http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/ The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine. She says this about President Obama's: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle." JEFFREY GOLDBERG | AUG 10 2014, 12:01 AM ET President Obama has long-ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion. In an interview in February, the president told me that “when you have a professional army ... fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict—the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.” Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising. “The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said. ... Professional Clinton-watchers (and there are battalions of them) have told me that it is only a matter of time before she makes a more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and then went on to serve. On a number of occasions during my interview with her, I got the sense that this effort is already underway.
The Syrian rebels are a nasty nasty group. And most of them want a fundamentalist islamic state. How could the US possibly get behind them?
At the time Bush Jr. was meditating on Libya, I read that State Secretary Hillary Bush III was the main force pushing Bush Jr. into participating. Defense Sec. Gates opposed. After the Western-trained torturers caught Kaddafi and cut out his bleeding asshole on camera (last I checked, you can still see the video), Bush III laughed about his death the next day on "Face the Nation" or one of those network interview shows. She is much more of a warmonger than Bush Jr. Like Saddam, whoever replaces Assad will be far more violent. The U.S. fooled Russia and China into agreeing on Libya, but Russia and China learned, so Assad will not be overthrown in this fake revolution. Like Saddam, Assad is very popular in his country.
ISIS are the Syrian rebels. Denny just trolled y'all. Oh, and I'm still wondering if ISIS are a JV team wearing Laker jerseys. Obama sure likes to talk shit.
She wore a mumu on the beach today. My mom is Hillary's age and wouldn't be caught dead wearing what Hillary wore today. My brother showed her a photo of it, and my mom damn near started crying. Great weather in Langley today, though!
My third cousin once removed started vomiting. My neighbors wife's ex-husband's doctor's auto mechanic's girlfriend had a spontaneous abortion. barfo
I got two things out of the article:: 1) there's bad blood between Obama and the Clintons 2) she's running for president
What makes you say al-Maliki is far more violent than Saddam? Saddam was very popular in his country? Based on what? Him gassing his own people? I guess it appears that he does have that in common with Assad, but I don't see how that makes them popular. Go Blazers
Yep... Obama has been 10 times the failure as bush jr. The Republicans had an almost impossible chance to get elected because of it. If Hilary stands by Obama, then she will lose votes. She must advertise to America that she isn't cut from the same cloth to gain voter confidence on the Democratic Party.
I kind of think this is bad strategy by Hillary. Gore distancing himself from Clinton didn't work, and I predict this won't either. barfo
She can't run on her record as Secy. Of State. It was a disaster. Her strategy appears to be blame Obama.
Dumb strategy. Even if you believe everything is all his fault, it's a dumb strategy. After all, the R candidate will certainly have the same strategy, and a much more receptive (if smaller) audience for it. barfo
Well, the R candidate is the smart one this time. She is trying to be, too. Obama is a lead weight right now.
Nothing's going to change for the better for him. Republicans are going to take the Senate and his last 2 years are going to be brutal. When he does take action on his own, it's been a disaster.
