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:
Post a Comment