That's pretty concerning.

From the OP link:

So, I guess that guy is saying that Obama is not fit to be President. Sounds like Trump saying that.

If all she was doing is flying on planes and meeting heads of state, she's going to have to stop pretending she did anything substantial

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004216623/hillary-clintons-legacy-in-libya.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0


Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html



"This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. "




Email from Blumenthal to HRC, Concerning Toppling Assad
Everyone is probably well aware that HRC accepted continual emails from Sidney Blumenthal, an employee of the Clinton Foundation with business interests in Libya, all the while she was SOS.

This is from one of the emails he sent her, in which he forwards or mentions a viewpoint concerning the consequences of toppling the Assad regime in Syria. HRC valued this email enough to seemingly forward it to Jake Sullivan:




7. One particular source states that the British and French Intelligence services believe that their Israeli

counterparts are convinced that there is a positive side to the civil war in Syria; if the Assad regime topples, Iran

would lose its only ally in the Middle East and would be isolated. At the same time, the fall of the House of

Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in
Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commaders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies. In the

opinion of this individual, such a scenario would distract and might obstruct Iran from its nuclear activities for a

good deal of time. In addition, certain senior Israeli intelligence analysts believe that this turn of events may

even prove to be a factor in the eventual fall of the current government of Iran.


https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12172#efmBbqBf9

carnage; she pressured Obama to intervene and was instrumental in much
of the decision making regarding Syria including attempts to forge a peace accord

but yet, there it is. Trump is still worse.

Her friend Henry Kissinger advised her to be such an obstacle, probably. Why else would she embrace the old obstacle to Vietnam's peace over and over again.

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath

Hillary Clinton and the Iraq Quagmire

Hillary Clinton and the Honduran Coup

Wish it was only fiction.

Hillary Clinton and the Convoluted Columbian Connection
Hillary meets Mr Guistra

Hillary: To Russia with Love and Uranium

Hillary Clinton and the Libya Domino War Debacle

(Disaster was already used LOL)

Former First Lady and primary candidate is appointed SoS and goes on a worldwide graft and violence spree then comes back to the US and wins the Presidency on a slogan of Love and Kindness.

I can hear the eyes roll and the manuscript levitate to the circular file from here.

made policy no matter how many of these stupid posts appear. And I would add there are no good options in Syria...but go ahead tear down the dem nominee...most of you want Trump anyway.

I consider criticism of her standpoint on Syria to be valid as a matter of discussion. I'm hopeful that Clinton will not advocate for the US to support regime change. I'm hopeful that she will adopt a different position going forward.

I beat the hillarians to the punch.

Thanks for the thread, amborin.

I don't believe she was interested in a negotiated settlement that involved something other than the effective surrender of the Syrian government and state. I find that unfortunate.

doesn't want to negotiate. She only wants surrender. To batter the "enemy" until they surrender. And "the enemy" is anyone who doesn't do exactly as she wants.

She acts in the campaign just as she did in the world.

What exactly do you think the US policy should be with respect to Syria?

She is responsible for so much bloodshed. I am having a hard time reconciling anyone supporting her, thus ensuring we get even more of this.

To assert otherwise is preposterous.

BERNIE SANDERS ON SYRIA
Bernie has described the civil war in Syria as a “quagmire in a quagmire” and his policy on Syria has three facets: address the humanitarian crisis created by the war; end ISIS; and phase-out Assad, the main party responsible for starting and continuing the war.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-syria/

Hillary has been pushing for a 'no fly zone' that could bring the US into direct conflict with Russian forces and their allies.

Bernie stands with President Obama in opposing such a wreckless aggressive measure.

Hillary wants to fight an impossible two-front war of trying to overthrow the Syrian government while at the same time claiming to fight ISIS. Bernie wants to focus on defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups that pose a real threat to the United States.

Hillary has consistently pushed President Obama toward more and more aggressive posture in Syria and she was an early advocate of trying to forcibly overthrow the Syrian government by arming supposedly "moderate" rebel groups. Well they were armed, and they did manage to turn Syria into a failed state with large parts of the country overrun by ISIS and Al Qaeda. If President Obama had followed all of her advice the situation would be even worse, with nothing left of the Syrian state and ISIS would be running the whole thing.

That was what Sanders said on the subject, which is exactly the same position that Hillary has.

It is true that they differ on a no-fly zone, but I do not think that Sanders has presented a comprehensive plan to address the situation in Syria. It certainly does not come up much in his stump speeches or at rallies.

In his foreign policy speech, he did not really outline any particular plan with respect to Syria.

Her plan revolves around arming the "moderate" syrian rebels to overthrow the government and fight ISIS at the same time, while possibly bringing the US military into direct conflict with Russia. This is an incredibly dangerous path to go down that would probably just result in either a never ending quagmire, or else a consolidated ISIS nation state, or possibly a chaotic failed state where rival terrorist gangs compete for dominance.

Bernie says he wants to arm the "Mooslim" nations to fight ISIS, including Saudi Arabia which sounds completely nuts to me, but still not as nuts as Hillary's plan. He has also mentioned the need to treat the Russians as partners in Syria, not as enemies, which is where we are right now truth be told. Bernie's plan is basically a variation of what President Obama is already quietly doing. Hillary's stated plans are much more aggressive, a much bigger US footprint and projection of US national power, particularly in the hostile posture toward Russia, which is totally counterproductive if your goal is peace and stability.

Can we agree that they are basically in the same ball park on the issue? I'll concede that maybe their policies are not exactly the same, but, there's not really a major difference between the two on this subject.

Bernie would continue President Obama's strategy as far as I can tell, which is pretty good. Hillary has a much more aggressive posture that goes well beyond trying to achieve peace and stability, and is focused more on trying to assert US dominance, which is framed as trying to trying to prevent the meddling foreign influences of Russia and Iran.

Unfortunately Bernie doesn't always express himself very clearly on the issue. Hillary is outstandingly clear on it though.

I would argue that they have not.

I feel like if I say yes then I'm going to be labeled a Putin humper.

But hey they are fighting ISIS, they are a known element, a stabilizing factor, we know how to deal with them. I think their interests and ours are greatly overlapping to they extent that both countries would benefit from peace and stability in Syria.

The interests are different in some respects though. Russia is obviously trying to defend their client state for all the traditional reasons and they have their own internal political reasons.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective. It's a complicated situation to be sure. I would argue that stepping away and leaving it for the Russians to sort out could have even worse consequences than what we are seeing now.

He has been bashing Hillary since the election season began.

HRC supporters routinely call it bashing when the truth isn't to their liking.

She accomplished nothing as SoS except massive loss of life and endangering our national security.

But that's not really what this article is doing, in my opinion.

I think there is a lot of blame to go around with respect to the crisis in Syria. I do not think it is reasonable to ascribe so much of it to Hillary Clinton.

It's also not entirely clear what Bernie Sanders's policy is with respect to Syria. He has said (like Clinton) that he believes ISIS needs to be defeated and that Assad needs to go. Beyond there, they has not been much detail in terms of how to accomplish those goals.

Did SOS's stop taking orders from Presidents? I thought Powell and Iraq showed us differently?