Hillary Clinton to speak on Syria

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Hillary Clinton will make her first public remarks about Syria on Monday when she makes a visit to the White House for an unrelated event, a Clinton aide told POLITICO.

The comments, the first since an unidentified aide said last week that the former Secretary of State supports President Obama in going before Congress to get support for a limited strike against Syria, will come after she meets privately with Obama at the White House, the aide said.

She will then appear at an event related to wildlife preservation at the White House, an event where her daughter, Chelsea, is part of the program. Clinton is expected to address Syria at the beginning of the event, in fairly brief remarks, the aide said.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/hillary-clinton-syria-96451.html

[leveymg]

1. Syria is now part of the Hillary brand. It's her legacy she shares with Gen. Petraeus. eom

[another_liberal]

2. I hope you are mistaken.

At any rate, we should wait to see what she says before branding her as just another war-monger.

Being in favor of the President going to Congress to get approval for his Syrian strike plan is, after all, not the same as being in favor of his strike plan itself.

[HardTimes99]

3. We should give her a chance to finish washing off the blood from her hands of the

estimated 1,000,000 dead Iraqis first.

drip . . . drip . . . drip . . . drip . . . drip

[another_liberal]

16. Point taken.

She is not blameless.

[Carolina]

20. Touche, HardTimes99

She and Kerry are two of kind. They should both STFU and slink away to the dustbin of history.

[leveymg]

5. I mean that more broadly - the US intervention in Syria and the disastrous regime change operation

there is her work along with that of the Petraeus CIA.

[another_liberal]

15. Granted.

As Sec. of State she took her awful orders and did her awful job.

[leveymg]

17. My impression is that she had an unusual degree of autonomy as SoS, and that she exceeded

her brief, a bit, and things having gone drastically wrong in the Libya to Syria arms transfer operation, she was not encouraged to remain in her office for a second term. Petraeus was removed somewhat more expeditiously.

To my eye, in this photo, Hillary and Barack have the look of a pair of recently divorced parents at the funeral of a wayward son:

[another_liberal]

18. A "thousand" words?

That snapshot is worth at least ten thousand.

[leveymg]

19. I feel that I practically know these people, and I do feel for them. Particularly at that moment,

a lot of terrible illusions came clear for both of them, and some of us.

There aren't very many degrees of separation in DC, and I think there were expectations raised by just how easy it seemed to be to get rid of Ghadaffi, but very little thought was given to what might happen if Assad held on by any means necessary, as indeed now seems obvious he would as the head of the ruling Alawite minority in a Sunni country in a Sunni-dominated region.

This side of her, I don't like, but her response didn't surprise or shock me:

[HardTimes99]

4. +Infinity! - nt

[Bluenorthwest]

6. She was rejected as too war like by many in 2008. 'Saber rattling' and all that. Sam Power called

her a monster, same Power that is pushing for massive war right now. I remember Hillary was asked how the US would respond to Iran nuking another country and she said we'd obliterate them and man oh man how folks wailed about that, oddly the same folks who now insist that chem weapons require a massive military response claimed then that it would be wrong to retaliate against the use of nuclear weapons. Do a DU search. Mongers of today affected great offense at the very idea of a response 'not unless the attack was on the US!' they shouted.

[karynnj]

8. Please provide a link to Obama or any high level supporter saying that

"it would be wrong to retaliate against the use of nuclear weapons." I followed the election pretty closely and I doubt that anyone speaking for Obama did that.

I have no doubt that some on DU might have, but you would also have had DU Clinton supporters going after Obama's statement that he would go into Pakistan - if needed- to get OBL.

I have no idea what Hillary will say today. The fact that she was a key person in supporting the SFA and that she pushed (as McCain did) for strong action a few years ago could make it hard to take a less aggressive position than Obama. In addition, she dropped the efforts of having a Geneva 2 that would work for a political solution. There is also her position on Libya, where she. Rice and Powers were credited with moving Obama to take the actions he did. (Kerry, like now, was in favor to stop the potential massacre - added so no one will attack my stating Clinton's position without admitting he was in favor too.)

If she wants to take a less military position, this would likely be the last moment to do so - and the Clintons can read public opinion as well as anyone. If she does, it could help her - as her actions as SoS, which to some degree might have helped create the civil war happen will be ignored. If she can be used to help the US pivot to something like taking the case against Assad to the ICC it could be good.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Excuse me, but I did not say Obama said that. How dare you?

I wrote what I wrote, not what you want to claim I wrote, anyone who can read can read it. The only official I mentioned was Samantha Power who called her a monster when Power was part of the Obama campaign.
What I had in mind was actual people in my actual life, who called Clinton a war monger, claimed Obama would end all wars and who refused to so much as criticize the use of anti gay hate preachers by Obama because 'I only care about the WAR and you don't care about the WAR'.
Big talk from folks who are now hot for war making.
Many voters I know and many on DU attacked Clinton for saying we'd respond to a nuke dropped on Tel Aviv. Same folks are now all about 'red lines'' and responding to a scenario far less intense than a major city nuked. Deal with it.

[karynnj]

11. I did not say you did -

I pointed out THAT ON BOTH SIDES posters on DU did assign more pacific opinions to their candidate than neutral observers. This is a function of people essentially superimposing their own views as the views of the candidate that they identify with,

As to Powers, her comment had nothing to do with the IWR vote or being a hawk. It was a stupid comment that should never have been made.

"“She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Power said.
Power also said the amount of “deceit” Clinton was putting forward “is really unattractive.”
Power quickly apologized for the remarks, saying they “do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired.” She then resigned from Obama’s campaign team.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/303535-power-called-hillary-clinton-a-monster#ixzz2eP5qG8eh
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[Bluenorthwest]

12. In demanding a link for that which I did not say, you were in fact claiming I'd said that which I

did not say. How dare you.
And Power called her a monster. Retractions and excuses mean zip to me, Power claims to be a sober minded person who should be trusted with diplomacy, so her rage and name calling are very pertinent to understanding her various other anger issues and desires to make war. Sorry if you don't like that.

[karynnj]

13. I think Powers comment was beyond stupid

Had she been a poster on DU with no connections to power, I would have thought it to be a stupid, reprehensible comment. I was not defending Powers.

However, her comment had NOTHING TO DO with saying that Hillary was hawkish. I DO think the Obama team used Clinton's vote - just as Dean used Kerry's in 2004. The fact is that if you look at statements in 2002, Obama is the ONLY one of that 4 who is on record as against going to war. Dean's and Kerry's statements were pretty equivalent. The difference was that in each year, only one had to vote and it is fair to use that vote.

It was that vote, and that vote alone, that labeled Clinton as more hawkish. Bill Clinton tried to make the case that that was not fair as their votes taken when both were in Congress were the same on Iraq - and its true both voted against Kerry/Feingold.

[brooklynite]

14. How "many"?

She nearly won the nomination. Apparently 6.5 million Democrats either weren't troubled, or didn't feel it was important enough compared to other issues.

Just like President Obama was able to get re-elected, despite being a "warmoner" (in some people's deifintions) in Libya.

[beerandjesus]

7. War mongering already cost her one election....

....let's see if it can cost her a second!


Actually, I'm trying to be optimistic, but it's SO hard......

[warrant46]

9. All I can Say is "good luck"

They will need it if it comes to pass