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


(36,418 posts)
12. Yes. Hillary, too. She was the real mover behind the Libya-Syria regime change operation.
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:06 AM
Feb 2013

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. Clinton’s 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. Obama’s 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.
Oh sweet Jesus. Please do better, John Kerry. TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #1
Hillary has always been one of the biggest hawks in the administration. Jennicut Feb 2013 #9
My big reservation about her, too. There is no way Kerry or Hagel would TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #14
Yeah probably only second to Obama lol. nt BootinUp Feb 2013 #26
Obviously not. Obama said no. Pirate Smile Feb 2013 #38
So you bought it hook line and sinker. BootinUp Feb 2013 #39
The NYT article looked like it came from Clinton people - giving her credit for any Obama successes Pirate Smile Feb 2013 #53
Like I said... Biden/Unnamed sources 2016! lol. BootinUp Feb 2013 #56
Biden in 2016? Beacool Feb 2013 #58
deja vu AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #64
Biden ain't Obama. Beacool Feb 2013 #65
and Hillary ain't no Cleopatra. Whisp Feb 2013 #79
Rand Paul says the US is already arming Syrian rebels through a Libya-Turkey-Syria pipeline. pampango Feb 2013 #63
Hopefully just a crackpot theory. But I will argue that today's story, that TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #66
Apparently Rand Paul does not think that the arms plan was 'rebuffed' by President Obama. pampango Feb 2013 #69
The only pipe involved in that ^^^ is the one Rand Paul is smoking. nt cstanleytech Feb 2013 #67
'Cause you know how much Turkey wants heavily-armed rebels living next door. Scootaloo Feb 2013 #76
who cares if Arabs are murdered by their own government! Deep13 Feb 2013 #2
Who cares if England had aided the confederacy? Ash_F Feb 2013 #7
Who cares if the governor of Cloud City is aiding those Jedi rebels? Bucky Feb 2013 #17
Who cares if you're confusing simplistic movie fantasy with the real world? JackRiddler Feb 2013 #28
Thank you for taking the time and effort to reply. Bucky Feb 2013 #33
What? Deep13 Feb 2013 #27
But aren't the fascists the rebels? Don't they want to be more like the west? nt kelliekat44 Feb 2013 #40
Depends what "be more like the West" means. Deep13 Feb 2013 #50
Well, you need to John2 Feb 2013 #48
Well yeah, the USA's and the UK's imperialism... Deep13 Feb 2013 #52
Every civil war has a government killing it's own people Ash_F Feb 2013 #61
Apparently not you, if the Arabs are in Bahrain. JackRiddler Feb 2013 #29
Yeah, we should not be supporting those regimes. nt Deep13 Feb 2013 #30
Or setting up the next regimes, either. JackRiddler Feb 2013 #34
So what's the alternative? Deep13 Feb 2013 #37
Wrong question, wrong time. JackRiddler Feb 2013 #57
Exactly!!! Beacool Feb 2013 #43
So is this the true reason Petraeus was fired? DFLforever Feb 2013 #3
Maybe just his idea was alarming enough to Obama--but I tend to think TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #4
Could be. DFLforever Feb 2013 #6
Wasn't just an idea. The Benghazi incident was related to the pipeline to Syria. leveymg Feb 2013 #13
Yes. Hillary, too. She was the real mover behind the Libya-Syria regime change operation. leveymg Feb 2013 #12
She's just a knee-jerk interventionist, it sounds like. TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #15
Rather, she's a politically sophisticated and aggressive neocon with close ties to the Gulf Arabs leveymg Feb 2013 #18
And good for her for speaking up!!! Beacool Feb 2013 #44
Maybe Petraeus threw a temper tantrum when Obama said no. LiberalFighter Feb 2013 #59
maybe. Who were those people that were 'in command' with him. Whisp Feb 2013 #72
found the names: Fred and Kimberly Kagan (Hardball link) Whisp Feb 2013 #74
I'm glad Obama didn't go the reckless adventure route. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #5
Indeed good to see Obama use his own judgment and avoiding a "reckless adventure" pampango Feb 2013 #8
Me too, but for different reasons. Beacool Feb 2013 #45
Good. Socal31 Feb 2013 #10
Hindsight isn't always 20-20. Igel Feb 2013 #41
Sometimes hindsight is pretty darn close to 20-20 Socal31 Feb 2013 #47
I bet what happened in Egypt is exactly why Obama nixed this idea... Drunken Irishman Feb 2013 #49
I've been telling you this is what happened. Bengahazi was blow-back from that operation. leveymg Feb 2013 #11
No, she was going to step down anyway. Petraeus wasn't, but he was TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #16
She had tenure as SoS for one term. It's not clear she had decided to leave until after Benghazi. leveymg Feb 2013 #19
Yeah, that must be why Hillary had already announced that she didn't plan to stay for a second term Beacool Feb 2013 #46
She didn't make an official announcement until after Benghazi leveymg Feb 2013 #60
the uncertainty was stoked AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #62
She has some expert stokers. leveymg Feb 2013 #68
This story is about as reliable as something on Drudge. BootinUp Feb 2013 #20
I don't know who released it, or why. Or why now. TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #21
. BootinUp Feb 2013 #22
Do you find this story to be not credible? TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #23
1. There is no way to know BootinUp Feb 2013 #25
There's no way to know? JackRiddler Feb 2013 #32
How do you define secret policy? BootinUp Feb 2013 #36
It's Reuters citing the New York Times citing "unnamed Obama administration officials" Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #24
Seems like a trend lately, don't like the content of an article...tarnish the source regardless of Purveyor Feb 2013 #77
Well, if true, this shows I was right to support Obama in 2008. Mass Feb 2013 #31
And also if true, Arrowhead2k1 Feb 2013 #35
Oh, because things are going sooooo well in Syria. Beacool Feb 2013 #42
Just follow history. John2 Feb 2013 #55
Good for the president still_one Feb 2013 #51
It's 100% John Kerry's responsiblity now.Time for campaigning is over. Time for Job is now. graham4anything Feb 2013 #54
When did Kerry become President? That kind of decision is made by the President karynnj Feb 2013 #71
Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation: Good Riddance to Warmonger Hillary Clinton antigop Feb 2013 #70
Petraeus, thankfully, is gone. And Hillary Clinton, Obama’s hawk, is gone, too. Whisp Feb 2013 #73
Yeah, let's just stand by and watch Assad decimate the rest of his country. Beacool Feb 2013 #75
Considering how well Egypt and Libya went…… MrSlayer Feb 2013 #78
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»White House rebuffed Clin...»Reply #12