Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

Now if you believe that in the times we live in Clinton did not know his remarks were being taped, you also believe that he did not inhale while a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. Speaking to Senator McCain, Clinton added: “Some people say, ‘Okay, see what a big mess it is? Stay out!’ I think that’s a big mistake. I agree with you about this,” he told McCain. “Sometimes it’s just best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit — like, as long as you don’t make an improvident commitment.”

On Friday morning, during an interview segment (beginning at 5:21 on the video) on Morning Joe, Clinton added that he thought Obama had done the right thing by announcing that he would supply arms to the rebels, and that he was rightfully being cautious about making public what exactly he would do while thinking through the problem. “We should support the rebel groups more vigorously,” Clinton said, adding that the administration
is “now exploring its options,” given that there are “logistical complications.” The administration, he argued, “is trending in the right direction now.” On balance, he said, “this should be seen as a positive story,” referring to the administration’s announcement about military aid to the rebels.

In his statement to the McCain conference, Clinton said that since the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah are all in Syria “head over heels,” the U.S. has to act to slow their gains and give the rebels “a decent chance,” since they represent the majority of the Syrian people. Clinton warned that “we shouldn’t over-learn the lessons of the past,” and that unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, no one favored sending in troops. He compared the situation favorably to Reagan’s aid to the muhajadeen in Afghanistan when, he said, the U.S. “got an enormous amount of influence and gratitude by helping to topple the Soviet-backed regime” and failed to stay the course after the Soviet defeat.

Clinton warned, and here he was clearly distancing himself from the Obama policy, that if Obama did not act because polls showed the public did not want any kind of intervention, he would risk looking “like a total wuss.”  All the American people were saying, he argued, was that the U.S. should “be careful” before acting. The president, he argued, should try to sell the correct course of action to the people.

His implication was clear: Obama should have taken Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s advice when General Petraeus still was head of the CIA, and favored military aid to a pro-U.S. rebel group. His stance also allows his wife, should she choose to run for president, to publicly criticize Obama’s foreign policy and to advocate her own more activist position.

We now, given Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy the past few years, have reached the worst possible place to be in. Iran is gaining ground in the region and, with Russia’s support the aid of Hezbollah, has all but assured an Assad victory over the rebels.  Our secretary of State is running with hat in hand to Vladimir Putin, hoping to put together a conference to end the bloodshed on Russia’s terms, leading to a greater weakening of the U.S. position in the world. And the rebels we now say we will aid are as radical and bloodthirsty as the regime they seek to overthrow. Any outcome is likely to be anything but positive.

Let us hope the next few years move quickly and that the next commander-in-chief will act boldly to restore the reputation of the United States as a nation that uses its weight and power for good in the world.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"Let us hope the next few years move quickly and that the next commander-in-chief will act boldly to restore the reputation of the United States as a nation that uses its weight and power for good in the world."

Intervening on the side of the Shariah loving and Christian hating "rebels" would not be for good in the world, unless your idea of good in the world is to have as much Saria and as many dead Christians as possible.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (31)
All Comments   (31)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Be rest assured Jimmy Obama will make the wrong choice.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
These imbeciles are making the same mistakes they made with Morsi in Egypt. America should never have gotten in bed with the mooslim bruthahood as we are now on the verge of supporting the same damn terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. You cannot make this $h!t up...unbelievable. Mooslim Spring, huh? More like "modern caliphate spring." John McCain's senile a$$ is trying to save whatever credibility he thinks he still has by supporting the Ayatollah of the Potomac as he kisses the a$$ of our Saudi "allies" during this whole pathetic episode.

Stop supplying arms to terrorists and instead - kill them. Leave Assad alone before we have another Egypt (sans an American friendly dictator-Mubarak) on our hands sucking military aid from us while planning to support terrorists to attack us! Our government is absolutely atrocious and insane.

My God, how did it come to this? Oh yeah, all those "conservatives" who said Romney was as bad as Dear Leader in the White Mosque and did not vote....OK, it's not ALL their fault, but, damn, they sure helped.

Remember Benghazi!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Stop blaming the "conservatives" for Romney's failure to run a competitive campaign. I'm sick of hearing you "moderates" pissing and moaning about your damn candidates not getting enough support; whose fault is that? When the Republican Establishment stops ramming RINO's down the conservative's throats, they might have a chance of winning an election.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm not a moderate and you can get as sick as you want. If you DO NOT VOTE because you want to sit at home pouting, sucking your thumb while wrapped in your binkie because the candidate wasn't everything you wanted him to be then don't get on here and b!tch about how bad this administration is you hypocrite.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No other President has ever tried to influence the policies of his successors -- except Jimmy Carter.

Now, Billy J. Clinton wants to send heavy weapons to al Q'aida .... al Q'aida - who killed 3,000 American civilians on 9/11/2001 (World Trade Center, Pentagon, Pennsylvania plane crash).

Clinton and Obama are out of their minds. Everyone in Syria hates our guts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Two points.

First, we "owe" Syria for their support of anti-American forces when we were in Iraq. They killed many Americans.

Second, it's really extremely simple, we should, if we are to intervene, intervene, give Assad 72 hours to present himself at some convenient location and if he does not, wipe out Damascus. Now, this hardly comprises our picking the winner, but the lesson for whoever takes over should be utterly clear, and thus things would tend to take care of themselves, and if not, rinse and repeat.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for centuries . Since this distracts them from killing christians, jews and hindus they should be encouraged to slaughter each other (they havent proven to be very good at anything else) . When Assad is strong we should help the rebels and when he is weak let the russian assist him . With any luck the war in Syria can go one for years to come.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There are no good options in Syria which is why the U.S. should stay completely out of this religious civil war. When two warring factions who are both, more or less, your enemy, why intervene? Let them slaughter each other. Yes I know that the Syrian people will suffer; people are suffering all over the globe and isn't it amazing just how much of that world wide suffering is a direct result of Islamists. Giving aid to the so called "rebels" would basically be giving arms to al Queada, the very same organization that has been killing or trying to kill Americans for decades.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is a good option: Back the minority groups, especially the Christians, then keep the others fighting each other. When the two camps are mostly exhausted after a generation, put the Christians in charge.

Oh, right, this is America, the country which cannot see past the next election. A generational plan? Don't be absurd. The Dems will find some way to politicize it and blame the Republicans. We can no longer achieve victory in war, because we are fighting a Cold Civil War.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The lesson that should have been learned in Iraq and Afghanistan is that no faction in the Muslim world is or ever will be on our side. The Assad regime however has been more tolerant of minorities than the rebels promise to be, so why give aid to the rebels?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Because Assad is the ally of Iran, and thus, our enemy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yeah !

An the Democracy Rebels of the Free Syrian Army are al Q'aida.

You want to give aid to the people who killed 3,000 American civilians on 9/11?

Face it. Everyone in Syria hates us. No one will be our friend.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Michael Walzer's prerequisites are impossible. A radical Sunni government guarantee the rights of religious minorities?! Are you kidding? Get a fox to guarantee the rights of hens while you're at it.

Walzer says "the US must 'pick a winner.'" I think we should pick a loser -- Iran's mullahcracy. With any luck we'll have a president in 2016 who will work with Israel to achieve that outcome.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The reason POTUS is able to 'lead from behind' is because he
has his head up his ass.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All