General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswhy is it so important to Bill Clinton that the U.S. intervene in Syria?
and what is this load of crap that he's dumping about how we shouldn't "overlearn the lessons of the past" ? Not to mention the revolting comments about how if President Obama doesn't intervene, he'll look like a "wuss" and a total "fool".
so why is Bill pushing so hard for this?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Especially since his wife is no longer a public official, that information doesn't have to go into a public filing.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
onehandle
(51,122 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Politics - yes; but his first term was pretty rocky on foreign policy.
David__77
(23,329 posts)And sending arms to al Qaeda is certainly immoral. At least he didn't burst into song about it, like his pal McCain would have.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)And do you think Bill would do this without Obama's assent?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)President Clinton may have become vocal on this subject precisely because President Obama asked him to do so.
Pure speculation, on my part, but entirely possible.
-Laelth
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
DURHAM D
(32,606 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)
allin99
(894 posts)so for bill to say it and 2 days later obama does it, they both have at least 1 reason in common. so i doubt that's it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)but Bill's influence is so entrenched with all his moles all over and his close companions like the Bushes, he has much more power than he should have and his yapping mouth about wuss and all that, his cuddling Insane McCain, Hillary and Petraeus wanting to do this a year ago (more involvement) and Obama nixing that (that must have hurt the Clinton's egos big time.)...
Syria overshadows most everything else on the news so I doubt the State Dept story is ever going to surface again on media because of this shocking news of Obama's reversal on the situation - and that is what Clinton was really after, distraction. but we will see exactly what Obama is going to commit to. I don't think he will be giving the current President Clinton (so the asshole still thinks he is) and bombbombbombIran McCain and all the others that thirst for blood and power and profit above all, I don't think he is going to go along like they want.
Lawrence O'Donnel did a show a few days ago on the State Dept scandal and he said thsi was a real one, not like the many other fakes we've been inundated with lately - and a couple other talkies on MSNBC also mentioned it (except for Lawrence the others were very 'delicate' about the news. And Obama's name came up more than Hillary's in this, I noticed.) but it never stuck. like all the fake scandals lately against Obama, this one is hush hush. This one is real tho - and it doesn't get worse than a pedophile and sexual assault charges. But mysterously it is not headline news because we got a war goin' on, man.
allin99
(894 posts)it's somehow something to do with bill and a fake scandal and hillary, and her dept scandal. and yet the president did call for syrian intervention. did bill's influence get him to go in? that would be quite something, bill tricking obama into getting involved with the syrian conflict.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)Syria is not Rawanda. I don't see how we can intervene without causing at least as much, if not more, death, pain and anguish as exists in the current situation. If the number of suffering people is the metric, we should be talking about Congo, not Syria!
cali
(114,904 posts)and good point about the Congo.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Perhaps he's haunted by waiting too long to intervene in Kosovo and is trying to avoid further loss of life. Just a guess but I also remember hearing he felt his biggest error was not getting involved in Rwanda. Maybe he's seeing this through the prism of his own mistakes.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)allin99
(894 posts)also wanted to go in. although i think she is also more interventionist than bill is in general. she has very strong opinions on every issue and can't stand to sit still it seems (that's not a knock to her, i like her). and her opinion always seems to rub off on him quite a bit.
those are my 2 guesses.
allin99
(894 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)If by important you mean causing more suffering and death, arming al-qaeda and other radicals, causing the price of crude to spike, upping the ante in the proxy war between the U.S. and Iran, and expanding an already dangerous middle east conflagration, yeah, it's important.
i'm sure that the same reasons bill clinton finds it important, obama does too, so why aren't people here talking about what obama is doing instead of what bill wants.
i was just reading that thread about bill clinton saying he should go in, and then obama ups our involvment, surely clinton didn't *make* him do it.
i hear you on what's at stake, and i'm torn on the involvment myself, just wondering why you're asking about clinton wanting it instead of why obama wants it. and if obama has a valid reason (not saying he does, dunno what he's up to besides being a full on interventionist) probably has the same reason as bill.
cali
(114,904 posts)I have discussed Obama in relation to Syria in other threads.
allin99
(894 posts)in 2 ways. he was gun shy and he lives with that daily. i think it took him a while even to get to this point. hillary was all for it fairly early, then bill, now obama. they think they can keep another 1/2million from getting killed. 1/2mil will still get killed obviously, just a dif tally at the end of course. If they don't go in and assad wins they can't be involved with the leader of the country. If the rebels win the u.s. has a chance of involvement, so they're hedging their bets. So politically it's a better choice for the u.s., clinton wants the u.s. to take the more politically advantageous side and also doesn't want to see 1/2mil and greater people killed, and obama is surely interested in the former.
cali
(114,904 posts)death and suffering. much more.
who benefits? not the suffering of Syria, that for sure. The infernal war profiteers are who benefits.
allin99
(894 posts)but that's gonna happen in either case. (i mean, technically maybe more deaths, assad could slaughtera couple million and then maybe people will back down, as opposed to more gun power then maybe people fight til 5mil are dead) but the u.s. benefits if the rebels win and that's the advantage that the u.s. needs to have in the area. and both clinton and obama care about that. obama cares about it cuz he's prez, and clinton cares about it cuz he thinks it's the smarter political move for the nation, which it kinda is.
the clintons are crazy loaded, they have close to as much money as the romneys, it wouldn't be for money. She makes 1/4mil per speech and so does bill, i know you know that already i'm just saying, they want an extra mil, 5mil, they'll just write another book. i mean, we could think they're the most evil people that ever lived and they'll kill millions of people for a few extra million dollars, but more likely it's why we always go to war in the middle east, to make sure we have access. And you can bet they also think at least let the people who are getting their asses kicked by their own gov't a fighting chance. It kinda isn't fair, they really are getting their asses kicked by their own gov't and never had a chance. that's what i meant by bill's non political part in the equation.
1) He has an entire soliloquy that starts with the ASSUMPTION that it is because it polls badly that Obama is not doing it. This from a President who I can think of nothing he pushed for that was not popular.
2) The whole "wuss" thing. I hate that language and I do not think you want to attack a President who is prudent about taking military actions (even through just giving weapons) and praise a President who is more willing to commit. That kind of thinking is why so many Americans supported W. (Could he and Hillary have a goal of looking strong? That should play well in the primaries - except as both are out of power they can change their position on a dime and say that Obama did it "wrong". )
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)you must cater to those who pull the strings.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)What if the CIA sent him to a private employer for cover? Snowden says he could listen to anyone's conversations, including a Presidents. Maybe that assertion wasn't boasting, but a veiled threat or a warning. Maybe they're already listening to our Presidents.
Bill Clinton was not the first to call out Obama. Obama has been under intense foreign pressure to change his Syrian policy. Perhaps there are those within our intelligence departments that wanted to insure Obama makes the right decision.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)especially by proxy.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)
Although he's covered that ground in depth prior to this.
WestStar
(202 posts)If he can push Obama to get this issue resolved now it will take it off the table for 2016.
If it gets screwed up and is still raging by then She can merely blame it on the previous administration and campaign on a promise to straighten it all out.
allin99
(894 posts)WestStar
(202 posts)I have no idea what Obama is up to.
allin99
(894 posts)i mean, obama must have a huge freakin' motive to do soemthing like this, no?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Let’s give the White House and President Obama, personally, credit for blocking the hawks in his administration from going to war in Syria.
Last week, we learned that Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, now thankfully pursuing other opportunities and spending more time with their families, had cooked up a plan to arm and train the ragtag Syrian rebels, thus getting the United States directly involved in that horrible civil war.
Now we learn that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs—both of whom are about to join Clinton and Petraeus in the private sector—also backed the Clinton-Petraeus plan,
Who was against it? Obama.
more: http://www.thenation.com/blog/172774/obama-opposed-syria-war-plan-clinton-petraeus-panetta-gen-dempsey
allin99
(894 posts)David__77
(23,329 posts)She can try to destroy the chances of another Democrat again, as she did in 2008 with her vile, right-wing campaign. But she will not win.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Of course Syria has oil, so there's that.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
:Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Although I always associated East Timor with Carter.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Positions Hillary for 2016 perhaps, which we all know would be his third Presidential term. Oh, don't bother with the slams at this notion. He always said the nation got two for one when he was President, meaning Hillary as his co-President, and I'm sure President Hillary would welcome Bill as her co-President. It gets any one in the Obama administration, who wants to make a Presidential bid, out of the way.
G_j
(40,366 posts)and he sounds like a Neo-Con to me.
It fits right into the neocon PNAC agenda, which is apparently in full force today.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Who was he serving when he maintained cruel Kissinger Make The Economy Scream sanctions on Iraq that killed over half a million Iraqi children?
Or pushed NAFTA and other bad trade deals on the American people despite huge protests from the working class?
Or welfare reform?
Or repealing Glass Steagall?
Find your answer to those and there it is.
You cant' serve two masters. You can't serve capital and the people. That's how you end up with weird creatures like The Third Way.
Bill is simply still serving those he served best. And now that he doesn't have Hillary in there to push Obama his way, he's got to expose himself.
If Obama is really being pushed into this, and this isn't some smoke and mirrors charade, we need to have his back. Personally I don't think it is. I think Obama really doesn't want to go in there. This is awful.
cali
(114,904 posts)intervene. Let's hope he doesn't take the next step and set up a no-fly zone. that would be really, really awful
Catherina
(35,568 posts)I really hope, along with you, that he doesn't take that next step.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)By ADAM ENTOUS and JULIAN E. BARNES
...
The classified order directing the Central Intelligence Agency to coordinate arming the rebels in concert with its allies reverses a long-standing policy that limited the U.S. to providing nonlethal support.
The White House declined to comment on the authorization, saying only that Mr. Obama had decided to ramp up "military support" to moderate rebels both in "scope and scale."
U.S. officials also told The Wall Street Journal on Thursday that the U.S. military proposal for arming the rebels also calls for a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced by U.S. and allied planes on Jordanian territory to protect Syrian refugees and rebels who would train there.
...
The move is an about-face by Mr. Obama, who last year blocked a proposal backed by then-Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the rebels. At the time, Mr. Obama voiced concerns that arms could end up in the hands of Islamists battling Mr. Assad.
...
More important, officials say, the White House was moved by concerns that Mr. Assad's forces and thousands of Hezbollah fighters may be poised for an assault on Aleppo that would deal such a serious blow to moderate rebel forces that it will be hard for them to regroup and bounce back.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324188604578543820387158806.html?mod=wsj_nview_latest
karynnj
(59,498 posts)The WSJ has been even more aggressive than McCain in pushing this. I am hoping that this is wrong - after all if the WH wanted to leak something of this import - rather than announce it, would they pick the ever more right wing Murdock paper?
Response to cali (Original post)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)that the British are also pushing Obama to get involved in Syria. Clinton needs to stay out of it.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)It started in April and May, when European allies Britain and France presented skeptical U.S. officials with evidence that Mr. Assad had used chemical weapons against his people. It culminated in an emergency phone call a week ago in which a top rebel commander warned the administration that a "menacing" buildup of forces around Aleppo threatened to snuff out the rebel cause.
...
In March, Britain began testing physiological samples from Syria for chemical weapons, and then started sharing the results with the U.S. and France. At the time, some U.S. officials were dismissive, saying the samples may have been tainted by rebels who want to draw the West into the conflict on their side.
...
Starting in April, a procession of Arab leaders made their case on Syria directly to Mr. Obama and his top advisers. Some of the leaders, including Jordan's King Abdullah, traveled to Washington. King Abdullah said the U.S. should be "captain of the team"—to corral other Arab states which have been working at cross purposes by providing arms to different rebel groups.
...
To try to make real the dangers for Mr. Obama, King Abdullah showed the White House, and later congressional officials, a map of a hypothetical future Syria, splintered along ethnic lines: an Alawite coastal strip; a Sunni-dominated center that officials said the king called "Sunnistan"; a Druze-controlled area near the border with Israel; a Kurdish zone in the northeast corner; and a large swath of Syrian desert abutting Anbar province in Iraq dominated by Islamists.
...
Secretary of State John Kerry was among the most vocal supporters of arming the rebels, officials said.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324049504578545772906542466?mg=reno64-wsj.html
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Is going to be backed by Tel Aviv, who wants us to make the Middle east safe for Zionists now!
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)karynnj
(59,498 posts)I doubt they want a global war in their neighborhood or a failed state. Neither help.
