HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Is Hillary's Description ...

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:19 PM

Is Hillary's Description of Her Role In Negotiating A 2012 UN Ceasefire Resolution

in Syria... At Variance With The Facts?

Clinton... "But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together."


As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. SNIP


Jeffrey Sachs.. "Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html?

EXPERIENCE vs. JUDGEMENT: This terrible situation which was managed for the United States by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is just one more example of this presidential candidate's much ballyhooed experience in Foreign Policy. A resume' point which has more than anything demonstrated that experience does not translate into making sound and objective judgements.

I would add that in this case, rather than working toward an overall solution that takes into account the history of the region, Hillary appears to have chosen (as the representative of U.S. interests by the way), rather to take the side of "naive" Israeli leaders who are as Professor Sachs so credibly notes, "ignorant of history."


My Assessment: Judgement is fundamental to the position of President, and Mrs. Clinton has not demonstrated an acumen for making the best decision on multiple occasions. She can only apologize so much. From Private email servers to a flawed regime change decision in Libya leading eventually to the Benghazi debacle, her criteria for these decisions can only be characterized as less than objective . An affirmative vote on the Iraq invasion and most recently her advocacy for a No Fly Zone over Syria where the ONLY planes other than ours were Russian, effectively represent bookends on an essentially contiguous string of disastrous decisions supported by poor judgements and a proven inability to foresee the consequences associated with her decisions.



Jeffrey D. Sachs http://unsdsn.org/about-us/people/jeffrey-sachs/
is a world-renowned professor of economics, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor, bestselling author, and syndicated columnist whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 80 countries. He has twice been named among Time Magazine‘s 100 most influential world leaders. He was called by the New York Times, “probably the most important economist in the world,” and by Time Magazine “the world’s best known economist.” A recent survey by The Economist ranked Professor Sachs as among the world’s three most influential living economists of the past decade.


24 replies, 3126 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is Hillary's Description of Her Role In Negotiating A 2012 UN Ceasefire Resolution (Original post)
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 OP
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #1
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #3
roguevalley Feb 2016 #11
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #12
grasswire Feb 2016 #2
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #4
loyalsister Feb 2016 #5
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #6
loyalsister Feb 2016 #7
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #8
karynnj Feb 2016 #9
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #10
malletgirl02 Feb 2016 #21
karynnj Feb 2016 #22
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #23
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #13
amborin Feb 2016 #14
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #17
Oilwellian Feb 2016 #15
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #16
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #24
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #18
Arazi Feb 2016 #19
CorporatistNation Feb 2016 #20

Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:34 PM

1. Judgement Is Fundamental To The Office of The Presidency... Bernie Has it...

The comparative records of Bernie vs Hillary speak for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:47 PM

3. Jeffrey Sachs.. "Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath

This is an example of Secretary Clinton's Judgement... As Professor Sachs writes... "This is the kind of compulsive lying that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 09:21 PM

11. she is following Kissinger's advice. this has his stench all over it. This is just like her

to lie. Remember bosnia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:07 PM

12. Ah... Regime Change... What A Policy It Is...

Jeffrey D. Sachs...
"This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.

Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide? "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:41 PM

2. thank you

book marking.

I am also wondering if SHE put together the coalition to bring about Obama's recent agreement with Iran. As she claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:49 PM

4. Will Require Extensive "FACT" Checking As Always!

The prevarication on the part of Hillary is pathological and beyond her control. She is not even embarrassed by it when she gets caught in a friggin debate! ASTOUNDING!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:53 PM

5. You mean the one that was negotiated

not long before before she said she is proud to have the Iranians as an enemy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:57 PM

6. Nice...

It would be laughable if it were not for the terrible loss of life that continues to this day... because of poor judgement and lack of objective leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 04:06 PM

7. Poor judgement includes stupid comments


especially from someone who is supposedly served as the top US diplomat. While diplomacy among competitors isn't expected in a debate, it certainly on the international stage. In today's media US national stage is international particularly when potential furture presidents speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 04:14 PM

8. AGREED... Stupid Comments Do Not Help To Bring About Productive Outcomes!

From either side of the aisle...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 05:16 PM

9. she conflated putting the sanctions in place and negotiations

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Consider that she left office before Rouhani came in. She was not particularly eager to start any negotiations, that was Obama's decision and when he first wanted to test whether Oman could host secret talks he sent Senator Kerry to sound it out, not HRC.

Both Obama and Kerry thanked a long list of people involved when they spoke after a deal was reached. Neither included HRC, which given her position would have been unlikely had she played the critical role.

The multilateral talks were started long before Obama became President, but they did not include the US. The US JOINED those talks, after bilateral secret talks in 2013. Some of the early secret talks were when HRC was SoS and involved Jake Sullivan and William Burns who for the earliest part of that reported to her.

However, Wendy Sherman and Kerry, personally, negotiated the interim deal, the framework, and the final deal. Kerry spent months working with his peers. After the interim deal, HRC was rather neutral on what they achieved and was not optimistic about success.

If you followed this, the foreign policy press was absolutely skeptical over the 2 years and spoke of it being a waste of Kerry's time. Even calling him delusional. When it was possible to be a failure, it was all Kerry's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 08:53 PM

10. Very Nice Composite Describing the Reality vs Clinton's More or Less "Fictional" Account

Typical... one must fact check Hillary on virtually everything she says! Not the best ethical comportment for someone who wishes to be President...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:30 PM

21. Thank you for this post

A few days ago a Hillary Clinton supporter said that she was instrumental in the Iran deal, I knew it was not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malletgirl02 (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:43 PM

22. There is a logic there. many credit the sanctions with

Bringing Iran to the table. However, many of her peers from other countries and the UN worked to get the sanctions as well as Clinton. Not to mention, getting the sanctions did not guarantee getting a deal. That was a really tough job and MANY people from the various countries played important roles.

From the US, you had Obama willing to put his capital into getting this. As you saw this was major and included fighting AIPAC and Netanyahu. Kerry was the essential diplomat, who put his heart and soul as well as his incredible energy and brilliance as a diplomat into finding solutions each time it was on the verge of failure. You have Moniz who Kerry enlisted to work with him, working with a MIT educated Iranian peer, without whom the extensive monitoring might never have been achieved.

HRC was there at the very beginning, but her debate comment over states her role even on the sanction. She could learn a lot from Obama and Kerry in crediting their peers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malletgirl02 (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:14 AM

23. Hillary Is A Pathological Liar Clinically Speaking...

She Cannot Be Trusted to tell the truth in any circumstance! She as Jeffrey states in this piece not suitable to be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:18 PM

13. Clinton Have Scruples? Not So Much...

Jeffrey D. Sachs...
"And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).

Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:09 AM

14. yes, it's a lie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:14 AM

17. Fibs And Obfuscation/MisRepresentation Are Not Unusual In The Hillary Camp!

What is unusual are all the people who either IGNORE or fail to recognize this very disturbing trait coming from a Presidential candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:09 AM

15. Remember the Biden/Hillary scuffle over bin Ladin's capture

Osama Bin Laden Raid May Be an Issue in a Joe Biden-Hillary Clinton Contest

“I was one who recommended to the president that he go ahead,” Mrs. Clinton recalled.

Then she added: “And his advisers were split because it was a very risky operation to send in the Navy SEALs, to fly through Pakistani airspace, to land in a settled populated neighborhood and to take out the gunmen who were guarding bin Laden and either capture or kill bin Laden himself.”

One of those Obama officials uneasy about the raid: Mr. Biden.

In Mr. Biden’s telling, every Obama adviser had qualms about the raid except Leon Panetta, the C.I.A. director at the time.

It is not the first time Mrs. Clinton has raised the administration’s divide over bin Laden. She did so in paid speeches in the months after leaving the State Department. But such comments will now be received in a different light.

NYT


I remember Hillary also mentioned in one of the recent debates, that she aided in the capture of bin Laden. According to this Guardian article that gives an in depth account of his capture, it was military and intelligence officials who worked with Obama. In the entire article, Hillary was only mentioned once and this is what they wrote:

The final meeting was held in the Situation Room on the afternoon of Thursday 28 April. Popular accounts of this decisive session have portrayed Obama facing down a wall of opposition and doubt among his top advisers. In fact, there was overwhelming support for launching the raid.

One by one, the principals around the room were asked to choose one of the three options: the raid, the missile strike or doing nothing – and then to defend their choice. The only major dissenters were Joe Biden and defence secretary Robert Gates, and, by the next morning, Gates had changed his mind. Everyone else favoured sending in the Seals. At first it didn't seem like Hillary Clinton would. She had famously faulted Obama years earlier for asserting that he would take a shot in Pakistan unilaterally if there was a good chance of getting Bin Laden and now, as secretary of state, she would bear the brunt of the diplomatic fallout if he did. Suspense built as Clinton worked her way around to her surprising bottom line. They could not ignore a chance to get Osama bin Laden. It was too important to the country. It outweighed the risks.

The Thursday meeting ended early in the evening. "You'll have my decision in the morning," Obama said.

The Guardian


So even in the capture of Osama bin Laden, Hillary balked before agreeing to the operation. That was the extent of her participation other than being a spectator of the raid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:05 AM

16. Well Done! Hillary Embellishes Once Again!

IF Hillary is not "embellishing"... She's O"Obfuscating...or WORSE! Again, JUDGEMENT is the key characteristic in anyone who would be President. AND on this one key trait Hillary has failed again and again and again... Always trying to manage her own political resume' often at the expense of others. Lives lost... Failure to foresee full consequences or ignoring such are not elements of objective JUDGEMENTS made or perhaps even... considered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:22 PM

24. Always Taking Credit Where No Credit Is Due Her!

!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:52 PM

18. Why Should Anyone Expect Hillary To Exhibit Leadership When To Date She Has Not Done So

Jeffrey Sachs... "It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:59 PM

19. Yes, its a lie eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:25 PM

20. Hillary Corageous? Not So Much!

Jeffrey Sachs...
Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA. She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread