HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » New book by NYTimes colum...

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:18 PM

New book by NYTimes columnist sheds light on Clinton's role in middle east peace process


A few days before the speech, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel told Clinton that he was concerned that Obama’s not visiting Israel after his Cairo speech would insult the Israelis. He suggested that Clinton, who had been in Cairo with Obama, continue on from Cairo to Jerusalem “to do damage control.” Landler quoted a former senior administration official as saying “she couldn’t, wouldn’t and didn’t.”

Obama’s senior advisers were furious, viewing the secretary’s decision as based on personal political considerations motivated by her desire to avoid harming her image as a friend of Israel and her relationship to the American Jewish community, Landler writes. According to the book, Clinton’s refusal to go to Jerusalem after Cairo was one example of her clear disinclination to be involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process due to concern over political damage that would hurt her in a future run for the presidency.

A week later, Clinton spoke out sharply against the settlements and said that Obama was demanding a complete freeze. But while Clinton was speaking, talks were underway between Mitchell and representatives of the Israeli government toward a deal that would allow for construction within the large settlement blocs to accommodate natural growth only. According to the book, Clinton’s statements sabotaged those talks. The Israelis were livid and Obama’s advisers were irritated that Clinton had “plussed up” Obama’s position – corralling them into a more hardline position than they had wanted to take.

1 replies, 1211 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 1 replies Author Time Post
Reply New book by NYTimes columnist sheds light on Clinton's role in middle east peace process (Original post)
FlatBaroque May 2016 OP
CoffeeCat May 2016 #1

Response to FlatBaroque (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:44 PM

1. She's a neocon and Obama is not and neither is Biden

I don't know how many more examples we need, before people believe that she is a warmonger who is on par with Bush and Cheney.

The founder of the neocon movement, Robert Kagan--endorsed a Hillary presidency. Hillary also picked Kagan to be one of her Middle East foreign-policy advisers. What in the hell kind of Democrat picks the architect of the Iraq War--to be one of her most trusted advisers on Middle East matters?

When Obama said that his foreign-policy mantra would be, "Don't do stupid shit," Clinton practically blew a fuse. She ran to The Atlantic and sat down for an interview that served one purpose--to criticize Obama's weak attitude toward foreign policy. She practically ran off the rails, taking issue with his lack of appetite for war and interventionism.

She was also instrumental in cajoling Obama into supporting the fall of Gaddafi. She talked Obama into it, based on intelligence that Sidney Blumenthal had been feeding her. Obama didn't even know that HRC was communicating with Blumenthal. In fact, when HRC demanded that Blumenthal be named as one of her advisers, Obama said NO. She consulted with Blumenthal regularly about Libya. He was feeding her intel. Blumenthal was also working for the Clinton Foundation at the time, and had business interests in Libya. He suggested to Clinton that she use specific security firms in Libya. Blumenthal stood to profit a great deal if those firms were hired.

It appears that much of the rationale that Clinton was feeding Obama about Libya--masked that she had other ulterior reasons for wanting Libya to fall into chaos. Can you imagine how Obama feels about this reality?

Biden has also criticized HRC's hawkishness and has said, "She thinks she's Golda Meir!" There's a ton that has gone on behind the scenes and so much of what has leaked indicates that Clinton acted like some kind of brash, rogue , warmongering, free agent--even thwarting Obama's wishes. She seemed to do what she wanted. Her email server was just one example of her behaving so brazenly and recklessly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread