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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So, when will McCain be made to answer for arming the Benghazi rebels who attacked the US embassy? [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)23. A New York Times artcie in yesterday's paper.
Obama Could Revisit Arming Syria Rebels as Assad Holds Firm
The arming plan that was considered last year originated with David H. Petraeus, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and was supported by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The goal was to create allies in Syria that the United States could work with during the conflict and if Mr. Assad was removed from power. Each had a reason for supporting it.
Mr. Petraeus had experience as a general in Iraq training Iraqi fighters and had long worried that militants traveling through Syria to join Al Qaeda in Iraq might one day reverse course and challenge the Assad government. Mrs. Clinton signed on to the initiative after frustration that the Russians had walked away from a transition plan she thought was agreed on in June.
But the president, who had campaigned on the theme that the tide of war was receding, was more skeptical, fearing that such a move would, in effect, draw the United States into a proxy war against the Syrian government and its Iranian and Russian backers, with uncertain results. His wariness was reinforced, officials said, by his closest advisers, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, both of whom advised against it.
Also skeptical, officials said, was Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations. Her opposition was noteworthy, given that she had pushed for military intervention in Libya.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/middleeast/as-assad-holds-firm-obama-could-revisit-arms-policy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I do not give Rand Paul any credit for asking questions that are 'based on fact' when he is, in fact, promoting is own partisan theory. According to Paul either Clinton/Patraeus were supplying weapons behind Obama's back or Obama was for it before he was against it? (In one case Obama looks incompetent or in the other, duplicitous.)
If there were evidence to support Paul's theory that Obama knew or should have known, I believe that there are Democrats and liberals in the Senate who are courageous enough to ask the same questions. Instead it is a tea party Senator asking questions straight from a list of Glenn Beck theories.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So, when will McCain be made to answer for arming the Benghazi rebels who attacked the US embassy? [View all]
bigtree
Feb 2013
OP
McCain's Benghazi obsession is that the US didn't fully follow-through and arm the Syrian rebels
leveymg
Feb 2013
#1
McCain is upset because we didn't arm Syrian rebels. Rand Paul is upset because he thinks we did.
pampango
Feb 2013
#14
She wouldn't make much of a poker player. Her response is pure "neither confirm nor deny."
leveymg
Feb 2013
#15
Biden and Donilon 'advised against it' and Rice was 'skeptical'. The article does not indicate that
pampango
Feb 2013
#28
Read these two sentences together, and that's what it says about Rice's position.
leveymg
Feb 2013
#30
Recall last May, Rice was pushing for Iraq-style US-NATO action outside a UNSC authorization.
leveymg
Feb 2013
#34
"Rice did not specify what 'actions' she meant." "There are fears that her words could mean
pampango
Feb 2013
#35
What else could Rice mean other than "the threat of military action"? That's certainly how they
leveymg
Feb 2013
#36
Most of the GOP critique is a sort of red herring, and only one publicly addressed the real issue.
leveymg
Feb 2013
#25
it's a bit clearer to me why the President's held off arming Syrian resistance fighters
bigtree
Feb 2013
#8
You're implying that we have a media that will hold him accountable.
ForgoTheConsequence
Feb 2013
#10