Clinton: Syria Surrendering Chemical Weapons "Important" Step

[Purveyor]

Source: USATODAY

WASHINGTON--Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that Syria surrendering chemical stockpiles would be an "important step" to averting a potential U.S. military strike but can't be an "excuse for delay or obstruction."

The comments from the former secretary of State came at a White House forum on combating wildlife trafficking, one of the charitable causes she is pursuing at the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. She was joined at the forum by her daughter, Chelsea.

Clinton's remarks also came after Secretary of State John Kerry suggested earlier on Monday that if Assad turned "over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week" he could avoid military action, and Russia proposed Damascus place its chemical weapons under international monitors to head off a confrontation.

"If the regime immediately surrenders it stockpiles to international control, as was suggested by Secretary Kerry and the Russians, that would be an important step," Clinton said.

Read more: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/usatoday/article/2787323

[DonCoquixote]

1. Hillary

Just shut up and let the idiots crown you president. You and Obama are responsible for this mess.

[David__77]

3. She will never be president.

...

[Ian David]

16. You're right. The military-industrial complex would never back someone who might AVERT a war. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

22. You think Hillary wants to avert a war?

Ask Gadaffi if she does, or ask Assad who said plainly that "Assad must go."

[phleshdef]

5. How the hell are Clinton and Obama responsible for the Syrian civil war?

[karynnj]

17. The reason suggested for this is that Hillary, Petreaous and Gates

all worked to organize the FSA - the "good" rebels. Now, it is not clear how much was done and there was a suggestion that Obama let them do less than they wanted. However - although there were articles speaking of this - I do not know whether this was official policy. It is likely it was.

At the time of the start of the Arab Spring, Assad was one of the leaders with less rebellions against him. At that point, Kerry was publicly (and likely privately) suggesting that he make reforms and pull some of these moderates into the government. I followed Kerry more than Hillary, but I don't think he would publicly advocate for anything that was not Obama policy - though as Senator he did have the freedom to do so - as long as he did not negotiate.

The question is whether the US encouraged the moderate rebels - and when Assad reacted violently, moved to train them.

[Beacool]

25. Only in their world.

They are as bad as the extreme Right. To some here everything going on in the M.E. is the responsibility of Obama and Hillary. They must be soooo powerful........

[David__77]

2. And what are the other "steps," Clinton?

Just curious. This is just a regime change operation and that is it.

[phantom power]

8. exactly

I thought that was the whole fucking point. If they give up their weapons, mission accomplished.

Right?

[another_liberal]

11. Better check with AIPAC on that.

I think they had other goals in mind.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

14. You might be on to something.

http://www.jpost.com/International/US-official-to-Post-Russia-proposal-to-put-Syria-chemical-arms-under-global-control-will-go-ignored-325637

[Ghost Dog]

19. Ding Ding

Mmm huh.

[DonCoquixote]

23. be careful

because if you criticize them, you will be accused of being anti-Semitic. What would that make Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, or the millions of Jews worldwide that hate AIPAC?, and hate the murder that certain folks in Tel Aviv do in their name, that actively and loudly take a stand against it?

[another_liberal]

24. Yes, I lost all control.

Not that I don't know better, I just lost control.

[Shemp Howard]

12. This could be a big win for Obama.

If they give up their weapons, mission accomplished.

One would think so. It seems to me that Russia's offer is an unexpected gift to Obama. If the offer is serious, Assad will lose control of his chemical weapons without a shot being fired. This would be a MAJOR foreign policy victory for Obama.

And if the Russians are not serious, much of the blame will shift to them.

Unfortunately, today I heard some leading Democrats (Sen. Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, for one) speaking as though the whole thing is a big trick. I hope they give the Russian plan a chance.

[another_liberal]

18. Except . . .

Mere success won't remove Assad from power, and if Assad is not removed from power Hezbollah will still have a neighboring ally, and if Hezbollah still has a neighboring ally they won't be cut off from resupply, and if they aren't cut off from resupply they won't degrade as a fighting force, and if they don't degrade as a fighting force Israel can't be certain of being able to kick them out of Lebanon whenever they see fit. That is the rationale behind our attacking Syria. The rest is made-up bullshit.

[Alamuti Lotus]

9. The most important step is for the target to disarm themselves of any effective deterrence

Once the enemy du jour has made it easier to be invaded, the next step is of course to invade. We've seen this scenario play out numerous times just in recent memory, to say nothing of the historical record, it surprises me (not really, actually, but I digress) that there are still people who aren't able to anticipate the logical progression of these things.

[pffshht]

21. Chemical weapons aren't Syria's most effective weapons.

They're only really useful against civilians or unprepared armed rabble, and do nothing at all to deter fighter/bombers or cruise missiles. Of course our ground troops will have gas masks and antidote syringes.

Unless I misunderstood you, I don't get your point at all.

[totodeinhere]

4. I think she is correct that this could very well be a stalling tactic on the part

of the Syrians who actually have no intention of turning over their chemical weapons. We shall see.

[David__77]

6. Sure they would destroy them, but not in exchange for nothing.

Politics doesn't work that way. If the US wants to avoid war, it should pursue diplomacy.

[Iliyah]

7. She will be President!

[Alamuti Lotus]

10. the SAR should trade any chemical weapons disarmarment for the FSA/Nusra leadership in Turkey

I don't think that the SAR should "surrender" to any single demand of the US government, but it should not be for nothing if any such moves are indeed taken. Trading their most effect means of deterrence in exchange for the leadership of the terrorist insurgency--based on a NATO country, no less--would be the least that the powers of arrogance could offer.

[another_liberal]

13. AIPAC is undoubtedly in charge of our Middle Eastern foreign policy.

They have always had more than just removing Assad's chemical weapons in mind. If the Israeli lobby in Washington can get their way (and they certainly may) we will attack Syria in full force, even if Assad were to put all of his gas on a container ship and leave it for the UN to come and get.

[lark]

15. Don't want to vote for her when she looks so corporatist pro war.

What a shame. Of course, could any real peace-nik get our presidency - doubt it. Beginning to think that this game is very rigged, Repug or Dem, the 1%ers from the MIC win.

[Ghost Dog]

20. Surely, 'rebels' should be required to surrender any such CW materiel

they might control, also?