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.
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.
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.
Hillary calculates her moves. I'm pretty sure she has an opinion and she will let the right wing critics praying for her downfall know in due time... Instead of neocons spending every minute of each day trying to find information about her mistakes how about putting forth a Republican candidate that has a plan and relates to the American people... Not right wing nut cases...
shrillary clinton is a brain damaged wife of an ex president. the chick is a joke, so who cares.
"The chick" is the most admired woman in the United States. "The chick" is a former senator and very successful US Secretary of State. And, co-incidentally, the next president of the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallup
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans again this year name Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama as the Most Admired Woman and Most Admired Man living in any part of the world. Clinton has been the Most Admired Woman each of the last 11 years, and Obama has been the Most Admired Man five years in a row.
"The chick" is the most admired woman in the United States. "The chick" is a former senator and very successful US Secretary of State. And, co-incidentally, the next president of the United States.
most admired woman is like winning the gold at the special olympics. chick has BRAIN DAMAGE. good luck with that babe. good luck with a chick president. chicks have certainly been male friendly over the last decade.
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.
I think there are quite a lot of private citizens silent on Syria, some ever, that don't post on C-D..
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.
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.
