What a silly comment.
A huge chunk of those rebels wound up becoming ISIS (ISIL). How would that have been the right thing to do?
Hell, this is one of those situations where hindsight proves we took the right course of action - which was to stay the hell out of that mess.
Here we go again. Once again, Hillary is trying to show how tough she is on foreign policy. Does everyone realize that she wanted more U.S. troops for Afghanistan during that failed “surge”? It was only very recently that Hillary got off her high horse and acknowledged that her vote for the Iraq War of 2003 was a mistake. Took her over 10 years to admit what a bunch of other Democrats had already done. But with Hillary, she is never to show weakness or second guess a decision.
Her most ardent supporters will see this criticism about action in Syria as resolve and strength. But I wonder where those non-Islamic, anti-Assad forces were when the civil war there erupted? I seem to recall that it was damn difficult for U.S. intelligence to pinpoint “good guys” in the conflict. If we bombed the Islamic extremist in Syria, wouldn’t we be aiding Assad? And if we armed the anti-Assad forces, wouldn’t those arms end up with a group like ISIS? No, according to Hillary, we could find the right people to support, arm, and train to overthrow Assad.
Some will call this strength on Hillary’s part, but I call it for what it is: arrogance.
i am sorry i voted for the Iraq war. wink wink . which not only screwed up Iraq but made Iran stronger. but one thing i promise i will continue to do stupid things.
Ah, but the wingers will reply that he didn’t do ‘enough’ stupid stuff in Libya to have an effect (boots on the ground, military presence for the next 100 years, as McCain has said, etc.)
Benghazi!
No, I don’t think so. I think it’s way, way too late to start thinking “anybody but Hillary” is anything but a quixotic, Nader-esque quest doomed to failure.
I read the entire Atlantic interview with a sense of dread that increased with every sentence. I’ve been a Hillary supporter for years, voting for her in my state’s primary even when it was clear she was going to lose to Obama.
But Hillary’s pandering to Israel, her disavowing of her own lack of successes in the Middle East (reminding me very much of her disavowing of her vote for the Iraq War) and her biting of the administration hand that fed her so generously, has left me quite worried. This one interview has convinced me for the first time that Clinton may not be the best candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2016.
Clinton criticized Obama for being too cautious when it comes to intervening abroad.
This is exactly how to keep anyone under the age of 30 from voting for you.
But they still own what they have said and done later on when they run for office. Donald Rumsfeld couldn’t come out and say that he was against the war in Iraq and be credible.
And a politician is someone who plays politics for a living. They may or may not be running at a given time. The Secretary of State is a politician. The job is to play politics with other countries. The SoS is practically a pure politician, even more than a Sec. of Defense or an Attorney General.
Need the bumper sticker version: “Don’t rule out the stupid!”
Barack Obama was a singular, exceptional candidate and we’ll never see his likes again, correction, we’ll never see a charismatic black candidate ever again. People were drawn to him because of his smarts, sophistication, yes, charisma too, and while I supported him, I don’t believe she lost because of being hawkish. An Obama presidency was never going to come this way again and we knew it.
She also just told us here that she is running for president, imo
She’s merely genuflecting now for our Israeli overlords so she doesn’t have to outright grovel for them in the future.
A jerk is defined as: a stupid person or a person who is not well-liked or who treats other people badly. I’d have to disagree.
Seems to me to be the difference between idealism and realism. Now, being a realist is tricky, but at this point idealism is nauseating. President Obama has been the crest of the wave of realism, it is scary up there. In the end, we will eventually need to stop pulling the wool over our eyes.
Here are some very worthwhile links:
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2014/06/the_horror_iraq_class_of_03_mo.html
Googling around I saw that Goldberg had written of his support for the Iraq war in a slate.com article in I believe 2002, but there is no link to the article. Odd.
Yes
Huh??
We don’t even know who the candidates are on either side. We don’t know what Congress will look like after the election. We are starting a military action and we don’t know how that will play out and affect the political conversation. It’s waaaayyy to early to be trying to make an inevitability argument.
By the way, I don’t think Democrats, by nature, like the inevitability argument. It sure as hell didn’t work for her last time. She should probably run on some other grounds besides, “you don’t have a choice but to vote for me”. Because the people (like Dario Neharis, for you Game of Thrones fans out there) always have choice.
And this is exactly what I don’t like about HRC. I’d choose an Obama clone over HRC in a heartbeat.
That said, I’d choose HRC over any Republican in a heartbeat too.
Sorry but HRC represents a time now past. She should try running against Republicans, not Obama. No point other than to trash the man who beat her.
Bingo.
+1
Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, not State. A very different role, I think. Sorry, I think I disagree with your definition of SoS role, mandate, requirements.