Hillary Clinton’s twisted take on Syria and Iraq

Hillary Clinton’s twisted take on Syria and Iraq

Syrian rebels in Homs, c. 2012. (Via Flickr, CC by 2.0)
Syrian rebels in Homs, c. 2012. (Via Flickr, CC by 2.0)

WASHINGTON, August 13, 2014 − While critics initially discounted the unnamed sources who reported deep animosity between the Clintons and the Obamas described in Ed Klein’s best seller “Blood Feud,” there can be little doubt at this point as to their veracity. Hillary Clinton is now publicly second guessing Obama’s handling of the internal conflicts in Syria, claiming that the President was advised to pull out all the stops in providing support to opposition forces. Because he failed to do so, the domino effect has tumbled into Iraq, which has become destabilized once again.

Clinton told The Atlantic in an interview published August 10 that Obama’s “failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”

Obama, for his part, is lashing back. The President hosted a bi-partisan foreign policy briefing at the White House two weeks ago and faced questions from lawmakers about his management of various hot spots, in particular the current unraveling of Iraq. The Daily Beast reports:

According to one of the lawmakers, Sen. Bob Corker, asked the president a long question that included sharp criticisms of President Obama’s handling of a number of foreign policy issues—including Syria, ISIS, Russia, and Ukraine. Obama answered Corker at length. Then, the president defended his administration’s actions on Syria, saying that the notion that many have put forth regarding arming the rebels earlier would have led to better outcomes in Syria was “horseshit.”

And in fact, when gauged against the backdrop of actual events, former Secretary of State Clinton’s critique of the President she served, is surreal and indicative of her innate tendency to perpetuate falsehoods while leveraging the complicity of the mass media. Such behavior is routine for both Barack Obama and Ms. Clinton. But now the media must navigate a middle ground between two major factions of the Democrat party, a sitting President and the ambitious wife of a former President looking forward to her eventual coronation to the nation’s highest office as Obama’s successor.

Clinton’s political opportunism is transparent. As her “non-campaign” progresses, she will hook onto anything resembling a success in Obama’s presidency (virtually non-existent), and attempt to put distance between herself and Obama’s failures. It’s already started.

The facts don’t support either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Clinton postures herself as a passive but dissident observer in the management of policy concerning Syria. But this is transparently facetious at best. Ms. Clinton was Obama’s Secretary of State.

The internal contradiction in this tangled web of events immediately raises key questions. Was the woman who claims she was uninformed and out of the loop regarding serious security problems at the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi from April to September 2012, simultaneously engaged in a debate with the White House on providing more assertive assistance for Syrian rebel forces? While she was logging almost non-stop air miles visiting 112 countries? When she was in her cocoon on the “7th Floor”?

It’s true that former CIA Director David Petraeus backs up her story. But the narrative associated with both their involvements in this Byzantine political mess will not prove favorable, something that will be demonstrated in the second part of this series.

Hillary has clearly lost her compass point with various threads of the deception she has spun with regard to her role in the disaster we now recognize in the current Middle East debacle. The reason this “selective amnesia” is problematic for both Hillary and Obama is that the facts clearly show that the Obama White House, in coordination with State, the Pentagon and the CIA, were absolutely providing assistance to the insurgents in Syria. Worse yet, this assistance was not by any means limited to the virtually non-existent “moderate” elements of the Syrian Free Army, but actually extended to likely Al Qaeda offshoots as well.

Award-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh chronicles details on this topic outlined in the Senate Intelligence Committees’ highly classified annex to its report (not made public), that

…described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

For Hillary Clinton to assert that the White House wasn’t facilitating Syrian rebels, is disingenuous and preposterous at the same time. She knows better and such efforts have been widely reported in the mass media and confirmed by Administration officials.

Worse yet, is her claim that there were “moderate elements” within the Syrian Free Army. This assertion either makes her appear to have been dangerously misinformed; or, worse yet, an out and out liar. Neither of these possibilities portends well for her eventual occupation of the White House. It is clear that there are not now, nor were there ever more than mere fractional moderate elements within the Syrian opposition.

Later this week, in Part Two of this report, we will document, with key information from mainstream media sources, reputable human rights organizations and legitimate counter terrorism experts, just how false the entire premise of supporting “moderate opposition forces” in Syria actually is. We will further demonstrate how a straight line can be drawn from those elements Obama’s administration were supporting in Syria to the demented criminals known collectively as ISIS, the terrorists now guilty of committing unspeakable atrocities in Northern Iraq.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.