Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Wed May 18, 2016, 03:34 AM May 2016

Wikileaks/FOIA email from the Clinton state dept. in regards to Iran and Syria

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

I find this disturbing rather than trying to find peace we go for chaos.

In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government.

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

read the document here........... you really need to read this.

https://archive.is/6j4Xd


And what has this policy wrought?

European refuge chaos
more destablization in the middle east
275,000 dead in Syria thousands injuried
growth of unstable anti Syrian Isis groups
unending war


You don't make peace with your friends you make peace with your enemies.

Thankfully after she left Kerry and Obama took a different less belligerent course.

This memo needs to go viral.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wikileaks/FOIA email from the Clinton state dept. in regards to Iran and Syria (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter May 2016 OP
Thanx for posting this... Jack Bone May 2016 #1
She reminds me of John McCain. But instead of saying Bomb Bomb Iran she says Bomb Bomb Syria. jillan May 2016 #2
The date marked is 2000-12-31? leveymg May 2016 #3
It was noted by wikileaks that they made that typo mistake Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #5
That "typo" diminishes its probative value. leveymg May 2016 #6
I'll check but Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #7
Thnx leveymg May 2016 #8
The memo is the real deal and here is the real deal FOIA link Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #10
Here is the text scanned from the .pdf without markings added by Wikileaks leveymg May 2016 #14
good.......... maybe other will read it Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #15
K&R silvershadow May 2016 #4
the original EdwardBernays May 2016 #9
Is anyone surprised that Hillary would choose war over diplomacy? Scuba May 2016 #11
The Iran Nuke thing had already been debunked by International nuke watchdogs Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #12
Gee the memo reveals Israeli has nukes too Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #13
Carter was so right about her Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #16
Who wrote this e-mail, it is full of conjecture/speculation with little if any basis in fact mrdmk May 2016 #17
I doubt it was from the President or a janitor Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #18
Here is the history of Regime change in Seven Arab nations mrdmk May 2016 #22
Does HRC believe in the "Greater Israel" project? HereSince1628 May 2016 #19
I think Syria is also connected with her actions in relationship to Libya, Blue Meany May 2016 #20
people here need to write letters to the editor and get on radio and TV shows Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #21

Jack Bone

(2,023 posts)
1. Thanx for posting this...
Wed May 18, 2016, 04:09 AM
May 2016

I could feel my stomach begin to wretch as I read it. OMG! I could almost hear Dick Cheney saying "We'll Be Greeted As Liberators" in the part about Syria...thank God, Obama was there to put her "in check" so this proposal didn't become reality!!

jillan

(39,451 posts)
2. She reminds me of John McCain. But instead of saying Bomb Bomb Iran she says Bomb Bomb Syria.
Wed May 18, 2016, 04:14 AM
May 2016

If she wins, we will be at war in Syria. And Syria will be in worse shape than it is now.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
3. The date marked is 2000-12-31?
Wed May 18, 2016, 04:15 AM
May 2016

The content appears to have been written much later, however, since 2011. Can someone explain this marking? Thnx

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
5. It was noted by wikileaks that they made that typo mistake
Wed May 18, 2016, 04:25 AM
May 2016

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
6. That "typo" diminishes its probative value.
Wed May 18, 2016, 04:31 AM
May 2016

I can't imagine why they wouldn't fix this transcription error. Is there another source?

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
10. The memo is the real deal and here is the real deal FOIA link
Wed May 18, 2016, 06:10 AM
May 2016

It is from her emails, it is the real deal.....but you notice there is no date on the original but it is from her emails if you look at the historical references from what is happening and what happened at this time it puts the date
around Dec or maybe a little latter.

IT CAME FROM HER SERVER.

US GOVT. Freedom of information link


https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/293/DOC_0C05794498/C05794498.pdf

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
14. Here is the text scanned from the .pdf without markings added by Wikileaks
Wed May 18, 2016, 09:44 AM
May 2016

(The 11/30/2015 date is the State Dept. release date)
The original .pdf can be downloaded off the same page:
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/293/DOC_0C05794498/C05794498.pdf Here it is:


UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015
[RELEASE IN FULL[

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of
Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will
they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program - the capability
to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in
Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few
months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.
Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli
leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader
launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of
both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is
losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that
nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go
nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not
respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier
to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons
would seive as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in
Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security - not through a direct attack,
which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its
proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The
end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well
why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week,
Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to
the radical axis, major blow to Iran .... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the
Arab world ... and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic
Jihad in Gaza."

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease
Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States
might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that
military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance
with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli
leaders to contemplate a surprise attack - if necessary over the objections of Washington. With
Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its. proxies, it is possible that the
United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an
unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with
Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is
the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at
risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in
Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition
forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not
called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed.
Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from
likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for
the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle
East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the
region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle
East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region.

Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and
military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its
willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train
and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause
substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly
Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take
time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement.

The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will
never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council.
Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example
shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which
don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.
Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes.
Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and
airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm
that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to
the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And
the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence
in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an
enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab
world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action
on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian
sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and
missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from
murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of
civil war).

With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their
freedom. America can and should help them - and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the
risk of a wider war.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
11. Is anyone surprised that Hillary would choose war over diplomacy?
Wed May 18, 2016, 07:50 AM
May 2016

After all, where's the profit in diplomacy?

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
12. The Iran Nuke thing had already been debunked by International nuke watchdogs
Wed May 18, 2016, 07:53 AM
May 2016

By this time.

I also have a problem with us being the proxy for Israeli's needs

Notice the Saudi connection too?

I swear its like a Cheney memo.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
13. Gee the memo reveals Israeli has nukes too
Wed May 18, 2016, 08:59 AM
May 2016

not like we didn't know that but

Its THE FIRST TIME THE US GOVT REVEALED IT IN A MEMO

THANKS HILLARY!!!

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
16. Carter was so right about her
Wed May 18, 2016, 01:02 PM
May 2016

when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace.


-former President Jimmy Carter in a recent interview
http://time.com/56770/jimmy-carter-jesus-christ-iran-putin-clinton-kerry/


What’s your take on Secretary Kerry’s efforts so far in the Middle East?


President Carter"

I think they are notable, and I have a great admiration for him. I stay in touch with him fairly often by email. I send him messages and tell him what my thoughts might be, and he has responded very graciously. He has had a very difficult time operating pretty much on his own. I know from experience that the best way to have the United States be a mediator is for the President himself to be deeply involved. In this occasion, when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace. It was only John Kerry’s coming into office that reinitiated all these very important and crucial issues.





Now imagine how she will bring peace to the Democratic party let alone this nation or the world after reading this State Department memo..

I wish a good writer with a popular blog or column would take on this memo because I see some very disturbing signs for this planet in this memo if she's elected

mrdmk

(2,943 posts)
17. Who wrote this e-mail, it is full of conjecture/speculation with little if any basis in fact
Thu May 19, 2016, 03:07 AM
May 2016

Using the word, 'belligerent' is an understatement. Here is the following which is very disturbing:

<snip from the OP's link>

Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war).


Then there is also this:

<snip from the OP's link>

Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.


This whole e-mail is delusional at best. Leaders of the middle east countries are power hungry but they are not suicidal. As stated above, the idea of Iran getting a nuclear bomb anytime soon is a joke. Only a person who is in short on facts living in some sort of fantasy world would be able to write these statements. Thus, having this person in this position of responsibility (the writer of the e-mail) for State Affairs needs to have their supervisor(s) questioned why is this person in the position for writing policy. Wish I could say more...

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
18. I doubt it was from the President or a janitor
Thu May 19, 2016, 09:02 AM
May 2016

Could be from a 'plumber' aka Nixon but it was on her server and she did try and thought she erased it but it was recovered.

This email had to be from her or the higher ups either in the State Department, CIA or from one of her higher ups in her private 'circle of friends'' cough, cough.

I say the CIA because they work closely with state at US embassies.

The substance of the letter is really an extension of neoliberal policies, mixed with even some neo con policies that I've been reading about for years. Sort of makes General Clark's statement ring true on the US taking out and regime changing those 7 Arab nations he heard back at the pentagon years ago.................

The threatening of Syrian's president's family was endearing too wasn't it?
Murder? How quaint.


Yeah who wrote it, .who was the sender and who was the receiver?

Now another question ......if this was unclassified ... I'd like to see some of the other policies letters that were classified in her correspondence. because this was a clusterfuck of a national nightmare and imagine what else went down or they thought was a rational national/international agenda.

mrdmk

(2,943 posts)
22. Here is the history of Regime change in Seven Arab nations
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:01 AM
May 2016

Those countries are: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan are in civil wars at this very moment with no hope of peace. Lebanon is shaky and there is talk of bombing that country by Israel. Iran got a peace treaty which Secretary Clinton finds disturbing.

It is worth the review here:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”


GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, “Is it a replay?” It’s not exactly a replay. But here’s the truth: that Iran, from the beginning, has seen that the presence of the United States in Iraq was a threat — a blessing, because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn’t handle them. We took care of it for them. But also a threat, because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they’ve got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq. They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein.


Link to the transcript of the complete interview: http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

 

Blue Meany

(1,947 posts)
20. I think Syria is also connected with her actions in relationship to Libya,
Thu May 19, 2016, 09:48 PM
May 2016

which are themselves pretty suspicious, given numerous conflicts of interests by advisers and friends. Qaddafi's arms were being acquired after his overthrow and shipped off to US-supported rebels there, and this was an operation centered in Benghazi. Regardless of the truth, the right wing press and the impeachment committee are going to connect all of these dots to her email server and claim that the terrorists in Libya learned about the operation when her email was hacked.

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)
21. people here need to write letters to the editor and get on radio and TV shows
Thu May 19, 2016, 09:49 PM
May 2016

the majority of voters don't know this. European leaders must be cursing her now.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Wikileaks/FOIA email from...