Main Stream Media Uses Negro as Scapegoat

Main Stream Media Uses Negro as Scapegoat
President Trump Unites All Americans Through Education Hard Work Honest Dealings and Prosperity United We Stand Against Progressive Socialists DNC Democrats Negro Race Baiting Using Negroes For Political Power is Over and the Main Stream Media is Imploding FAKE News is Over in America

Hillary Clinton Secrete Hacked Documents Russia Hillary Clinton SECRET HACKED DOCUMENTS

RUSSIA

Hillary Clinton Secrete Hacked Documents  

2016ER ATTACKS


2016ER REPUBLICANS HAVE CRITICIZED CLINTON OVER HER “RESET” POLICY WITH RUSSIA

Bobby Jindal Blamed The Obama White House And Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton For Fumbling Foreign Policy, Including “Russia's Incursion Into Crimea And Ukraine.” “Otherwise, Jindal's remark were heavy on blaming the Obama White House, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for fumbling foreign policy. ‘Today, we see a world in which the Obama administration has neglected or abandoned America's long-standing allies. Our “special relationship” with Britain is gone, NATO is drifting, Eastern Europe is disaffected, and Israel has been purposefully alienated from the United States,’ he said. He went on to say the last months has sparked the rise of ISIS, Russia's incursion into Crimea and Ukraine, and other flare-ups around the world.” [The Post And Courier, 10/7/14]

Fiorina: “I Have Met Vladimir Putin And Know That It Will Take More To Halt His Ambitions Than A Gimmicky Red ‘Reset’ Button.” [Conservative Political Action Conference, 2/26/15]

Jeb Bush’s Prepared Remarks To The Chicago Council On Global Affairs Contained A “Veiled Allusion” To Hillary Clinton In Criticizing The US-Russian “Reset” She Spearheaded. “While the excerpts make no specific mention of Hillary Clinton, they contain a veiled allusion to the former secretary of state's 2009 attempt to re-establish relations between the United States and Russia. The so-called reset has become a focal point in Republican attacks against Clinton as she prepares for a potential 2016 run. ‘With grandiosity, they announce resets and disengage,’ Bush will say. ‘Hashtag campaigns replace actual diplomacy and engagement. Personal diplomacy and maturity is replaced by leaks and personal disparagement.’” [CNN, 2/18/15]

Walker: Hillary Clinton Gave Russia A Reset Button. “The fervent Republicans who throng the Conservative Political Action Conference every year aren’t representative of the American electorate … Rubio and others skipped ahead to criticize former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom they excoriated as no different from Obama in foreign affairs. ‘She actually gave a reset button to the Russians,’ exclaimed Walker, to whoops from the audience. ‘A reset button!’” [Los Angeles Times, 3/3/15]

CLINTON DEFENSE


THE RUSSIA RESET WAS CONSIDERED BY SOME EXPERTS AND JOURNALISTS TO HAVE ACHIEVED ITS MAIN OBJECTIVES BY 2011

Carnegie Endowment Report: “Little More Than A Year On, The Reset Has Produced Some Impressive Concrete Outcomes.” “Little more than a year on, the reset has produced some impressive concrete outcomes, ranging from a new strategic nuclear arms control agreement to cooperation on the transit of troops and equipment to Afghanistan to a united front on a new round of sanctions against Iran.” [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010]

Washington Post: “The Reset In Relations” Between The U.S. And Russia “Has Brought The United States A Number Of Rewards.” “Still, a serious rupture between the United States and Russia could have wide-reaching consequences. The reset in relations has brought the United States a number of rewards, including cooperation on fighting terrorism, permission to use Russian territory to supply troops in Afghanistan, agreement on the New START nuclear arms pact and cooperation on dealing with Iran.” [Washington Post, 12/8/11]

December 2011: Washington Post: “The Obama Administration Has Shown Signs Of A Less Tolerant Approach To Russia, Suggesting It Had Met Its Reset Objectives And Was Preparing For A Testier Relationship.” “The Obama administration has shown signs of a less tolerant approach to Russia, suggesting it had met its reset objectives and was preparing for a testier relationship…At the end of October, Clinton’s chief technology aide visited Russia to promote the benefits of a free Internet. Her assistant secretary for democracy and human rights met beleaguered activists, asking what kind of support the United States could provide.” [Washington Post, 12/8/11]

UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON, THE U.S. AND RUSSIA NEGOTIATED A NEW ARMS REDUCTION TREATY WHICH WAS PRAISED FOR ITS IMPORTANCE AND SMOOTH IMPLEMENTATION AND APPROVED BY THE SENATE IN 2010

The Senate Voted To Allow Ratification Of The New START Treaty In December 2010 In A 71-26 Vote With 13 Republicans Voting In Favor. [Treaty Doc. 111-5, Vote 298, 111th Congress, 12/22/10]

Washington Post: The New START Treaty Aimed To Reduce The Stockpile Of Deployed, Strategic Nuclear Weapons In Both Countries” And Establish “New Procedures To Verify Which Weapons Each Country Possesses.” “President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a sweeping new arms reduction pact Thursday that pledges to reduce the stockpile of deployed, strategic nuclear weapons in both countries and commits the old Cold War adversaries to new procedures to verify which weapons each country possesses.” [Washington Post, 4/8/10]

Washington Post: “Experts From The Right And The Left Agree The [New START] Treaty Extends A Verification Plan That Has Allowed The World's Two Nuclear Giants To Maintain Stability That Has Existed For The Past 20 Years.” [Washington Post, 4/8/10]

USA Today: The New START Treaty Limited The U.S. And Russia Each To “1,550 Strategic Warheads, Down From 2,200.”  “A U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty that limits the number of atomic warheads the former Cold War foes can possess and allows them to inspect each other's arsenals — securing a key foreign policy goal of President Barack Obama— went into effect Saturday…New START, negotiated last year, limits each side to 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200. It limits the number of deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers to 700.” [USA Today, 2/5/11]

Washington Post: Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Nonproliferation Scholar Said NATO Allies Strongly Supported New START And Thought “We Would Really Lose Credibility” If The U.S. Failed To Pass It. “The stakes were high: Defeat of the pact would have severely damaged Obama's global standing, hampering his ability to negotiate other treaties, and would have dealt a major setback to the president's ‘reset’ of relations with Russia. ‘It's one of those things in life where failing to get it would be more important than actually what you get with it,’ said George Perkovich, a scholar on nuclear nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Perkovich noted that Washington's NATO allies had strongly supported the pact. ‘We would really lose credibility’ if it failed, he said Tuesday.” [Washington Post, 12/22/10]

Washington Post: New START Required The Votes Of Two-Thirds Of Senators Present To Allow President Obama To Proceed With Ratification. “The Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, by a vote of 71 to 26, easily clearing the threshold of two-thirds of senators present as required by the Constitution for treaty ratification.” [Washington Post, 12/22/10]

Steven Pifer Of The Brookings Institute Said Of The New START: “Implementation Appears To Be Going Smoothly…Russia Has Already Met These Limits” And “The Two Sides Have Carried Out More Than One Hundred Inspections And Exchanged Almost 6,000 Treaty Notifications.” “New START requires both countries to reduce arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads on 700 deployed strategic missiles and bombers by February 2018. Implementation appears to be going smoothly. Russia has already met these limits, while U.S. strategic forces are moving towards them. The two sides have carried out more than one hundred inspections and exchanged almost 6,000 treaty notifications.” [Steven Pifer, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 2/4/14]


UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON, THE U.S. SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED TRANSPORT OF LETHAL MATERIEL THROUGH RUSSIA TO SUPPORT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Congressional Research Service: “In February 2009, Russia Allowed A Resumption Of Shipment Of Non-Lethal Equipment Into Afghanistan Through Russia.” And This Path “Played A Significant Role In Removing Much U.S. Equipment During The 2014 U.S. Drawdown.” “Russia seeks to contain U.S. power in Central Asia and to prevent the infiltration of radical Islamists based in Afghanistan into Russia. In part acting on the latter interest, Russia cooperated in developing the Northern Distribution Network supply line to Afghanistan. In February 2009, Russia allowed a resumption of shipment of non-lethal equipment into Afghanistan through Russia. (Russia had suspended the shipments in 2008 over differences over the Russia-Georgia conflict.) About half of all ground cargo for U.S. forces in Afghanistan flowed through the Northern Distribution Network from 2011-2014, despite the extra costs as compared to the Pakistan route. The route played a significant role in removing much U.S. equipment during the 2014 U.S. drawdown.” [Congressional Research Service, 2/24/15]

·         Defense News: Pakistan Had Closed Its Border To The US, Which Forced Them To Rely On Northern Routes Of Transport, Including Through Russia, Even Though They Were Longer And More Expensive. “Pakistan has agreed to reopen its border to NATO supply convoys into Afghanistan after a seven-month blockade, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said July 3, adding Washington was sorry for the loss of life in a botched U.S. air raid last year…The border blockade has forced the United States and its allies to rely on much longer, more expensive northern routes through Central Asia, Russia and the Caucasus. The cost of ferrying supplies by air and over northern railways and roads has cost the U.S. military about $100 million a month, according to the Pentagon.” [Defense News, 7/3/12]

Associated Press: Following Clinton’s First Visit To Russia As Secretary Of State In October 2009, A Senior Official Confirmed An “Agreement That Allows U.S. Military Planes To Transport Lethal Materiel Over Russia To Afghanistan.” “Clinton's visit to Moscow is her first since becoming Washington's top diplomat and since President Barack Obama, who visited Russia in July, vowed to ‘reset’ U.S.-Russia relations. The senior official traveling with Clinton said that there had been some improvements in cooperation, including a recent agreement that allows U.S. military planes to transport lethal materiel over Russia to Afghanistan.” [Associated Press, 10/12/09]

SECRETARY CLINTON WAS AT TIMES AN OUTSPOKEN CRITIC OF RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN

Washington Post: Putin Blamed Secretary Clinton For Inciting Protests Against His Administration, Saying “She Set A Tone For Some Of Our Public Figures…They Heard This Signal And Launched Active Work With The U.S. State Department.” “Putin lacerated Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for questioning the validity of last Sunday’s parliamentary elections and suggested that she had galvanized thousands of protesters by declaring the vote ‘neither free nor fair.’ ‘She set the tone for some of our public figures inside the country, sent a signal to them. They heard this signal and launched active work with the U.S. State Department’s support,’ he said.” [Washington Post, 12/8/11]

Reuters: In A Speech To The Organization For Security And Cooperation In Europe, Secretary Clinton Called Russia’s 2011 Parliamentary Elections “Neither Free Nor Fair.” “‘When authorities fail to prosecute those who attack people for exercising their rights or exposing abuses, they subvert justice and undermine the people's confidence in their governments,’ Clinton said in a speech at the meeting of the 56-nation OSCE, Europe's biggest rights watchdog. ‘As we have seen in many places, and most recently in the Duma elections in Russia, elections that are neither free nor fair have the same effect,’ she added, in comments that went a step further than her criticism of the vote on Monday.” [Reuters, 12/6/11]

Los Angeles Times: Secretary Clinton Criticized The Conviction Of Russian Businessman Mikhail Khodorovsky, Saying It “Raises Serious Questions About…The Rule Of Law Being Overshadowed By Political Considerations.” “‘Today's conviction in the second trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev on charges of embezzlement and money laundering raises serious questions about selective prosecution -- and about the rule of law being overshadowed by political considerations,’ Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement. ‘This and similar cases have a negative impact on Russia's reputation for fulfilling its international human rights obligations and improving its investment climate.’” [Los Angeles Times, 12/28/10]

UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON, THE U.S. SECURED RUSSIAN COOPERATION ON IRAN SANCTIONS

Secretary Clinton Announced In May 2010 That China And Russia Had Agreed To Back Sanctions Against Iran Over Its Nuclear Program. “The United States is to begin circulating today at the United Nations in New York a new resolution of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program and continued enrichment of uranium. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s surprise announcement during Senate testimony Tuesday morning – and her elaboration that both Russia and China are on board in supporting the new resolution – is seen in part as a Big Powers’ response to a deal struck with Iran Monday by Brazil and Turkey to move a portion of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile out of the country.” [Christian Science Monitor, 5/18/10]

The U.N. Security Council Imposed Sanctions On Iran In June 2010 With The Support Of China And Russia. “After several months of grueling diplomacy, the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran's military establishment -- a move that the United States and other major powers said should prompt the Islamic Republic to restart stalled political talks over the future of its nuclear program…The administration did succeed in preserving support from China and Russia, although only after assuring them that the measures would not impair their ability to continue trading with Tehran.” [Washington Post, 6/10/10]

SECRETARY CLINTON HAS ADVOCATED FOR A RAMPED UP U.S. RESPONSE TO THE RUSSIAN INCURSION INTO CRIMEA, INCLUDING ARMING UKRAINIAN TROOPS

Secretary Clinton: “I Think We Should Be Putting More Financial Support Into The Ukrainian Government…Make It Very Clear That The Money Comes With Certain Strings And That In The Absence Of Accountability, The Money Won’t Come.” “I think we should be putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government…I think we’re smart enough to figure out how we would hold them accountable for that and to make it very clear that the money comes with certain strings and that in the absence of accountability, the money won’t come.” [Politico, 1/21/15]

Secretary Clinton: “I Do Think We Should Do More To Help Ukraine Defend Its Borders…New Equipment, New Training For The Ukrainians.” “I do think we should do more to help Ukraine defend its borders…New equipment, new training for the Ukrainians. The United States plus NATO have been very reluctant to do that, and I understand it completely because it’s a very sticky, potentially dangerous, situation. But I think the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian civilians who’ve been fighting against the separatists have proven that they’re worthy of some greater support.” [Politico, 1/21/15]

2016ER VULNERABILITIES


Lindsey Graham Voted Against Allowing New START Treaty Ratification.
[Treaty Doc. 111-5, Vote 298, 111th Congress, 12/22/10]


SYRIA


2016ER ATTACKS


RUBIO INSISTED THAT DESPITE CLINTON’S CLAIMS SHE ADVOCATED FOR ARMING SYRIAN REBELS AS SECRETARY OF STATE, SHE WAS “COMPLICIT IN IMPLEMENTING AND PUBLICLY DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT’S DISASTROUS FOREIGN POLICIES.”

Rubio Said He Urged Obama And Secretary Clinton In 2011 To “Intervene Decisively To Oust Assad And To Identify And Arm The Moderate Syrian Opposition.”  “The truth is that, when the Syrian people rose up in 2011 in protest against Bashar al-Assad’s brutal rule, our vital national interest was to prevent a protracted civil war in which radical jihadists from all over the world could rush into a vacuum. If they could seize operational spaces, they could use them to plan and carry out attacks against our allies and ultimately America. In the early stages of this conflict, responsible, bipartisan voices called for U.S. leadership, hoping precisely to prevent the outcome we have now seen play out. I urged Secretary Clinton and President Obama to intervene decisively to oust Assad and to identify and arm the moderate Syrian opposition. Instead, we were told that Assad was a ‘reformer’ and that we should not get involved.” [Marco Rubio, Washington Post, 9/12/14]

Rubio Attacked Hillary Clinton For Saying She Privately Advocated For A Different Syria Position Than What Obama Pursued: “She And Other Administration Officials Who Found Their Voices Only After They Left Office Were Complicit In Implementing And Publicly Defending The President’s Disastrous Foreign Policies.”  “Some former Obama administration officials, notably Secretary Clinton, have tried to argue that they advocated internally for a different approach, that they saw the train wreck coming. But the fact of the matter is that when they were in positions of responsibility, they failed to prevent the situation that now exists. ‘What are we going to arm them with and against what?’ Secretary Clinton said of the Syrian opposition in 2012. She and other administration officials who found their voices only after they left office were complicit in implementing and publicly defending the president’s disastrous foreign policies — and we’ll be dealing with the consequences for decades to come.” [Marco Rubio, Washington Post, 9/12/14[BJ1] ]

CLINTON DEFENSE


SECRETARY CLINTON HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS TOUGH AND INFLUENTIAL VOICE IN INTERNAL OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DEBATES WHILE SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE

Wall Street Journal’s William Galston: As Secretary Of State, “Mrs. Clinton Was Among The Administration’s Toughest Voices During Internal Debates.” “The only significant difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 was her vote for the Iraq war, which probably cost her the presidential nomination. Little has changed. During her tenure as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was among the administration’s toughest voices during internal debates. She supported the use of American air power in Libya, and the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden. (Both Vice President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposed it.)” [William Galston, Wall Street Journal, 7/23/14]

SECRETARY CLINTON’S MEMOIR DESCRIBES HER SUPPORT FOR A PLAN TO VET AND ARM MODERATE SYRIAN REBELS…

Hard Choices: “If The United States Could Train And Equip A Reliable And Effective Moderate Rebel Force, It Could Help Hold The Country Together During A Transition, Safeguard Chemical Weapons Stockpiles, And Prevent Ethnic Cleansing And Score Settling.” “One of the prime worries about Syria—and one of the reasons it was a wicked problem—was the lack of any viable alternatives to Assad on the ground. He and his allies could plausibly argue, like Louis XV of France, ‘Après moi, le déluge.’ (After Assad, chaos.) The power vacuum in Iraq after the fall of Saddam and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army offered a cautionary tale. But if the United States could train and equip a reliable and effective moderate rebel force, it could help hold the country together during a transition, safeguard chemical weapons stockpiles, and prevent ethnic cleansing and score settling. But could it be done? The key would be thoroughly vetting the rebel fighters to ensure we first weeded out the extremists and then maintained close intelligence sharing and operational coordination with all our partners.” [Hillary Clinton, Hard Choices, 6/10/14]

Hard Choices: The Key To Effectively Arming Syrian Rebels “Would Be Thoroughly Vetting The Rebel Fighters To Ensure We First Weeded Out The Extremists And Then Maintained Close Intelligence Sharing And Operational Coordination With All Our Partners.” “One of the prime worries about Syria—and one of the reasons it was a wicked problem—was the lack of any viable alternatives to Assad on the ground. He and his allies could plausibly argue, like Louis XV of France, ‘Après moi, le déluge.’ (After Assad, chaos.) The power vacuum in Iraq after the fall of Saddam and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army offered a cautionary tale. But if the United States could train and equip a reliable and effective moderate rebel force, it could help hold the country together during a transition, safeguard chemical weapons stockpiles, and prevent ethnic cleansing and score settling. But could it be done? The key would be thoroughly vetting the rebel fighters to ensure we first weeded out the extremists and then maintained close intelligence sharing and operational coordination with all our partners.” [Hillary Clinton, Hard Choices, 6/10/14]

…AND HER WORK WITH FOREIGN LEADERS TO ENSURE AN EFFORT TO ARM MODERATE SYRIAN REBELS COULD BE COORDINATED WITH REGIONAL PARTNERS

Hard Choices: In Coordinating Syria Efforts, Secretary Clinton Worked With Leaders Of Turkey, Great Britain, France, And Germany To Address Questions Such As “What Would It Take To Impose A No-Fly Zone?...Could We Better Coordinate Support For The Armed Opposition?” “Although there had been continuous consultations between us and the Turks since the [Syria] conflict started, I thought we should intensify operational planning by our militaries in order to prepare contingency plans. What would it take to impose a no-fly zone? How would we respond to the use or loss of chemical weapons? How could we better coordinate support for the armed opposition? The Turks agreed, and two days later Davutoğlu and I got on the phone to discuss our thinking with the Foreign Ministers of Great Britain, France, and Germany.” [Hillary Clinton, Hard Choices, 6/10/14]

Hard Choices: Secretary Clinton Pushed “To Begin Arming And Training Moderate Syrian Rebels…[Confident] We Could Put In Place Effective Coordination With Our Regional Partners.” “Our military’s top brass, reluctant to get involved in Syria, consistently offered dire projections of the forces that would be required to overcome Assad’s advanced air defenses and conduct a Libya-style no-fly zone. But Secretary of Defense Panetta had become as frustrated as I was with the lack of options in Syria; he knew from his own time leading the CIA what our intelligence operatives could do…I returned to Washington reasonably confident that if we decided to begin arming and training moderate Syrian rebels, we could put in place effective coordination with our regional partners.” [Hillary Clinton, Hard Choices, 6/10/14]

INTERNAL DISAGREEMENTS OVER U.S. SYRIA POLICY DID NOT BECOME PUBLIC UNTIL FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY LEON PANETTA AND JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN MARTIN DEMPSEY TOLD CONGRESS THEY SUPPORTED A CLINTON-BACKED PLAN TO ARM MODERATE SYRIAN REBELS

New York Times: In February 2013, Then-Defense Secretary Panetta And Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Dempsey For The First Time Acknowledged Support For A 2012 “Plan To Arm Carefully Vetted Syrian Rebels…Backed By Hillary Rodham Clinton.” “[O]n Thursday, deep divisions over what to do about one of those issues — the rising violence in Syria — spilled into public view for the first time in a blunt exchange between Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and the leaders of the Pentagon. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta acknowledged that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, had supported a plan last year to arm carefully vetted Syrian rebels. But it was ultimately vetoed by the White House, Mr. Panetta said, although it was developed by David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time, and backed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state.” [New York Times, 2/7/13]

SECRETARY CLINTON CLAIMS TO HAVE RECOMMENDED U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SYRIA ROBERT FORD, WHO PUSHED FOR A PLAN TO ARM MODERATE SYRIAN REBELS

Secretary Clinton: “In Early 2010…I Recommended That The President Nominate Robert Ford…As The First U.S. Ambassador To Syria In More Than Five Years.” “In early 2010, about a year before the maelstrom began in Syria, I recommended that the President nominate Robert Ford, an experienced diplomat who had served across the Middle East, most recently in Iraq, as the first U.S. Ambassador to Syria in more than five years.” [Hillary Clinton, Hard Choices, 6/10/14]

McClatchy: Syrian Ambassador Robert Ford Spent Years “Agitating From Within A Reluctant Administration To Arm Vetted Moderates To Fight Bashar Assad’s Brutal Regime,” But Ultimately Changed His Mind After Becoming “Increasingly Critical Of [Syrian Rebels] As Disjointed And Untrustworthy.” “Robert Ford was always one of the Syrian rebels’ loudest cheerleaders in Washington, agitating from within a reluctant administration to arm vetted moderates to fight Bashar Assad’s brutal regime. In recent weeks, however, Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria who made news when he left government service a year ago with an angry critique of Obama administration policy, has dropped his call to provide weapons to the rebels. Instead, he’s become increasingly critical of them as disjointed and untrustworthy because they collaborate with jihadists.” [McClatchy, 2/18/15]

U.S. Ambassador To Syria Robert Ford On Secretary Clinton’s Push To Arm Rebels: “Clinton Understood That The Guys With The Guns Mattered…That It Would Have Regional Implications, And That It Could Become One Large Operating Area For Al Qaeda.” “For Clinton personally, the engagement of the armed groups was crucial and the White House’s forced policy of pretending that the best way to support the revolution was through the civilian opposition based in Turkey was foolish. ‘Clinton understood that the guys with the guns mattered, not the people in Istanbul, that it would have regional implications, and that it could become one large operating area for al Qaeda,’ said Ford. ‘In 2012 and the start of 2013 the most we could do was to provide help to the civilian opposition. We had no permission from the White House to help the FSA, so we did not do so.’” [Daily Beast, 8/14/14]

SECRETARY CLINTON CITED THE U.S. FAILURE TO BOLSTER ARMED REBELS IN SYRIA AS A REASON FOR THE GROWING POWER OF JIHADISTS IN SYRIA

Secretary Clinton: “The Failure To Help Build Up A Credible Fighting Force” Among The Syrian Opposition “Left A Big Vacuum, Which The Jihadists Have Now Filled.” “I know that the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled. They were often armed in an indiscriminate way by other forces and we had no skin in the game that really enabled us to prevent this indiscriminate arming.” [The Atlantic, 8/10/14]

JOHN MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DECIDED NOT TO ARM SYRIAN REBELS DESPITE SECRETARY CLINTON’S PUSH TO DO SO

John McCain On The Syrian Opposition: President Obama’s “Entire National Security Team, Including His Secretary Of State, Said We Want To Arm And Train And Equip These People, And He Made The Unilateral Decision To Turn Them Down.” “MCCAIN:…I'm astounded that Mr. Carney should say that the Free Syrian Army is now stronger. In fact, they have been badly damaged. CARNEY: That's not what I said, Senator. I said, if I could, sir, what I said is that we know a great deal more about the makeup of the opposition. MCCAIN: Oh, come on, you knew about it -- come on, Jay, we knew all about them then. You just didn't choose to know. I was there in Syria. We knew them. Come on, you guys are the ones -- it's your boss is the one that when the entire national security team wanted to arm and train them, that he turned them down…facts are stubborn things, Mr. Carney. And that is, his entire national security team, including his secretary of state, said we want to arm and train and equip these people, and he made the unilateral decision to turn them down. And the fact that they didn't leave a residual force in Iraq, overruling all of his military advisers, is the reason why we're facing ISIS today. So the facts are stubborn things in history. And people ought to know them. And now the president is saying basically that we are going to take certain actions, which I would favor. But to say that America is safer, and that the situation is very much like Yemen and Somalia shows me that the president really doesn't have a grasp for how serious the threat of ISIS is.” [CNN, 9/10/14]

John McCain: President Obama “Overruled The Senior Leaders Of His Own National Security Team, Who Were In Unanimous Agreement That America Needs To Take Greater Action To Change The Military Balance Of Power In Syria.” “Mr. McCain said he was dismayed that Mr. Obama had ‘overruled the senior leaders of his own national security team, who were in unanimous agreement that America needs to take greater action to change the military balance of power in Syria.’” [New York Times, 2/7/13]

WASHINGTON POST’S DAN BALZ CLAIMED THAT SECRETARY CLINTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO PUBLICLY STATE DISAGREEMENT WITH OBAMA’S SYRIA POLICY BECAUSE DOING SO MAY HAVE MADE HER “APPEAR DISLOYAL”

Washington Post’s Dan Balz: “[A]s A Former Member Of The Administration, Clinton Is Not Exactly A Free Agent…If She Thinks The Administration Should Have Taken A More Aggressive Posture Earlier, She Is Likely To Be Restrained From Saying So, Lest She Appear Disloyal.” [Dan Balz, Washington Post, 9/4/13]

2016ER VULNERABILITIES


RICK PERRY HAD LIMITED PRAISE FOR SECRETARY CLINTON’S ASSESSMENT OF THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION IN SYRIA

Rick Perry On Early Intervention In Syria: “I Think On That Issue [Secretary Clinton] Was Closer To Being Right Than She Has Been On Some Other Ones.” In an article about Texas Governor Rick Perry’s statements on foreign policy in a speech in Iowa, U.S. News and World Report reported: “Asked Tuesday at the Iowa State Fair whether he agreed with the former secretary of state’s assessment that a lack of prior U.S. intervention in Syria emboldened jihadists to penetrate Iraq, the GOP governor of Texas found some daylight with the potential future presidential rival. ‘I think on that issue she was closer to being right than she has been on some other ones,’ he replied.” [U.S. News and World Report, 8/12/14]







 [BJ1]I think a weakness of this is that it implies Rubio would support his cabinet members publicly advocating against his recommendations as President

No comments: