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: Slate: Liberal Amnesia - Obama supporters may have forgotten how much they once despised Hillary [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)59. Along with Petraeus, she was an architect. Described in the NYT, here:
Yes. Hillary, too. She was the real mover behind the Libya-Syria operation.
Clinton was the strongest voice within the Administration inner circle for a more activist US military role in regime change operations across the region, as the NYT reports: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
And yet, interviews with more than a dozen current and former officials also paint a more complex picture: of a dogged diplomat and a sometimes frustrated figure who prized her role as team player, but whose instincts were often more activist than those of a White House that has kept a tight grip on foreign policy.
The disclosures about Mrs. Clintons behind-the-scenes role in Syria and Myanmar one a setback, the other a success offer a window into her time as a member of Mr. Obamas cabinet. They may also be a guide to her thinking as she ponders a future run for the presidency with favorability ratings that are the highest of her career, even after her last months at the State Department were marred by the deadly attack on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Secretary Clinton has dramatically changed the face of U.S. foreign policy globally for the good, said Richard L. Armitage, deputy secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration. But I wish she had been unleashed more by the White House.
In an administration often faulted for its timidity abroad, Clinton wanted to lead from the front, not from behind, said Vali R. Nasr, a former State Department adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan who is now the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
The disclosures about Mrs. Clintons behind-the-scenes role in Syria and Myanmar one a setback, the other a success offer a window into her time as a member of Mr. Obamas cabinet. They may also be a guide to her thinking as she ponders a future run for the presidency with favorability ratings that are the highest of her career, even after her last months at the State Department were marred by the deadly attack on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Secretary Clinton has dramatically changed the face of U.S. foreign policy globally for the good, said Richard L. Armitage, deputy secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration. But I wish she had been unleashed more by the White House.
In an administration often faulted for its timidity abroad, Clinton wanted to lead from the front, not from behind, said Vali R. Nasr, a former State Department adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan who is now the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
The Petraeus-Clinton program was a more direct covert arming of the opposition.
It's a minor difference, but a difference. Since Spring 2011 the policy has been to provide "non-lethal" aid -- coordination, logistics, supplies, money,and attendant vetting of opposition groups, but not to directly arm the rebel groups. Anyone we approved had to go to the Qataris or other sources for their weapons.
The reported movement of SA-7 and other heavy arms from Libya to Turkey that was exposed by the Benghazi attack, however, showed the US was at least tolerating escalation of the arms trade in areas such as Eastern Libya supposedly under our control, and the use of these by Jihadist groups showed we weren't all that particular about who got them and how they were used.
After Benghazi, there was a reevaluation of the existing covert arms program, and a decision to back-off to some degree until some greater controls could be imposed. I believe that program evaluation -- the cutoff of some Saudi-supported Salafist groups -- resulted in a sharper rift within the Administration than is publicly admitted, and led to the departures of those who were pushing the previous program.
Some more of the particulars of those events surrounding Benghazi and the policy rift were made public in February: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/politics/panetta-speaks-to-senate-panel-on-benghazi-attack.html?_r=1&
WASHINGTON In his first term, President Obama presided over an administration known for its lack of open dissension on critical foreign policy issues.
Related:
Facing Congress, Clinton Defends Her Actions Before and After Libya Attack (January 24, 2013)
Clearing the Record About Benghazi (October 18, 2012)
4 Are Out at State Dept. After Scathing Report on Benghazi Attack (December 20, 2012)
But on 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.
How many more have to die before you recommend military action? Mr. McCain asked Mr. Panetta on Thursday, noting that an estimated 60,000 Syrians had been killed in the fighting. And did the Pentagon, Mr. McCain continued, support the recommendation by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?
We did, Mr. Panetta said.
You did support that, Mr. McCain said.
We did, General Dempsey added.
Neither Mr. Panetta nor General Dempsey explained why President Obama did not heed their recommendation. But senior American officials have said that the White House was worried about the risks of becoming more deeply involved in the Syria crisis, including the possibility that weapons could fall into the wrong hands. And with Mr. Obama in the middle of a re-election campaign, the White House rebuffed the plan, a decision that Mr. Panetta says he now accepts. With the exception of General Dempsey, the officials who favored arming the rebels have either left the administration or, as in Mr. Panettas case, are about to depart. Given that turnover, it is perhaps not surprising that the details of the debate an illustration of the degree that foreign policy decisions have been centralized in the White House are surfacing only now. A White House spokesman declined to comment on Thursday.
The plan that Mr. Petraeus developed, and that Mrs. Clinton supported, called for vetting rebels and training a cadre of fighters who would be supplied with weapons. The plan would have enlisted the help of a neighboring state. The proposal offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies for the United States during the conflict and if President Bashar al-Assad is removed. Some administration officials expected the issue to be revisited after the election. But when Mr. Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Mrs. Clinton suffered a concussion, missing weeks of work, the issue was shelved.
Related:
Facing Congress, Clinton Defends Her Actions Before and After Libya Attack (January 24, 2013)
Clearing the Record About Benghazi (October 18, 2012)
4 Are Out at State Dept. After Scathing Report on Benghazi Attack (December 20, 2012)
But on 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.
How many more have to die before you recommend military action? Mr. McCain asked Mr. Panetta on Thursday, noting that an estimated 60,000 Syrians had been killed in the fighting. And did the Pentagon, Mr. McCain continued, support the recommendation by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?
We did, Mr. Panetta said.
You did support that, Mr. McCain said.
We did, General Dempsey added.
Neither Mr. Panetta nor General Dempsey explained why President Obama did not heed their recommendation. But senior American officials have said that the White House was worried about the risks of becoming more deeply involved in the Syria crisis, including the possibility that weapons could fall into the wrong hands. And with Mr. Obama in the middle of a re-election campaign, the White House rebuffed the plan, a decision that Mr. Panetta says he now accepts. With the exception of General Dempsey, the officials who favored arming the rebels have either left the administration or, as in Mr. Panettas case, are about to depart. Given that turnover, it is perhaps not surprising that the details of the debate an illustration of the degree that foreign policy decisions have been centralized in the White House are surfacing only now. A White House spokesman declined to comment on Thursday.
The plan that Mr. Petraeus developed, and that Mrs. Clinton supported, called for vetting rebels and training a cadre of fighters who would be supplied with weapons. The plan would have enlisted the help of a neighboring state. The proposal offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies for the United States during the conflict and if President Bashar al-Assad is removed. Some administration officials expected the issue to be revisited after the election. But when Mr. Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Mrs. Clinton suffered a concussion, missing weeks of work, the issue was shelved.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
90 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
Slate: Liberal Amnesia - Obama supporters may have forgotten how much they once despised Hillary [View all]
RiverLover
Feb 2015
OP
There are a lot of people here who do not want US to have opinions. They seem to think only THEY c
sabrina 1
Feb 2015
#73
Actually, I was agreein w/ you Mary re where HC's loyalties lie & the premise of YOUR post that candidates shouldn't be forced on us...
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#85
No problem & I appreciate your dilemma. I too am struggling w/ what to do if Hillary, by some miracle, hoodwinks primary voters & wins the nomination.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#87
retracted -- while i dont agree with you, the name calling was not called for
Romeo.lima333
Feb 2015
#69
I think it's a safe guess that you're much closer to Romney ideologically than the poster you're responding to.
Broward
Feb 2015
#66
So if we oppose Hillary's policies we "despise" her. Sounds like bullshit. I admire the woman ...
Scuba
Feb 2015
#7
Exactly, opposing much of what Hillary stands for does not equate with hating her personally. It's a false argument that exposes the weak position of those making it.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#79
LOL dontcha know, ur required 2 work 4 Hillary if she's the nominee lest u be labeled a "Hillary hater"! (/sarcasm)
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#88
It was a Primary between two virtually identical candidates, each a tad on the anti equality side of
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2015
#13
No thanks. I would rather stoke fights between republicans than between Democrats. n/t
pampango
Feb 2015
#15
+1. I never "hated" Hillary, and as long as she dumps her old campaign team, I'll support her. nt
Tarheel_Dem
Feb 2015
#76
Could you really be "astounded" by a candidate who, as Charlie Pierce put it,
KingCharlemagne
Feb 2015
#60
This bs is so divisive, and to post it on a site called Democratic Underground...
JaneyVee
Feb 2015
#20
+1. The motive is clear, especially since HRC hasn't even announced she's running.
Tarheel_Dem
Feb 2015
#78
Yeah, well, I was a strong Hillary supporter who had no problem with supporting Obama once
NYC Liberal
Feb 2015
#26
Obama supporters have proved to be far more pragmatic than media shitheads
alcibiades_mystery
Feb 2015
#30
I was a Hillary supporter and I think that true to a certain extent. But there was no difference
Autumn
Feb 2015
#32
Like Dean supporters before them, many Obama supporters were new to the process
wyldwolf
Feb 2015
#40
Not until she was Secretary of State was she truly despicable. Previously, she was just an opport-
leveymg
Feb 2015
#53
Obama's 2008 theory of politics has been discredited and Clinton's vindicated
geek tragedy
Feb 2015
#63