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

blm

(114,515 posts)
46. Baloney. You had no clue about Kerry's efforts before you judged his words.
Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:21 PM
Aug 2013

The point being that he would only act as a last resort. He knows Assad better than anyone in the US, and would have succeeded in preventing war had he been Sec of State from day one.

You are clueless to the efforts he took the last 8 years to avoid war there. War with Syria was expected to come in 2005, but for Kerry's interference then. You think YOU could go up against the forces of Bushes and both Clintons and their circle of war hawks and get in their way?



http://billclintondailydiary.blogspot.com/2005/03/rafiq-hariri-and-lebanon.html
BILL CLINTON DAILY DIARY
IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF CURRENT EVENTS, PERSONAL STORIES AND HUMOR



FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 2005

Rafiq Hariri and Lebanon
I read the newspapers this morning over two cups of coffee. I’m allowed to drink coffee again. I’m happy about that. The most interesting articles were the ones dealing with the UN report pertaining to the international investigation into the murder of Rafiq Hariri. The UN report does not assign blame to either the Lebanese or the Syrian governments.

It does blame the Lebanese government and the Syrian intelligence forces for an atmosphere of violence and hate and the lack of law and order in Lebanon. It also says the Lebanese government didn’t do a good job investigating the murder and there should be an international investigation. It also clearly says that Bashar Assad, during a meeting threatened to harm Rafiq Hariri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt if they stood in his way.

I agree with this report. I’m certain Bashar Assad ordered the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, but in international affairs you can’t do anything without proof. I’m certain the international investigation will find proof linking Bashar Assad to the murder of my friend Rafiq Hariri.

The reason I’m so confident is the fact that it took the FBI years to find the culprits, who had blown up the plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, but they found them and linked them to the Libyan government. And when the investigation succeeds, there will be hell to pay for Assad.

He probably thought the United States wouldn’t care about the death of an Arab politician. But Rafiq Hariri isn’t just some politician and Lebanon isn’t just some country in the Arab world.

Rafiq Hariri had many friends all over the world. I’m proud to say he considered me a friend. I talked to him ten days before his assassination. I was later debriefed by a few national security agents, who were interested in this conversation.

Bashar Assad made the mistake of thinking we, Americans didn’t care about Lebanon. We do and the reason for that is pretty much the same as the reason most Americans like Israel. Lebanon is a democratic and pluralistic society. What’s more there are hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Americans living in the United States. Most Americans have neighbors, who descend from families, who came from Lebanon.

For instance, one of the most respected journalists in Washington, Helen Thomas has Lebanese ancestry. Same goes for Senator Edward Kennedy’s wife. Lebanese Americans are a very successful and respected group in our society. And for that matter in the Democratic Party.

Even France, whose president Chirac was a friend and business partner of Rafiq Hariri has made it clear this situation has to be dealt with.

The international community does not take it lightly when a president murders a politician of another country. I have no idea what Bashar Assad was thinking, when he gave the order to kill my friend, but one thing I know for certain, murdering foreign politicians in a manner reminiscent of Michael Corleone in the Godfather will not stand. He has lost any respect any foreign head of state had for him.

Finally, Bashar Assad doesn’t seem to understand how serious this administration is about dealing with rogue states and state sponsors of terrorism. Let me clarify this. Syria is not the objective, it’s a barrier on the road to Iran.

The Syrian president has made three mistakes in one years. One, he appointed Emile Lahoud president of Lebanon for another three years against the will of the vast majority of Lebanese and in spite of the Lebanese constitution. Two, he murdered Rafiq Hariri. Three, he allied himself with Iran.

The United States can not allow Iran to have nuclear bombs. We know the ayatollahs in Tehran want them and will do anything to get them. The Bush administration is intent on stopping them.

There are two ways to stop them. One, we destroy their nuclear facilities or two we bring down the regime, which wants them. Regime change in Iran isn’t easy.

Iran is a big country, with a lot of money, because of its oil and gas reserves and has a population of about seventy million people, most of them young and of military age. Invading Iran is out of the question. Bombing Iran is possible, but won’t have the intended result. The only avenue left is to mortally wound the regime in Iran by cutting off its tentacles.

The first one is Hizballah in Lebanon, the second one is the Syrian regime.

I saw an interesting article in a newspaper, when I was in the hospital. It said someone had written pro- Sistani words on a wall in the Hizballah dominated Bekaa Valley. The reason I thought this was interesting is simple. Grand Ayatollah Sistani is the leader of the Shia in Iraq. He is a direct rival of the ayatollahs in Iran, who claim they are the leaders of all Shia in the world.

The Shia religion is structured in the same fashion as Catholicism. There is a pope and there are lower ranking priests. The leader of Iran Khamenei considers himself the “pope” of all Shia, including the ones in Iraq, but also the ones in Lebanon.

This is by the way the reason why the ayatollahs in Iran are interested in helping Hizballah. They are asserting their dominance as leaders of the Shia faith.

Their only rival for the title of “pope” is grand ayatollah Sistani of Iraq. His brand of Shia Islam is more moderate and democratic than the brand the Iranians are trying to sell to the Shia world. If we want to undermine the ayatollahs in Iran, we must support Sistani in Iraq and we must do everything possible to promote Najaf as the real base of Shia Islam. Now that Sistani seems to be making inroads in the Bekaa Valley, this might end the pro- Iranian Hizballah’s stranglehold on the Shia in Lebanon.

Hizballah lost its reason to exist after Israel pulled out of Lebanon. Hizballah knows this. The Shia in Lebanon want the same things as the rest of the Lebanese, a good education and jobs. Hizballah can’t provide those things, so they will never be as important as they used to be. As they lose votes, so will the Iranian ayatollahs lose influence over the Shia in Lebanon.

Coming back to Syria, when the international investigation proves Bashar Assad was behind the murder of Hariri, the UN will impose sanctions on Syria. Syria, which is a poor country with only about 15 million inhabitants will be hit hard. If the sanctions don’t bring down the government of Bashar Assad, they will certainly cripple his grip on power and undermine his influence in the region and his capacity to help the Iranians.

This is a good thing for Lebanon. It will calm down the situation in the region, possibly leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This would mean that the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon can go home.

All in all, Bashar Assad made the mistake of his life when he decided to kill my friend.
POSTED BY BILL CLINTON AT 12:03 PM

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

You haven't been paying attention to Syria or Kerry's efforts there to prevent blm Aug 2013 #1
I don't believe that I am off base . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #2
No, he isn't. PDJane Aug 2013 #3
Thank you . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #10
Alas, some of you have no memories regarding Syria. blm Aug 2013 #14
What he did as a Senator . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #16
The point is that NEITHER men wanted this and they are NOT manufacturing blm Aug 2013 #22
Then why have they not made a similar case to invade Egypt? markpkessinger Aug 2013 #23
You're reaching. Egypt had an election last year. blm Aug 2013 #35
Yes, it had an election . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #43
Baloney - you wanted to know what the difference was. It is clear. blm Aug 2013 #76
So why do you think Kerry has changed his mind now? sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #50
The scope of this last attack is not one that can be ignored karynnj Aug 2013 #65
Was he repulsed by the use of White Phosphorous in Fallujah? I know I was sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #67
Kerry has spoken against things the US did karynnj Aug 2013 #70
Because Assad has grown increasingly paranoid the last 2yrs. blm Aug 2013 #86
And you didn't even read before you posted. blm Aug 2013 #24
He has only been Secretary of State since January n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #25
Exactly. He began interfering back in 2005 when Bush/Clintons wanted blm Aug 2013 #28
That may all well be . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #30
As an HONEST BROKER, mark. This isn't happening based on blm Aug 2013 #36
We don't KNOW who is responsible for the attack . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #38
Yes, we DON'T know. Kerry would be the first told by UN inspectors blm Aug 2013 #41
As for being an "honest broker" . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #42
If this story really matters to you, then you'll blm Aug 2013 #48
you're the one who knows absolutely nothing whatsofuckingever about Syria cali Aug 2013 #73
I absolutely posted support. Who do YOU think has kept blm Aug 2013 #75
Note that his comment re DWB did not assign blame - just that there was an attack karynnj Aug 2013 #66
And you haven't addressed the central question posed by the OP . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #26
I don't know. I do know that Kerry is an honest broker in this, and for blm Aug 2013 #32
Sounds like a gloss on . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #34
BS. I know a helluva lot about Syria because I've followed it blm Aug 2013 #37
First you criticize the media coverage of the NSA leaks OnyxCollie Aug 2013 #60
Try reading up on Kerry's work in Syria to AVOID war blm Aug 2013 #78
+1000. the adorers mindlessly go with the "trust them" shit. cali Aug 2013 #74
Based on the FACTS of his work in Syria the last 8yrs blm Aug 2013 #87
I disagree. R. Daneel Olivaw Aug 2013 #56
As a member of the Cabinet . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #57
Yes he is. Kerry's been trying to stop war in Syria PERSONALLY since 2005 blm Aug 2013 #12
None of that addresses the selective nature of his moral outrage . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #13
Baloney. You had no clue about Kerry's efforts before you judged his words. blm Aug 2013 #46
blm, thank you PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #63
Thank you. Once people research the last 8years, they would see blm Aug 2013 #79
Most people posting about this really don't care, they are just looking for any anti-administration snooper2 Aug 2013 #81
Kerry has issued statements on many many things that he has thought were wrong karynnj Aug 2013 #68
My opinion on Kerry's role re: Syria has shifted along with Kerry's role. He's no longer the leveymg Aug 2013 #33
OK - you're all right. Kerry cooked the intel to go to war. blm Aug 2013 #39
I didn't say Kerry personally cooked the intel and I'm sure he wouldn't describe Assad as a personal leveymg Aug 2013 #44
I was arguing with everyone above. Not just you. blm Aug 2013 #51
All true. But, he appears to have, in the end, come over to the War Party. leveymg Aug 2013 #52
Sad truth is that they left a clusterfvck in Syria because blm Aug 2013 #80
Good question! I wrote about the moral obscenity that Kerry snappyturtle Aug 2013 #4
Exactly n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #5
I thought this would be a Miley thread. I'm out. Throd Aug 2013 #6
I have barely a passing knowledge of who Miley Cirus even is . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #7
Unfortunately vapid poop-culture worship leads to apathy about your OP Throd Aug 2013 #11
Creepy how Obama just asked for immunity for war criminals leftstreet Aug 2013 #8
Isn't it, though? n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #9
The President didn't "ask" for any such thing. Seeking Serenity Aug 2013 #15
I think leftstreet is referring to this: markpkessinger Aug 2013 #17
That's a civil lawsuit Seeking Serenity Aug 2013 #20
"when acting in the scope of their duties" . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #21
Guess you're kinda right - the DOJ did n/t leftstreet Aug 2013 #18
Of course that applies to 99% of all Common Dreams Crap. FSogol Aug 2013 #19
If we are going to make killing legal during war, then we better enforce the law. reusrename Aug 2013 #29
+1000 n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #61
What is really obscene about this call to arms that it probably won't have the announced effect, leveymg Aug 2013 #27
Precisely n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #31
Nobody does moral obscenity like our MIC government. n/t Catherina Aug 2013 #40
Indeed! n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #45
Has Kerry ever said anything about the 'moral obscenity' of Bush's use of sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #47
Very good question . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #49
Maybe you should listen to this -- where he calls the Iraq War "immoral" karynnj Aug 2013 #71
He called the Iraq war immoral karynnj Aug 2013 #69
Yet he continued to vote to fund it. sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #72
He voted to attach a version of Kerry/Feingold - Reid/Feingold to the funding in 2007 karynnj Aug 2013 #82
You're right. We only have two choices: Do EVERYTHING or NOTHING at all railsback Aug 2013 #53
As I said, our outrage over "kids getting gassed" is very, very selective - and hypocritical n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #54
Well, like you said, we shouldn't do anything railsback Aug 2013 #58
Right. And being gassed is so much worse than being killed by a drone strike. markpkessinger Aug 2013 #55
K&R DeSwiss Aug 2013 #59
But at least we didn't use CHEMICALS!!! drokhole Aug 2013 #64
Biggest problem i have with this OP are the assumptions Sheepshank Aug 2013 #62
BBC included the comment G_j Aug 2013 #77
I agree that WMD use is a special circumstance. I support the UN and other countries dealing with it stevenleser Aug 2013 #83
Every situation in every ME country is exactly the same ... JoePhilly Aug 2013 #84
agree. Our foreign policy is a grotesque masquerade. librechik Aug 2013 #85
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Our very selective outrag...»Reply #46