HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Did President Obama Singl...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:37 PM

Did President Obama Single Handedly Prevented A Third American Conflict In The Middle East?

Earlier this month, we discovered that former SecState Clinton and CIA Director Gen. Petraues were advocating a military approach in Syria that is reminiscent of the one employed by Reagan in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons.

Last week, during the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing (Oversight: Attack on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya), we found out that both SecDefense Panetta and CJCS Gen. Dempsey were also supportive of the idea of the United States supplying weapons to the rebels in Syria.

John McCain: I would ask again both of you, um, what I asked you last March when 7,500 Lib, um, citizens of Syria had been killed. It’s now up to 60,000.

How many more have to die, before you recommend military action? And did you support the recommendation by Secretary of State, uh, then Secretary of State Clinton, and then head of CIA, Gen. Petraeus, that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Do you support that?

Leon Panetta: I do.

John McCain: You did support that?

Leon Panetta: We do.

John McCain: You did support that?

Leon Panetta: We did.




We know today that neither the U.S. military nor the CIA armed or trained any of the factions in Syria. This is in spite of

♦ Enormous pressure from GOP legislators throughout the second half of 2012 to intervene in Syria
♦ Cheap shots made by Romney and Ryan in the run up of the presidential election
♦ Strong support for such an action from four of President Obama's cabinet members (SecState Clinton, SecDefense Panetta, Gen. Petraues and Gen. Dempsey)

We could've had an Afghanistan redux here, a Reagan Doctrine 2.0 if you will. We could've been staring at, by now, demands for American forces to land in Damascus, along with numerous blowback scenarios.

Instead, all we have now is that of ol' man McCain doing his circus antics. All thanks to that one fella who stuck to his guns, and in the process, potentially saving thousands of American lives.

23 replies, 2780 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 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Did President Obama Single Handedly Prevented A Third American Conflict In The Middle East? (Original post)
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 OP
Whisp Feb 2013 #1
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #6
Sunlei Feb 2013 #2
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #7
Pirate Smile Feb 2013 #3
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #8
AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #4
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #10
Beacool Feb 2013 #5
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #9
Beacool Feb 2013 #11
Whisp Feb 2013 #12
Beacool Feb 2013 #13
Whisp Feb 2013 #14
Beacool Feb 2013 #15
Whisp Feb 2013 #16
karynnj Feb 2013 #17
Beacool Feb 2013 #18
Whisp Feb 2013 #19
karynnj Feb 2013 #21
Beacool Feb 2013 #22
Beacool Feb 2013 #20
Whisp Feb 2013 #23

Response to FleetwoodMac (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:45 PM

1. Hillitary 2016! rah rah rah.

 

Can we just get over this best eva since the dawn of time SoS?

Mrs Clinton may speechify about how she cares about women and children but she is a hawk, we should all realize that. The women and children of Iraq don't believe how much she cared for them when she voted for war and when her husband cruelly sanctioned their country for his two entire terms, and now when she pressed to get into another possible ugly scenario in Syria, partnering up with a repuglican Petraeus and his little friends the Kagans (who Hillary also knew). The Kagans were telling the General how to run the Afghan war. And Pat and Hill were trying to telling Obama how to run the Syrian matter.

I just pray pray pray that when women are to be fully accepted for combat duty that if if if Hillary does get the nod in '16 (my bowels just loosened) that it's not mistaken for some women's battle cry to prove they are 'just as tough as men' and what way to prove it but enlist to serve a woman president. o, o...... I weep.

What exactly are her accomplishments? I don't know. She flew a lot, and got tired a lot. But you can't tell me that is a tired compared to the working poor and how freaking tired they are working 2 or 3 jobs, kids to look after. So spare me the Tired! please.

And when the biggest (well I guess Keystone is a big one too and she wants that one bad for her friends) thing happens, Benghazi, what does she do? She says she is too tired (I did hear this on one news show, that that was the reason Rice stood in for her). So when that phone call comes in at 3:00am, what does Hillary do? She asks Rice to pick it up.

She did well in the GOP interrogation about Benghazi as she had plenty of time to prepare - and they all prepare for that sort of grilling no matter who it is. She did not want to go on those first talkie shows because she was not going to be prepared. She is not good at winging it without making some really awful mistakes. So she ducked it. She was too tired was the reason they gave on that news show.

zzzZZZzzz
--Hillary---
**2016**
-----------

this frustration and spleen rending is not directed at the OP! sorry about that, re-reading it it sounded like I was yelling at You.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 04:38 AM

6. Well go on now, tell us what you really think. Don't go beating around the bushes...


No worries, I knew it wasn't directed at me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:00 PM

2. interesting points. Not only saving American military lives, the war profiteers would have sucked

billions from our Federal funds for their private for profit Gov. contracts businesses.

War is money, personal profits from Federal funds- for a lot of our elected,their families and friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 04:39 AM

7. Fair point (NT)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:38 PM

3. On The Chris Matthews Show this weekend, David Ignatius said that in the Fall, the CIA Red Teamed

it and determined that it wouldn't have been decisive because they already had lots of weapons from the Saudis & Qatar. So what was the damn point other then getting us more wrapped up in the mess.

Frankly, this is why Obama won the nomination on 2008. This is the judgment Democrats wanted (I sure did). I'm glad to see it in action. Obama always ran on focusing on nailing (killing) the terrorists & avoiding foreign entanglements when we don't have UN & area (Arab League) support ala Libya.

John McCain would have us in a bunch of new wars already. Earth to McCain ~ the American People don't want that crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pirate Smile (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 04:43 AM

8. That's actually a very sharp analysis by Ignatius.

I didn't watch it, but I intend to when I find some time later.

As for McCain, I think almost everyone, even those who voted for him, knew the man was a neocon stooge from the get go.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:58 PM

4. Yes, he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 04:45 AM

10. Indeed he did.

Is the nick for the band?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:24 PM

5. That's OK, he'll just send them some drones.

In the meantime, the world will just watch Syria become another Rwanda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 04:44 AM

9. Okay mate, you lost me there. Perhaps an edit is in order? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:49 AM

11. I was being sarcastic.

Last edited Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Obama is no more shy about using military force as his predecessor. So he didn't go along with arming the rebels in Syria. Instead, he continued Bush's drone program and enhanced it (although there have been drones since the Reagan era, they didn't have the capabilities that they have now). Not a very "progressive" move, if you ask me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:59 AM

12. excuse me?

 

Obama is no more shy about using military force as his predecessor.

What the hell does that mean? Obama is now as murderous as Bush Jr.? And it was Hillary that wanted to use military force in Syria, or what would likely have led up to that, not the President.

You seem to not have anything pertinent to say about the OP and the information there, so you are now equating Obama with Bush. But that is not surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:17 AM

13. You seem to need to calm down.

I read your diatribe up-thread, but chose not to comment. More than fact, it was about your opinion and your intense dislike of the Clintons.

In future, please refrain from responding to me.

Ciao.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:46 AM

14. Fine with me.

 

So my opinions bothered you so much about how I view Hillary's view of war that in your excitement you ask me to calm down. okay. ....

You have not contributed anything to refute what I said except resort to 'Obama is worse that Bush' bullshit that I've been hearing for fricken years here now from you and others that can't think of anything else to say when you are cornered with some harsh realities.

zzzZZZzzz Hillitary in '06! zzzZZZzzz

Before you go you might want to pass that onto the Clinton's for their '06 slogan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:58 AM

15. '06?

You believe what you want to believe. If I chose not to refute several points from your first post, it's because there's no sense in wasting my time. You have convinced yourself that the Clintons are evil. Therefore, there's no point in my pointing out to you that there are several factual mistakes in what you wrote. For instance, Hillary never sent Susan Rice to appear on the Sunday morning shows. She simply chose no to do the rounds herself. The WH sent Rice and also provided her with the talking points that later on were found out not to be factual.

As for Obama, I never said (nor I believe) that he is worse than Bush. But, he has continued some of Bush policies when it comes to national security.

Here's further proof, Cheney approves of Obama's drone policies. If that's not the kiss of death, I don't know what is.

"Dick Cheney: Obama Drone Program Is 'A Good Policy'

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney says the Obama administration's policy of targeting terrorists abroad with unmanned drone strikes is "a good policy," even though he disagrees with most of President Barack Obama's views on national security."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/dick-cheney-obama-drone_n_2668511.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:05 PM

16. and the reason Cheney said that

 

is exactly for the reaction you just gave.

I'm sure he thanks you for playing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:19 PM

17. get real - compare the numbers and you will see it is not close

The better analogue for drones is using planes to bomb targets -- you know, like Clinton did as a limited reaction to Iraq in 1998.

those that are completely pacifists have the right to attack the drones, but if you support bombings by planes with pilots or using special forces, it is pretty hypocritical. Hillary is clearly more a hawk than Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:11 PM

18. The discussion was about arming the rebels in Syria.

It was not about using planes with pilots or using forces on the ground. Separate issues altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:15 PM

19. separate because drones have killed less people than planes and pilots.

 

The opponents of the Bush administration’s possible military action against Iraq make the following arguments: “He’s simply trying to finish the job his father started”; “No blood for oil”; “Iraq poses no imminent threat”; “Wars kill innocent women and children”; “Allow the United Nations inspections to proceed”; “Containment works”; “Avoid unilateralism, and proceed only with the United Nations’ approval”; and the all-encompassing “No smoking gun exists demonstrating that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction.”
Ads by Google

But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.

---
http://www.wnd.com/2003/02/17376/
reputable source? I don't know. Believable, yes, very.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:42 PM

21. Yes, and there Obama was prudent in NOT doing it

There was no good solution here. Do you really want a replay of arming violent people - whether the Mujahadeim or the Contras? If there were not a NYT account saying HRC backed this, would you be advocating for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:04 PM

22. Maybe they got tired of hearing stories like these and wanted to do something about it.

No one wants another war, but when does it become a moral obligation to intervene? Singing kumbaya and closing one's eyes does not make the horror go away.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/syria-children-war-video_n_2678923.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:33 AM

20. Here, this is what I mean.

While some of you continue to pat Obama on the back for going against his entire security team, more people are dying.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Syria's intensifying civil war has probably killed over 9,000 people since the beginning of the year, bringing the likely death toll of the two-year-old conflict near 70,000, the U.N. human rights chief said Tuesday.

At the beginning of January, less than six weeks ago, Navi Pillay said the death toll in Syria had exceeded 60,000, a figure she called "truly shocking" and much higher than the U.N. expected. That figure was a third higher than estimates by anti-regime activists at the time.

Opening a speech to a U.N. Security Council meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, Pillay recalled her announcement of 60,000 deaths in Syria and told members: "That figure is probably now approaching 70,000."

She strongly criticized the U.N.'s most powerful body for its failure to end the killings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/syria-death-toll-un-70000_n_2670540.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:41 PM

23. when was the last successful intervention of this sort

 

that was done by the U.S. for purely humanitarian purposes?

how about when was the last time this was done -whatever the intentions were- and it didn't turn out so well either for american soldiers or for the populace of the nation to be 'saved' ?

I'm not being snarky, I am asking sincerely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread