HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » White House rebuffed Clin...

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:47 PM

White House rebuffed Clinton-Petraeus plan to arm Syrian rebels: report

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A plan developed last summer by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus to arm and train Syrian rebels was rebuffed by the White House, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

The United States has sent humanitarian aid to Syria but has declined requests for weapons by rebels fighting to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The White House rejected the Clinton-Petraeus proposal over concerns it could draw the United States into the Syrian conflict and the arms could fall into the wrong hands, the Times said, citing unnamed Obama administration officials.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-rebuffed-clinton-petraeus-plan-arm-syrian-023937923.html

79 replies, 8127 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply White House rebuffed Clinton-Petraeus plan to arm Syrian rebels: report (Original post)
Drunken Irishman Feb 2013 OP
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #1
Jennicut Feb 2013 #9
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #14
BootinUp Feb 2013 #26
Pirate Smile Feb 2013 #38
BootinUp Feb 2013 #39
Pirate Smile Feb 2013 #53
BootinUp Feb 2013 #56
Beacool Feb 2013 #58
AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #64
Beacool Feb 2013 #65
Whisp Feb 2013 #79
pampango Feb 2013 #63
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #66
pampango Feb 2013 #69
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #67
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #76
Deep13 Feb 2013 #2
Ash_F Feb 2013 #7
Bucky Feb 2013 #17
JackRiddler Feb 2013 #28
Bucky Feb 2013 #33
Deep13 Feb 2013 #27
kelliekat44 Feb 2013 #40
Deep13 Feb 2013 #50
John2 Feb 2013 #48
Deep13 Feb 2013 #52
Ash_F Feb 2013 #61
JackRiddler Feb 2013 #29
Deep13 Feb 2013 #30
JackRiddler Feb 2013 #34
Deep13 Feb 2013 #37
JackRiddler Feb 2013 #57
Beacool Feb 2013 #43
DFLforever Feb 2013 #3
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #4
DFLforever Feb 2013 #6
leveymg Feb 2013 #13
leveymg Feb 2013 #12
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #15
leveymg Feb 2013 #18
Beacool Feb 2013 #44
LiberalFighter Feb 2013 #59
Whisp Feb 2013 #72
Whisp Feb 2013 #74
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #5
pampango Feb 2013 #8
Beacool Feb 2013 #45
Socal31 Feb 2013 #10
Igel Feb 2013 #41
Socal31 Feb 2013 #47
Drunken Irishman Feb 2013 #49
leveymg Feb 2013 #11
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #16
leveymg Feb 2013 #19
Beacool Feb 2013 #46
leveymg Feb 2013 #60
AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #62
leveymg Feb 2013 #68
BootinUp Feb 2013 #20
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #21
LineLineLineReply .
BootinUp Feb 2013 #22
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #23
BootinUp Feb 2013 #25
JackRiddler Feb 2013 #32
BootinUp Feb 2013 #36
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #24
Purveyor Feb 2013 #77
Mass Feb 2013 #31
Arrowhead2k1 Feb 2013 #35
Beacool Feb 2013 #42
John2 Feb 2013 #55
still_one Feb 2013 #51
graham4anything Feb 2013 #54
karynnj Feb 2013 #71
antigop Feb 2013 #70
Whisp Feb 2013 #73
Beacool Feb 2013 #75
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #78

Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:48 PM

1. Oh sweet Jesus. Please do better, John Kerry.

Edit to add: Panetta was "sympathetic" to the idea. So Obama's SoS, his CIA chief and his SecDef all were interested in arming the rebels. Biden must have been, once again, the dissenting voice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:07 AM

9. Hillary has always been one of the biggest hawks in the administration.

It is my biggest reservation about her possibly running for President. She was a big proponent for the Afghan surge in 2009. Biden was against it and probably wary of this too. I hope he, Hagel and Kerry will be less inclined to want us to get involved too deep into situations like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennicut (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:33 AM

14. My big reservation about her, too. There is no way Kerry or Hagel would

have pushed for something like this, IMO--and I don't think Biden did. Obama has solid judgment, but he still needs good advisors. I wonder what John Brennan would have done as CIA chief, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennicut (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:58 PM

26. Yeah probably only second to Obama lol. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #26)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:40 PM

38. Obviously not. Obama said no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pirate Smile (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:44 PM

39. So you bought it hook line and sinker.

Biden/Unnamed sources 2016!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:35 PM

53. The NYT article looked like it came from Clinton people - giving her credit for any Obama successes

and claiming things that aren't going well - it's because Obama didn't do what she wanted.

Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pirate Smile (Reply #53)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:32 PM

56. Like I said... Biden/Unnamed sources 2016! lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:03 AM

58. Biden in 2016?

One way to ensure a Republican win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:57 PM

65. Biden ain't Obama.

I haven't seen you in a while Kitten. I see that you're still showing your claws.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #65)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:21 PM

79. and Hillary ain't no Cleopatra.

 

have you heard about that one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:48 PM

63. Rand Paul says the US is already arming Syrian rebels through a Libya-Turkey-Syria pipeline.

Rand Paul Pushes Gun-Running Conspiracy (Libya to Turkey to Syria) Theory During Benghazi Hearing.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) used today’s hearing on the Benghazi attack to confront Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about a conspiracy theory involving moving guns from Libya to Syrian rebels.

Paul, a new member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wasted no time in making a mark on the proceedings. After informing Secretary Clinton that he would have fired her for her role in the response to the attack, Paul came seemingly out of nowhere to ask Clinton about Turkey. “Is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?” he asked.

A clearly confused Clinton responded to the best of her ability:

CLINTON: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.

PAUL: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?




Paul’s inquiry about Turkey seems less odd if you’re familiar with Glenn Beck-inspired conspiracy theories that have been circulating among right-wing websites since the attacks in Libya. The theory goes that Ambassador Chris Stevens — who was killed during the attack — was deeply involved in the CIA project of gathering loose arms in Libya in the aftermath of Moammar Qaddafi’s downfall. Stevens then facilitated the movement of those arms from Libya to Turkey, where they then went on to Syria. The secrecy involved in moving those weapons under the table is part of why the Obama administration covered up the truth of the attack, according to the theory, which even Fox News has helped spread.

The Obama administration has repeatedly said that it will not be providing arms to the rebels in Syria, which this theory claims to counter. While the CIA was involved with helping round up the loose arms that were rampant in Libya, there is no evidence that Stevens or the State Department was involved in the operation, nor that the arms were then shipped to Syria. That Sen. Paul would use his first hearing on the Foreign Relations Committee to push this theory, despite the fact even if it were true it would fall outside of Secretary Clinton’s purview, does not say great things about his future on the body.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/23/1485661/rand-paul-conspiracy-theory-libya/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:01 PM

66. Hopefully just a crackpot theory. But I will argue that today's story, that

Hillary and Petraeus collaborated on an arms plan, would contradict Think Progress's assertion that the Turkey/Syria gun-running conspiracy wouldn't be in the SoS's "purview". Obviously, Clinton was involving herself with a similar plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #66)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:29 PM

69. Apparently Rand Paul does not think that the arms plan was 'rebuffed' by President Obama.

Paul seems to believe that Patraeus and Clinton not only came up with a plan to present to Obama as a policy option, but actually implemented the plan with or without presidential approval. I agree that the OP does show that this was definitely in Clinton's purview.

Paul's story is that the mystery ships with these arms are real. Perhaps he and Glenn Beck are right about this one, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:04 PM

67. The only pipe involved in that ^^^ is the one Rand Paul is smoking. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #63)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:25 AM

76. 'Cause you know how much Turkey wants heavily-armed rebels living next door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:53 PM

2. who cares if Arabs are murdered by their own government!

Who cares if the USA would never have won independence without military aid from France.

more spinelessness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:00 AM

7. Who cares if England had aided the confederacy?

Do you actually understand the politics of the situation you want to kill people over?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:52 AM

17. Who cares if the governor of Cloud City is aiding those Jedi rebels?

Sorry. I type before I think sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:00 PM

28. Who cares if you're confusing simplistic movie fantasy with the real world?

I don't!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:06 PM

33. Thank you for taking the time and effort to reply.

It shows you care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:58 PM

27. What?

Yes, but I am not interested in the politics. I am interested in people. They are being killed anyway. The question is will it be a fair fight or will the fascists brutally reimpose control? How many refugees do you think the impoverished Kingdom of Jordan can absorb? They already absorbed thousands during the Iraq war. I saw the new housing for them built on what used to be part of Jordan's limited farmland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #27)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:07 PM

40. But aren't the fascists the rebels? Don't they want to be more like the west? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #40)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:27 PM

50. Depends what "be more like the West" means.

My understanding is they wanted more personal freedom, not an all-controlling state which is what they already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #27)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:01 PM

48. Well, you need to

 

understand the politics because the politics is aligned with different interests of the people. And the interests of the people are which groups control the resources, for example land. We have a double standard when it comes to the interests of Israel. Some of it is religion also. The U.S. primarily got in the Middle East after World War II. Before World War II, we had no interests in that part of the World. The only Western nations that had an interest were Great Britain and France.

Great Britain inherited the old Ottoman Empire which included Palestine. Jordan was also part of that Ottoman Empire. After World War II, Britain was pressured by President Truman to abdicate the responsibilty for a Jewish homeland to the United States. The Arabs opposed it, and that is what caused the Six Days War. That is the War, Israel occupied territory.

The Arabs are very divided because of their religious views. Our interests has also become oil. It is why we are allied with certain Arab Kingdoms that are not democracies. When it comes to the choice between resources and human rights, I don't think some in our government would be called saints, regarding their past history. We don't have some respect human rights in our own country if you look at our past Civil War and history. And we did have a Policy called Manifest Destiny when it came to the native Americans. And nobody whichever side Americans choose to arm, there will be atrocities for revenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:33 PM

52. Well yeah, the USA's and the UK's imperialism...

...casts a large shadow over the Middle East. One reason why Islamist movements are so popular is because they are seen as anti-western. I'm aware that the driving interests of the US govt there is to secure oil. American hegemony depends on it. Still, whatever their motives might be--and they are probably mixed--and whatever sins of imperialism this country commits/committed (more than we can elucidate here--I am thinking of the 1951 CIA overthrown of Iran's democratic govt.) it sure seems like doing nothing is the worst possible choice. I think Obama knows that, but will not risk pissing off the Russians.

So, ordinary people suffer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:41 AM

61. Every civil war has a government killing it's own people

In every civil war there are citizens in both sides fighting, believing they are right. So it is ridiculous to get take a side in war and killing if you do not understand why they are doing it to each other. You might find that you do not support the side you took in the end.

If you knew your history, you would not need to say "what". Long story short, England almost supported the South militarily during the war, and with that the French would have followed suit. I'm sure you realize that would have been tragic for this country.

The reason for British and French support of the South was their Elites' lust for cotton, which was the oil of the era. But thanks to diplomatic bungling of the south(surprise) and the concerted international efforts of abolitionists, such as Harriet Beecher Stowe and others, in making the politics of the situation known, support among academics and the masses was too low for either the British or French to escalate.

The moral of the story is not to ignorantly start killing people in a conflict. Statements along the lines of "they are killing their own people" and "all controlling government" don't really mean anything. They could be applied to literally every civil war ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:04 PM

29. Apparently not you, if the Arabs are in Bahrain.

Howzabout before we arm more Middle East factions we stop arming governments who are among the primary murderers, like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and oh yeah, theonlydemocracyintheMiddleEast (if you're not an occupied Arab).

Howzabout we stop arming everyone, for that matter. The spinelessness is in continuing to kowtow to a war-on-terror view of the universe, with all the bogus excuses for the permanent burgeoning National Security state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #29)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:05 PM

30. Yeah, we should not be supporting those regimes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:09 PM

34. Or setting up the next regimes, either.

Which is what support for rebel factions amounts to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #34)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:56 PM

37. So what's the alternative?

Doing nothing effectively supports the Assad regime. There are no consequence-neutral actions or inactions. And the longer the civil war drags on, the more radicalized each side will get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 07:44 PM

57. Wrong question, wrong time.

Funny how people don't ask that all the years that the arms were flowing to the Gulf (many of which are now flowing on to Syria from the Gulf States), or to Saddam before the '91 war. The alternative is indeed not to intervene and to press for a peace conference. Many people will die pointlessly in either scenario. There are a dozen other wars right now in which the US is not intervening. Interventions almost always cause more problems than they solve. It sucks but the world would have been a better place if the great powers could have reined themselves in generally the last few decades. Anything that justifies the great power war machines and makes them think "intervention is effective" is a long-run bane on humanity, because in the end it will lead to the next Vietnam, the next Algeria, the next Iraq. And because it justifies the epic waste of the military industrial complex. The alternative is for the US to stop exporting arms -- do it by pressing for an international ban. Only the one who controls 2/3 of the market currently can lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:22 PM

43. Exactly!!!

It was election time, that was far more important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:38 AM

3. So is this the true reason Petraeus was fired?

CIA was covertly arming Syrian rebels?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFLforever (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:56 AM

4. Maybe just his idea was alarming enough to Obama--but I tend to think

it was the affair and loss of control of classified material. I don't know how he'd keep his security clearance after it came out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:19 AM

6. Could be.

I read on-line a few months ago (sorry, no link) that 4 of the last 5 CIA directors were know to have had affairs and none of them was fired. But maybe they didn't mix their personal affairs with classified information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:09 AM

13. Wasn't just an idea. The Benghazi incident was related to the pipeline to Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFLforever (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:06 AM

12. 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. 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:35 AM

15. She's just a knee-jerk interventionist, it sounds like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:06 AM

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 Libya’s 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:24 PM

44. And good for her for speaking up!!!

There are wars and there are wars. Sometimes the moral thing IS to stick one's neck out and help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFLforever (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:22 AM

59. Maybe Petraeus threw a temper tantrum when Obama said no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #59)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:58 PM

72. maybe. Who were those people that were 'in command' with him.

 

Authorized by Petraeus to be privy to some sensitive information... damn, I forgot the details but that may be tied in to this as well. What were their names and who were they really working for? I don't know how to start google on this one.

Never believed Petraeus quit over his dicking, there was something else going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #72)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:48 PM

74. found the names: Fred and Kimberly Kagan (Hardball link)

 

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/19/gen-petraeus-neo-con-connection-is-really-strange/

I’d like to know why General Petraeus was taking day-to-day advice from people on the other side of the Iraq war argument.

Fred and Kimberly Kagan are hawks. They share the ideology of those who backed the Iraq War. Why are they on the inside of an administration elected based on its opposition to the Iraq war?

I am one of those who believed from square one that the war in Iraq was an ideological war pushed from the outset by those who wanted us to overthrow the Iraq government and install ourselves in Baghdad. They got their way under a less-than-informed President, George W. Bush. Now we discover that a pair of them, the Kagans, have been right there in the room with the head of the Afghan mission, advising him every step of the way.

Why? Why did General Petraeus assume the right to allow people who represent the very opposite of President Obama’s philosophy to advise him? What agenda was his seeking here? What was he buying into? Was he buying into the hawkish agenda of those who advocated war on Iraq in the first place? If so, why was he working for President Obama who stood out there against that war?

---etc.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/19/neocons-guided-petraeus-on-afghan-war/

Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War
December 19, 2012

Exclusive: Gen. David Petraeus was so cozy with neocon think-tankers that he ensconced two of them in his Afghan War command and granted them top-secret access to U.S. military policy. One later leveraged Petraeus’s friendship to impress military contractors for funding support, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Even after the Iraq War disaster and Barack Obama’s election in 2008, neoconservatives retained their influence over U.S. war policies in Afghanistan through their close ties to George W. Bush’s national security holdovers, such as Gen. David Petraeus who partnered with neocon war hawks in escalating the Afghan War.

How tight Petraeus’s relationship was with two neocons in particular, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, was explored Wednesday in a Washington Post article by war correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran who described how Petraeus installed the husband-and-wife team in U.S. offices in Kabul, granted them top-secret clearances and let them berate military officers about war strategy.

Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW’s 2011 Annual Report)

Though the Kagans received no pay from the U.S. government, they drew salaries from their respective think tanks which are supported by large corporations, including military contractors with interests in extending the Afghan War. Frederick Kagan works for the American Enterprise Institute, and Kimberly Kagan founded the Institute for the Study of War in 2007 and is its current president.

----
from the commentary on that article:

It’s much worse – the whole Kagan clan is involved. Fred was the architect of the surge while his wife Kimberly penned an article in the Weekly Standard discussing how successful it was and of course Fox Noise parroted it. Robert Kagan, Fred’s brother, was an editor at the Standard at the time. Later, Hillary Clinton appointed Victoria Nuland, Robert’s wife as State spokesperson. Victoria served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and then as U.S. ambassador to NATO. Robert admitted in a Q&A interview last March that he was serving in Hillary’s State department while at the same time “advising” Mitt Romney....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:18 AM

5. I'm glad Obama didn't go the reckless adventure route.

Hillary's idea, huh? I'll keep that in mind down the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:56 AM

8. Indeed good to see Obama use his own judgment and avoiding a "reckless adventure"

without UN authorization even in the face of recommendations from most of his foreign policy team.

Bookmarked to note Obama's judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:24 PM

45. Me too, but for different reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:09 AM

10. Good.

The Syrian rebels are cooperating with fringe fundie-Islamic militias that would turn those weapons on US interests as soon as they had the chance.

The French learned this lesson in Mali, when I am sure more than one French soldier and local civilian died by someone with CIA/SoF weapons or training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:15 PM

41. Hindsight isn't always 20-20.

One thing you need to do is separate out "what is" from "what probably would have been." It's hard to remember the state of affairs a year or more ago when that information keeps getting updated, "overwritten."

Take Syria. In the last year, Islamists have formed a bigger portion of the rebels, it would appear. Moreover, the country's been increasingly factionalized. That's in the last year.

What would have happened if lots of US support had gone into Syria? In the event of a quick victory, the Islamists would have been tag-alongs and not the movers or shakers they largely are now. Instead of braggart impotent secularists the secularists would be the BMOC.

Factional lines probably wouldn't be as entrenched, the hatred running so deep.

The only risk is that the secularists and moderates would have suffered the same fate as the Tuareg moderates in Mali. That we can't know.

But in hindsight, it's far from clear that this would have been a worse scenario and quite possible that the results would have been cleaner and more to the US's liking and Iran and Hezbollah's disliking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #41)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:59 PM

47. Sometimes hindsight is pretty darn close to 20-20

Egypt was a very similar situation. It was a much more natural revolution than Libya was or Syria is, and look how they turned out. Iran is thrilled. They are even making the first official state visit in years, and we are sending them more military machines.

In fact, you can look back on almost everything we have done since 2001 and say it was a bad idea, and apply those lessons to the future.

"Team America: World Police" was a satirical movie, unfortunately some people took it seriously, and now we get involved in every external conflict.

Nobody needs or appreciates our "help." The current Afghan Taliban and other Mujahadeen didn't just go out and buy weapons after the US invaded. They unburied the weapons that we supplied them and that the Russians abandoned from the last Superpower's brilliant idea to invade and try to set up their idea of how the country should be run. I wonder how many 18-35 year old Americans have been killed or maimed with weapons that we supplied directly or otherwise in Afghanistan.

You are correct, however. You can never know for sure what is going to happen. But you can look at very striking patterns in history to predict outcomes in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #47)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:04 PM

49. I bet what happened in Egypt is exactly why Obama nixed this idea...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:04 AM

11. I've been telling you this is what happened. Bengahazi was blow-back from that operation.

This also largely goes to why they've both been replaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:40 AM

16. No, she was going to step down anyway. Petraeus wasn't, but he was

also obviously embroiled in a scandal. Panetta can't wait to leave--he's been hankering for it for months. I don't think we can read too much into the departures--but you can see what Obama is thinking now, with his new cabinet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:13 AM

19. She had tenure as SoS for one term. It's not clear she had decided to leave until after Benghazi.

According to some, she was approached about the possibility of replacing Biden as VP as early as November, 2011. In August and early September there was still widespread speculation about that. After the Benghazi debacle, however, her end of service in the Obama Administration was mutually-assured.

A day after President Barack Obama was re-elected, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman announced that the U.S. Secretary of State will step down from her current role soon after the President’s second inauguration in January 2013. (Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336502#ixzz2Jr17KBdk)


She didn't officially announce her departure until just three weeks ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:26 PM

46. Yeah, that must be why Hillary had already announced that she didn't plan to stay for a second term

months before Benghazi. Check it out for yourself, Google is your friend.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:18 AM

60. She didn't make an official announcement until after Benghazi

Everything previously was just hints and speculation that go back to a Jan, 26, 2012 press conference when she said she was "tired". That statement was made at a time that rumours were flying that she was entertaining offers to take Joe Biden's slot as VP. That was reported in the CS Monitor the following day: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2012/0127/Hillary-Clinton-to-step-down-from-high-wire-of-US-diplomacy

At a State Department press conference yesterday, she announced that she would be stepping down from the “high wire of American politics” after 20 years, as first lady, as a senator from New York, and finally as US Secretary of State. At the press conference, she told reporters that “it would be a good idea to find out how tired I really am.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #62)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:20 PM

68. She has some expert stokers.

I will hand this to Hillary, she certainly understands power and the power of uncertainty, and has some of the most effective political cross-messagers in the business on her staff.

It's simply awesome how many people she's convinced to stop caring that she's utterly inconsistent in her positions and a complete contradiction in her politics.

She is the consummate post-ideological American politician of our age. That's exactly what is most fascinating and dislikable about her, but what makes her a highly effective political deal maker. She has some style, and clearly enjoys her work -- joi de vivre -- which is something that is all too rare. Is there a word for her sort of insouciance? Ambitious. Reckless. More than met her match, several times, but resilient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:03 PM

20. This story is about as reliable as something on Drudge.

The only thing it really means, is that some coward is attacking Clinton after she's gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:11 PM

21. I don't know who released it, or why. Or why now.

But it's Reuters, not a tabloid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:21 PM

22. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #22)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:29 PM

23. Do you find this story to be not credible?

Does it run counter to your beliefs about what SoS Clinton did in office?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:50 PM

25. 1. There is no way to know

and 2. if she was supporting something along those lines we will never know the details of it.

The only reason this is being reported is to hurt her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #25)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:06 PM

32. There's no way to know?

I think this should probably be the reason to get angry, don't you?

How is a democracy reconcilable with secret policy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:16 PM

36. How do you define secret policy?

I always thought a policy was some actual official kind of thing, not something that was being discussed. Do you want to put Hillary on some kind of mind reading device?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:39 PM

24. It's Reuters citing the New York Times citing "unnamed Obama administration officials"

The usual format for insider politics.

I take it you're a Hillary fan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:32 AM

77. Seems like a trend lately, don't like the content of an article...tarnish the source regardless of

it validity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:05 PM

31. Well, if true, this shows I was right to support Obama in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #31)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:09 PM

35. And also if true,

This shows who I'll be working against in the 2016 primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:21 PM

42. Oh, because things are going sooooo well in Syria.

Let's just let Assad and the regime annihilate whoever is left in Syria. The good old USA will just show up after the fact to make sure that our interests are protected. What's the latest count? 60,000? 100,000? Does the US really care?

Will Obama regret getting involved in Syria, just as Bill regretted not getting involved sooner in Rwanda? Time will tell.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/60-000-dead-in-syria-why-the-death-toll-is-likely-even-higher/266777/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #42)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:53 PM

55. Just follow history.

 

General Tecumseh Sherman said it best. War is hell. I think we lost over six hundred thousand people in our own Civil War. There will be more Civil Wars too. Did anybody interfere in our Civil War? People keep saying the Assad regime. How do you make a distinction between Assad and his tribe, which is the Alwaites? Then you also have the Kurds. Most of the opposition are Sunni. You have the same instability in Iraq between the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. So how do you come by saying who is the bad guy? It is like picking and choosing the side that serves your interests isn't it? And most if not all of them dislike the state of Israel. How do you know they want turn their newly acquired weapons on Israel? I would imagine people like Hillary isn't anticipating that prospect.

Lets take Iran for example. Iran use to be our staunch ally until the Shah was overthrown by a revolution. We supplied the Shah with sophisticated weapons and probably the best air force in the Middle East. We've done that with the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Now you have a different government in Egypt. We also supplied Jordan for their cooperation and now I hear we are making promises to Turkey for defense against Syria. And don't forget we supplied Pakistan and the Muhajadeen, that use to be the Taliban and Bin Laden's group for the sake of calling themselves freedom fighters until they turned on us. It was the same scenario with Saddam. It is a continuous cycle. We pick and choose the winner for convenience. And the claim is it is for equal or human rights. Considering the nature of the right wing Republican House and their attitude towards minorities, I seriously doubt that is the reason some of them want to intervene. Especially those neocons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:30 PM

51. Good for the president

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 04:37 PM

54. It's 100% John Kerry's responsiblity now.Time for campaigning is over. Time for Job is now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:23 PM

71. When did Kerry become President? That kind of decision is made by the President

Kerry's answers at his confirmation show that he agrees with Obama.

If this article is factual, I am VERY glad Obama won in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:39 PM

70. Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation: Good Riddance to Warmonger Hillary Clinton

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172635/good-riddance-warmonger-hillary-clinton

Let us happily bid a not-so-fond farewell—is good riddance too strong a term?—to Hillary Clinton, who for the past four years has represented the hawkish end of the Obama administration.

Latest evidence: The New York Times post-Clinton evaluation of her tenure that reveals, for the first time, that Clinton joined former CIA Director David Petraeus is a proposal to get the United States directly involved in arming and training the Syrian rebels.

Thankfully, Clinton-Petraeus were overruled by the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:29 PM

73. Petraeus, thankfully, is gone. And Hillary Clinton, Obama’s hawk, is gone, too.

 


Let’s hope that Secretary of State John Kerry won’t be that stupid.


--
I trust Kerry in this position a thousand times more than Clinton. But we will see, he voted for the Iraq war so his judgement isn't all that great either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:22 AM

75. Yeah, let's just stand by and watch Assad decimate the rest of his country.

We'll just swoop in after the dust settles and walk over the thousands of bodies of the women, men and children that the regime butchered while we looked the other way. We can then act self righteous and proclaim that at least we didn't intervene.

BTW, Dreyfuss, "warmonger" my ass. Go screw yourself!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:25 PM

78. Considering how well Egypt and Libya went……

 

This was the right move. Stay the hell out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread