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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: White House rebuffed Clinton-Petraeus plan to arm Syrian rebels: report [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)18. Rather, she's a politically sophisticated and aggressive neocon with close ties to the Gulf Arabs
as well as Israel. She has long been among the most hawkish major Washington figures pushing for confrontation with Iran.
As the NYT pointed out, as Secretary of State, she worked hand-in-hand with Petraeus toward the surge in Afghanistan and a US intervention in Syria, which they wanted carved up like Yugoslavia. Mrs. Clinton saw a legacy of regime change across MENA-South Asia, in close alliance with the Saudis and Sunni Arab states, as the capstone of her tenure as SoS:
In Afghanistan, several officials said, Mrs. Clinton hungered for a success on the order of the Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian War. But when her special representative, Richard C. Holbrooke, who had negotiated that agreement, fell out of favor with the White House and later died, those dreams died with him.
Then came the Arab awakening . . . and it plunged Mrs. Clinton into a maelstrom. It tested her loyalty to longtime allies like President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and reinforced her conviction that anger at decades of stagnation, fueled by social media, would sweep aside the old order in the Arab world.
After Britain and France argued for intervening to defend Libyas rebels against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mrs. Clinton played an important role in mobilizing a broad international coalition and persuading the White House to join the NATO-led operation.
But it was Syria that proved to be the most difficult test. As that country descended into civil war, the administration provided humanitarian aid to the growing flood of refugees, pushed for sanctions and sought to organize the political opposition. The United States lagged France, Britain and Persian Gulf states in recognizing that opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syria people, but by December, Mr. Obama had taken that step.
Still, rebel fighters were clamoring for weapons and training. The White House has been reluctant to arm them for fear that it would draw the United States into the conflict and raise the risk of the weapons falling into the wrong hands. Rebel extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda had faced no such constraints in securing weapons from their backers.
When Mr. Petraeus was the commander of forces in Iraq and then-Senator Clinton was serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee and preparing for her 2008 presidential bid, she had all but called him a liar for trumpeting the military gains of the troop increase ordered by President Bush. But serving together in the Obama administration, they were allies when it came to Syria, as well as on the debate over how many troops to send to Afghanistan at the beginning of the administration.
Then came the Arab awakening . . . and it plunged Mrs. Clinton into a maelstrom. It tested her loyalty to longtime allies like President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and reinforced her conviction that anger at decades of stagnation, fueled by social media, would sweep aside the old order in the Arab world.
After Britain and France argued for intervening to defend Libyas rebels against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mrs. Clinton played an important role in mobilizing a broad international coalition and persuading the White House to join the NATO-led operation.
But it was Syria that proved to be the most difficult test. As that country descended into civil war, the administration provided humanitarian aid to the growing flood of refugees, pushed for sanctions and sought to organize the political opposition. The United States lagged France, Britain and Persian Gulf states in recognizing that opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syria people, but by December, Mr. Obama had taken that step.
Still, rebel fighters were clamoring for weapons and training. The White House has been reluctant to arm them for fear that it would draw the United States into the conflict and raise the risk of the weapons falling into the wrong hands. Rebel extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda had faced no such constraints in securing weapons from their backers.
When Mr. Petraeus was the commander of forces in Iraq and then-Senator Clinton was serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee and preparing for her 2008 presidential bid, she had all but called him a liar for trumpeting the military gains of the troop increase ordered by President Bush. But serving together in the Obama administration, they were allies when it came to Syria, as well as on the debate over how many troops to send to Afghanistan at the beginning of the administration.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 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

White House rebuffed Clinton-Petraeus plan to arm Syrian rebels: report [View all]
Drunken Irishman
Feb 2013
OP
My big reservation about her, too. There is no way Kerry or Hagel would
TwilightGardener
Feb 2013
#14
The NYT article looked like it came from Clinton people - giving her credit for any Obama successes
Pirate Smile
Feb 2013
#53
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
Who cares if you're confusing simplistic movie fantasy with the real world?
JackRiddler
Feb 2013
#28
But aren't the fascists the rebels? Don't they want to be more like the west? nt
kelliekat44
Feb 2013
#40
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
Rather, she's a politically sophisticated and aggressive neocon with close ties to the Gulf Arabs
leveymg
Feb 2013
#18
Indeed good to see Obama use his own judgment and avoiding a "reckless adventure"
pampango
Feb 2013
#8
I've been telling you this is what happened. Bengahazi was blow-back from that operation.
leveymg
Feb 2013
#11
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
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
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