she is feared by Gowdy and the right. Now, it is BLATANTLY obvious that attacking Hillary Clinton is exactly what is the priority at the moment. However, the Republicans will go after anything in the Obama administration if they think it would get them good headlines, hurt Obama, or move a GOP meme.
The failed coup in Turkey is not really something that meets those criteria given what is known now. Note that Trump rambled for minutes on the terrorism, but mentioned Turkey only in terms of instability.
I really think it more likely that Gowdy et al, if they go after anything, will go after either allowing the Syrian refugees or the new shift in policy in Syria where we are agreeing to coordinate much more closely with Russia against Al Nusra, explicitly with the US more explicitly speaking of the problem with rebels who fight with Al Nusra. This is 180 degrees from the shift that the 51 (neocon) State Department dissidents recommended and who much of the DC foreign policy establishment agrees with. If, as it seems, this shift is real, this is a huge deal and easily as noteworthy as both the far more covered Nice terrorism and Turkey are -- but it is all to the good if it states under the radar.
(Some back up on the shift)
Link to full text of Kerry/Lavrov statements - http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/07/260134.htm
Most pertinent Kerry quote:
With respect to the critics who may or may not be making judgments about what may or may not have been agreed upon, first of all, they don’t know the details of what we have or haven’t agreed on. And number two, we have homework to do, and I said that very clearly. Number three, the United Nations Security Council has labeled both Daesh – or ISIL, as some call it – and al-Nusrah, which is al-Qaida – they are labeled as terrorist organizations. And the United States has no clouds over our – there’s nothing standing in the way of our judgment about the need to be standing up against and fighting against terrorism. And both are terrorists.
So if some critic is criticizing the United States or Russia for going after al-Nusrah, which is a terrorist organization, because they’re good fighters against Assad, they have their priorities completely screwed up. The fact is that Nusrah is plotting against countries in the world. What happened in Nice last night could just as well have come from Nusrah or wherever it came from as any other entity, because that’s what they do. And so I have no illusions about what we need to do. I also have confidence in the people of Syria and confidence in the opposition – the non-terrorist organization opposition, the legitimate opposition, the opposition we have supported – to continue to fight for their freedom and for their principles and their values within Syria. And there is nothing that we are doing that is going to undermine the particular fundamentals between them and the Assad regime.
We have always said – and nothing that we’re talking about doing here will change the fact – that there is no military solution to the problem of Syria. It requires a diplomatic, political solution. And that political solution requires going to the table and having a negotiation in Geneva according to the terms of the Geneva accord.
Now, as I said a moment ago, there are two principal violators that have been persistently violating what is going on with respect to the ceasefire. And one is, as I said, the Assad regime with its indiscriminate bombing, and the second is obviously the question of al-Nusrah – which, as you just said, is fighting against Assad and which is providing no peace and security and which, regrettably, some opposition have occasionally chosen to fight with because they are fighting against Assad. But that doesn’t excuse it, and it will not excuse it in our eyes. We saw what happened when people said the same thing about ISIL for a period of time – oh, don’t worry, they’re just a force against Assad, and down the road we can take them on. Well, they became more than just a force. And so I think that it is important for the United States, Russia, the entire coalition of ISSG to stand up against terrorism, and that is what we intend to continue to do.
Now, we continue – not one iota of our policy has changed with respect to the Assad regime. We still believe that Syria can’t have peace while Assad is there. We believe that. We have a difference with Russia on that. But notwithstanding that difference, we both believe it is important for us to try to reestablish the cessation of hostilities.
This was an answer to a NYT reporter and it was directed at the critics who have disagreed with the administration prioritizing defeating ISIS over defeating Assad.
Personally, I hope there is enough time in Obama's administration to at least start to undo what the neocons have done - but I am not optimistic unless HRC is convinced that the career professionals in the State Department are wrong.
= new reply since forum marked as read
