned to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma.

    You cannot invade Syria with 20,000 troops.  It sounds defensive.  

    You would have ample warning and notice to oppose any invasion force.

    Parent

    Per Emptywheel (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 05:56:16 AM EST
    Lessons From Today's Senate Hearings on Syria

    Lesson #4: The Administration promises no boots on the ground except insofar as it anticipates boots on the ground.

    Kerry was asked specifically about how he felt about explicitly prohibiting boots on the ground. He answered by saying the Administration didn't want boots on the ground but might need them if Syria imploded and we needed to put people on the ground to secure the CW. He also said, with respect to securing CW, he didn't want to take any tools away from General Dempsey.

    And while the resolution makes pains to limit our involvement geographically (though John Kerry implied today if Syria's allies get involved than we'd be able to go after them), it also allows boots on the ground for non-combat functions.

    The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations. link

    Big difference between NOW and NEVER

    Parent

    Why not? (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:01:52 AM EST
    There are waaayyy more centrist voters in this country than there are lefties.  And to paraphrase the mem from 2008 - where else are those lefties going to go when it comes time to vote?  Are they going to take a chance and let Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush become president by sitting home or voting third party?

    If she didn't weigh in, it would surely have come back to bite her if and when she decides to run.

    Parent

    Her vote on another AUMF (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:23:40 AM EST
    did nothing but harm her in the Democratic primaries in 2008.

    In order to get to offer the lefties a choice between a Democratic hawk and Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, she must first become the Democratic candidate.

    I know she looks like a shoe in now - but then there was a time prior to the primaries that she looked like a shoe in to be the Democratic candidate in 2008.

    If the U.S. bombs Syria and that action has negative unintentional consequences, her support for military action against Syria may come back and bite her in the a$$.

    Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, said a vote in favor of the resolution would be the equivalent of "a purchase of stock over the long-term in Obama's decision-making on Syria."

    "Any Republican may go into a vote thinking, `I have given authority for a limited scope of action to the president,' but the reality is you're buying stock in the president's current decisions on Syria and also his future actions in any escalation that may occur," Schmidt said.

    IMO all politicians, not just Republicans, who support Obama's AUMF are "buying stock" in all of Obama's future actions in any escalation that may occur.

     

    Parent

    Maybe, but (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:43:30 AM EST
    there is no rock star candidate on the left now to challenge her.  While Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker may be exciting now, I also think many people will think twice about nominating someone again who has 5 minutes of federal experience.  Plus, she will have the backing of Obama and his machine and there are already "his" people who are ready to work on (or already working behind the scenes) for HRC.

    And while it could backfire, it certainly could (politically) backfire if the US sits idly by and lets Assad continue to gas his own people. And if it backfires, I guess that's the chance you take - politics ain't beanbag, you know.  If she said nothing - that would definitely raise questions - no matter what happens in Syria.  

    She had to take a position and not be a follower.

    Parent

    Cory Booker exciting to the left (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 10:10:23 AM EST
    Guess he is not all that exciting to some of us on the left.

    So far, to the best of my knowledge, Warren has been noncommittal on whether she would consider the use of force in Syria.

    Many of us thought that after the Bush debacle voters would think twice about electing someone else with 5 minutes of federal experience. We were wrong.

    Parent

    As an avowed "Obot" (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:33:38 PM EST
    as some here would call me, I probably support Hillary more than most here, I would venture.

    Not because I have an emotional stake in her candidacy (which I am  not sneezing at, as it helps) but because I have become convinced she would be very good....

    Parent

    This lefty is not (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    an assured Democratic vote. I am an assured liberal vote, but I cannot be made to vote for a Democrat out of guilt. "Where are you gonna go?" doesn't work on me anymore. Let the centrist voters go for it. Maybe this will work.

    Parent
    Everybody is hungry for war these days.. (none / 0) (#18)
    by AmericanPsycho on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:02:49 PM EST
    I have a shaky theory for why Obama so badly needs to attack Syria but the motivations of Clinton/Pelosi/etc seem clear. The crazy thing is Alan Grayson is the voice of reason in this stupid debate.

    Why a Crazy Thing? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:08:40 PM EST
    Grayson is usually right on the money.

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:24:12 PM EST
    is Grayson saying?

    I liked him as an attack dog against the Republican hoards, but I have not yet seen him be critical of any of the shenanigans of the Democratic administration.

    I'm going to try to google him... but if you could provide a link I would appreciate it.

    Parent

    Not Our Problem (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:28:19 PM EST
    There is no such thing as a humanitarian war.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:29:43 PM EST
    There is no such thing as a humanitarian bombing. Spend the money not on bombs but on humanitarian aid.

    Parent
    The only humanitarian bombing, imo (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    is a flea bomb :) Yes, the fleas in Ca suck.

    I agree, btw.

    Parent

    Maybe we should invade... (none / 0) (#44)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:57:45 PM EST
    If some guy is shooting out his neighbors' windows, do you send the police to punish him by slashing his tires, or to build a bulletproof wall around his house?

    Or do you take away his gun?

    I don't find Hillary Cllnton's (none / 0) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:23:44 PM EST
    support of military action in Syria surprising, either in politics or policy or their inevitable intermingling.  We have her record on Iraq's AUMF.  We know her position on involvement in Libya--it was told that a reluctant Obama was persuaded by Rice, Powers and Clinton.  

    It was the State Department's Harold Koh who found that the War Powers Act need not be invoked because the air bombing did not constitute "hostilities."

     Mrs. Clinton needs to be seen as being in President Obama's corner, and, with a modicum of history thrown in, politicians with ambition often feel safer being a hawk, prior to the ensuring disaster. (cf. Gore, Al. Gulf War vote).   Once the the  predictable disaster is evident, politicians can often do well by pledging to stop it all. (c.f. Eisenhower, Obama).

     It is my view, at the risk of naivete (if only the Czar knew), President Obama does not want to dot it.  However, he is being goaded into it all, just as Daddy Bush was so goaded to do bomb Panama to get rid of Noriega.  Wo wants a wimp as president, right?    But, the result is the same, we need to bomb to maintain "international norms."   International law, of course, is another story.  And, here we go again.  

    Contrary to popular belief (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:46:18 PM EST
    Hillary's approval does not change my position on this issue. I am still against bombing Syria.

    Parent
    At least no one's chiming (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:18:23 PM EST
    that she's only taking this position due to her
    incredible sense of loyalty and because she's such an amazingly selfless "team player"..

    Parent
    Don't think that I have ever (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:26:29 PM EST
    gone that route. I am not much into personality politics. My position on an issue doesn't change when you change the players from Bush to Obama or from Obama to Clinton.

    Parent
    You commie freak DFH idealist. (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    Don't you have any idea just how horrible it would be if a republican had been elected last year and was doing this?

    All across the country democrats and obots would have to get up every day and spend all day pretending to be opposed to it and shrieking for impeachment. Awful. Unbearable.

    Sheesh. Have you no pragmatism in your soul? Gawd.

    Parent

    Obots--nice (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:11:38 PM EST
    But I do not think there has been a Democratic President who was a liberal dove on foreign policy.    Maybe Carter but not really.

    Democrats have been much more restrained in the use of military power, however.....

     

    Parent

    My position on issues do not change (none / 0) (#66)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    based on what party the president is from. I strongly supported the 1st Persian Gulf war even though it was called by a Republican President and was opposed to Clinton's handling of Iraq in the 1990s. I also think that BHO can show a little more clarity in the way he is handling Egypt at this time.

    Parent
    It's a not-uncommon response (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:41:01 PM EST
    whenever Clinton departs from the position that an imagined ideal liberal would take..

    Parent
    Hillary would not be my model (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:44:08 PM EST
    for an ideal liberal politician.

    Parent
    it can't be too common (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:16:51 AM EST
    I have never seen anyone make that claim about her.

    Parent
    I'm rolling my eyes right now.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 06:47:50 AM EST
    of course, if anyone ever said it, they didn't really mean it..

    Parent
    Koh has been (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    a strong advocate of international law and human rights...The very opposite of Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

    Parent
    Yes, Koh was a strong advocate of (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:58:24 PM EST
    of international law and human rights and was considered a liberal icon. Once a staunch defender of the notion that the president of the US can't wage war without approval of Congress,  Indeed, during the Bush Administration he was opposed to all that executive muscle flexing.

    But, then he seemed to change.  He opined that the War Powers Act was not applicable in Libya because there were no hostilities--hostilities being ambiguous.  And, it would have been the proverbial slam dunk for President Obama to obtain congressional approval, but he did not want to.  Koh was very helpful in finding some legal basis for it.  We are all served better, in my view, with Koh back as a professor at Yale. Although, there are probably many behind him ready and willing to be helpful to their masters.

    Parent

    I wouldn't expect anything else (none / 0) (#68)
    by TycheSD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    from Hillary.

    She's probably going to have to act like the Iron Lady to get elected president in the U.S. as a woman.  She really won't have to act because that's pretty much how she is in reality.

    I agree she should not weigh in (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:36:52 PM EST
    Most arguments about Syria are valid.  I'm leaving out the McCain/Graham argument because theirs is stupid and wildly reckless.  All others though seem very valid.  This is a tough serious decision, I want to hear from those who will have to be responsible for this vote for the rest of their lives.  Having Hillary weigh in is a bit of bullying IMO.  And her opinion matters as much in this decision as Barack Obamas did on the AUMF that started the Iraq War.

    As I recall, Politico,has been criticized here (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:49:54 AM EST
    in the past as unreliable.  But now we are to believe Politico is accurately reporting what an unidentified source says is Hillary Clinton's current opinion as to how Pres. Obama should proceed re Syria.    

    Parent
    It was an official statement (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:21:46 AM EST
    by an official spokesperson.  It is her position.

    She has not come out and said her aide was mistaken or misquoted.  She would have an obligation to correct any such misimpression.

    Parent

    It may be an official statement, but I'm (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:44:02 AM EST
    not sure it says what you think it does.  Look at the wording again:

    supports the president's effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime's horrific use of chemical weapons,

    What is it that she supports?  As I read it, she supports the president's decision to get the Congress involved.  

    What doesn't it say?  It does not say that she supports any specific policy or decision or strategy, only that she thinks there ought to be one.  Perhaps when the Congress weighs in, she will give us the benefit of her opinion. What will be interesting will be what she has to say if Congress does not approve whatever resolution is voted on.

    Will she support the Congress, or stand with the president in whatever he does next?

    Not only do I not know the answer to those questions - although if I had to I'd guess she will stand with the president - I really am failing to see why she is being treated as if she has an actual role to play here; her possible political ambitions should not be part of this.

    Perhaps even she knows this, and that's why a she chose to have a rather generic statement issued on her behalf instead of taking the Joe Lieberman approach of seeking out every available camera and microphone and booking a series of network appearances.

    Parent

    If she later says (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    she did not support the strike, it would be dishonest.

    Her statement is being reported as support for the strike.  She is not correcting the record.

    Very few interpret it the way you do.  It would be a classic Clintonian statement:  it depends on what the meaning of is, is.

    Parent

    "A classic Clintonian statement"? (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    Very few interpret it the way you do.  It would be a classic Clintonian statement:  it depends on what the meaning of is, is.

    Don't you mean "Obamian", like:

    What the meaning of "veto" is - as in, he will veto the FISA amendmentss?,

    Or the meaning of "must" - as in "must have a public option"?

    Or "public" healthcare reform meetings, televised on C-SPAN and no backroom deals with the insurance companies?

    Or "allow", as in "allow Americans to buy their prescription drugs from other developed nations"?

    Or "close" - as in, will close Guantanamo within a year.

    "Introduce" - as in, he will introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill during his first year in office.

    Etc., etc. etc.

    Parent

    If you really want to parse (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    Hillary is saying she supports Obama's effort to get Congress to approve a "strong" and "targeted" response.

    What else could that mean?  Hillary supports Obama's efforts to get Congress to approve some other Obama policy other than the one he is proposing currently?  To "target" a "strongly" worded diplomatic cable?

    Parent

    Yes, you could read it that way, and (4.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    in fact, maybe that's what was intended to be conveyed.  I just think it was such a generic statement that it allows for varying interpretations.

    Suppose - jut for the sake of argument - that the president changes his mind.  Maybe Congress won't vote on a resolution that's to his liking, or they vote on something that's too restrictive, or they just flat-out say no to everything, and he takes the David Cameron approach and says, "that's it - Congress said no, so we're done."  Where is she on the whole issue then?

    In my opinion, the generic quality of her statement allows her to simply say that she supports the president, that she's always supported him, and she respects the will of the Congress.

    Obama may have painted himself into a corner with the "red line" business, but Hillary's way smarter than that (even though I think she also used the terminology some time ago in reference to Syria and chemical weapons) - and it helps that she holds no position in the administration.

    Parent

    He doubled down on the "red line" (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    It's now the "world's red line":

    Obama made that same argument Wednesday, saying: "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."

    "The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war," he said at a joint news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt on the first day of a four-day trip that includes the G-20 summit in Russia.

    "Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty," Obama continued. "Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the "Syria Accountability Act" that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for."

    Asked about whether he was seeking to save face, Obama insisted that "my credibility is not on the line -- the international community's credibility is on the line."



    Parent
    But then it is (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    ...up to the world to determine what the punishment will be.  It's not up to the United States to unilaterally decide.

    Sorry, Mr. Obama, that's quite a stretch.  Try again.

    Parent

    Seems odd, then, that the world has (4.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    not come together as one to bring Assad into line, doesn't it?

    Parent
    One of those Catch-22s (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:35:24 PM EST
    As we both know, Anne, sometimes it is easier to sit back and let the other guy do.  In real life and political life.  Most countries simply do not have the economic or military wherewithal to be anywhere near the lead (or in the middle of) in an international conflict.  Other countries have a practice of receding (at least for awhile) and deferring to whichever country/countries are the "power" countries of the period.

    'Wish it weren't so.  Mostly, we need not to keep wearing the world-policeman badge ... unless there are compelling humanitarian reasons to act. Use of outlawed chemical weaponry would be a reason to act, imo.

    Parent

    IIRC 189 countries signed (4.40 / 5) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    the treaty banning chemical weapons. Even without the ability to take military action themselves they do have the ability to go on record in support of a military strike by the U.S.

    Where is the international community going on record in support of the U.S. military action? That is not happening. What is happening is that they have either remained silent or have stated that they support an U.N. investigation.

    Obama chose the role of world policeman. He had the option to fully back an U.N. investigation and get the international community involved prior to announcing that he planned military action against Syria. He chose not to go that route.

    Parent

    Enjoying the irony of this reply (none / 0) (#114)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    as a reply as equivocal and generic as the statement attributed to HRC.  Both of you have accomplished the political aim of deniability.

    Parent
    Actually liked your comment, Towanda (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 03:56:13 PM EST
    There surely is irony, all the way around.

    I don't know nor pretend to know THE answer, if such there is, in the convolutions of Middle Eastern conflicts.  As for strategy and tactics, well ... things said on both sides of the "to act or not to act" debate make varying degrees of sense.  But, I'll repeat as long as my body allows: The act of gassing/use of illegal chemical weaponry is an international legal & moral wrong on a level so depraved that a responsive firm military act is compelled. (That last sentence is my personal belief; and, I will not deny that position.)

    Parent

    What a Load (3.00 / 2) (#103)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:26:13 PM EST
    Hillary has been on board for hard line actions against Syria for some time now. She has been to the right of Obama, but now he has realized the wisdom of her (and Leiberman, McCain et al.) ways.

    We have been helping to arm the rebels for at least six months now. Hillary argued for this along:

    * Feb. 2, 2013: The New York Times reports that Clinton and former CIA Director David Petraeus had crafted a plan in the summer of 2012 to provide vetted rebel groups with lethal arms and training. The White House, in the midst of Obama's re-election bid, rejected the proposal.

    From The Hill A timeline on Syria, from the uprising to Obama's `red line'

    Parent

    When you start a comment with (4.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    "what a load," I don't have any interest in what follows.

    You may have made some good points, but I pretty much don't care.

    Parent

    Yes (2.50 / 4) (#109)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    When it comes to anything Hillary you do not care for anything save for the one note song in your head.

    That is abundantly clear. Your equivocating for Hillary is as good an example here as any. Quite astounding that you could take a statement and turn it into something absurd.

    Parent

    You must have me confused with (3.50 / 2) (#110)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    someone else; I've been pretty vocal about my disinterest in Hillary running in 2016 - and I certainly do not share her hawkish views.

    For what it's worth, I wasn't equivocating for her - merely pointing out that the statement made on her behalf was so generic it would stand her well no matter what direction this thing takes or what the ultimate decision is.  Rudimentary reading skills should have made that, um, abundantly clear.

    Sorry I don't have your mad skills at twisting people's words and putting words in their mouths so you can have the arguments you want, huh?

    Is this the point where you start boo-hooing about the takeover of TL?

    Parent

    No Confusion (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 01:45:56 PM EST
    Just astounded as to why, if Hillary's Hawkish views bother you, and that you have dropped her from your dance ticket, why you would try to explain away such a clear statement by Hillary.

    To me, who has no problem supporting Hillary given the other options, I see her statement as unequivocal support of Obama's plan. She did not make her statement in a vacuum, but in the context of what is currently on the table.

    Parent

    That is a bit of an end run (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 11:18:52 PM EST
    Then on BTDs part.  I'm in the middle of a full bath remodel...über sucks, the great part doesn't sink in until you can sink into the bathtub.

    BTD is during busy times MY CNN.  Count me disappointed right now.  I know I should always go read on my own but that isn't my option right now.  Thank you Anne for the providing the exact wording.

    Parent

    The wording was in BTD's post, (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:25:37 AM EST
    so no need to thank me.  As it is, I've been chastised for daring to parse the statement in any way other than full-blown support of bombing the crap out of Syria.

    Leaving aside for the moment that I don't know why we're making this about Hillary - well, aside from the usual reasons - my take on the statement was that it was totally generic, would work no matter what the outcome/decision is, and just shows what a consummate politician she is.  People will make of it what they will - those who hate her will find reasons to prove they are right to feel that way, and those who love her will find reasons why they don't have to take her off the pedestal.

    The rest of us - well, we're just trying to take it as it comes, trying to keep our eyes on the ball and not on the shiny objects that distract from that.

    Good luck with your bathroom remodel - that's something we need to tackle, too.  One of those things that's kind of like childbirth - as soon as it's over, you forget how painful it was!  

    Parent

    I'm not sure she should be making (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:03:10 AM EST
    Statements that could be construed as for war with Syria.  I'm fine with her supporting Constitionality.  At this point though, as we come down to the vote and the fact that she is our strongest Presidential contender and you may answer to her in that capacity someday, to attempt to affect the vote is a form of bullying IMO.

    She will not be responsible personally in any way for the action or the inaction.  So it matters to me greatly whether she was supporting Constitutionality or she is supporting the President's call to war.  This has nothing to do with hating or loving Hillary for me.  This is about being a member of a family that already survived one bull$hit war.

    Members of Congress have access to classified information and they must make their decision, they will forever be responsible for that, she will not.

    Parent

    If you have a chance to read BTD's (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:23:06 AM EST
    post on how a US attack on Syria, with or without Congressional approval, will violate the UN Charter, I think it will raise additional questions that someone who was a Secretary of State should know the answers to - possibly making it even more of a problem that she said anything at all.

    The deeper we get in this thing, the more questions I have, and the less satisfied I am with the answers being offered.


    Parent

    I watch morning news at the moment (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:38:34 PM EST
    And that's it. I get too worried paying constant attention.  Whatever they decide there isn't much I can do about it. I am grateful to those with the vote who ask uncomfortable questions.  Who knew that a remodel could provide relief?  It's usually nightmarish, but I look forward to it each day right now.

    Parent
    I've started practicing yoga (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:46:07 PM EST
    every day at home. Following the news re Syria is quite distressful and Indo not have anyone close to me in the U.S. military.

    Parent
    With House members coming out of (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    Classified briefings still confused or firming their NO, confidence is in short supply for all the unwashed.

    Parent
    Kind of a bombshell post. Guaranteed to (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 11:35:04 PM EST
    set off a squabble.

    Parent
    Hillary Clinton Backs Obama Syria Policy | 140 comments (140 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment