Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sadly, the 300,000 American Syrians are now being scrutinized by government. The government thinks that there may be some Assad supporters who might want to retaliate. Sure, that's why they fled Syria under Daddy and Junior Assad and are living in the US.
>>>>> And there are another 300,000,000 Americans also being scrutinized by the government as potential terrorists with no ties to anybody.
Some big-mouthed presidential candidate seems to be mysteriously quiet. Of course our lapdog media won't notice her silence --- but there are those out there that have noticed.
I suspect a number of factors are behind Hillary Clinton’s reticence. Firstly, a US military intervention in the Syrian civil war is strongly opposed by the vast majority of the American public. A recent poll showed just nine percent of Americans backing US military involvement. She probably doesn’t see another war in the Muslim world as a vote winner in 2016. Secondly, she may well be harbouring doubts over the White House approach, which beyond the talk of airstrikes, lacks a coherent strategy, and the president hasn’t exactly made a clear-cut case that taking America to war in Syria is in the national interest. Thirdly, as “the Obama doctrine†goes down in flames in the Middle East, from Damascus to Cairo, Clinton will be nervous about being seen as part and parcel of it, which of course she is.
Fourthly, Clinton’s own track record on Syria has hardly been stellar. Before Syria descended into war, Clinton was a strong backer of engagement with Syria, greatly underestimating the nature of the Baathist regime, famously referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer†in April 2011. In addition, as Washington’s most senior foreign policy official, Clinton did little to stand up to Moscow’s aggressive support for the Syrians, eager to appease the Russians through the controversial “reset†strategy, which was her own brainchild. In addition, the Secretary of State was weak in the face of Iran, whose military and financial backing for the Assad regime has been vital to its survival.
Against this backdrop it’s not hard to see why Hillary Clinton isn’t at the forefront of the Syria debate. Her own handling of the Syria crisis was a spectacular failure, as has been President Obama's.
"Secretary Clinton supports the president's effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime's horrific use of chemical weapons," a Clinton aide told ABC News.
An aide announces that she's all for asking Congress... that's it.
She doesn't say if she backs attacking Syria or not....only that she backs asking Congress.
Hillary would be incredibly dumb to kick off her campaign this early, and she hasn't. You can say a lot of things about her, but no one can call her dumb. Right now she's citizen Hillary Clinton, so why would she say much of anything?
Hillary would be incredibly dumb to kick off her campaign this early, and she hasn't. You can say a lot of things about her, but no one can call her dumb. Right now she's citizen Hillary Clinton, so why would she say much of anything?
Oh....I would call her dumb!
I wasn't the one saying her speeches on government transparency were her campaign kickoff.....it was "progressives" here on C-D.
If she's a private citizen now, why is she bothering with these speeches?
Dumb fits her well.
Posted with TapaTalk
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.