• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton distances herself from Obama's foreign policy

I do not have a problem helping out the Kurds with airstrikes. The Kurds have been loyal to us and unlike Maliki’s troops, they are willing to fight to protect what is theirs. In fact with the help from some of our airstrikes, the Kurds have been able to recapture some villages and towns that ISIS originally took from them. I am half a mind just to let Iran, Syria and Russia decide Maliki’s fate. As an old military man, I am leery about getting involved protecting a country whose own forces refuse to fight. That is a recipe for disaster.

Interestingly, I agree with some of the things Obama is currently doing, though I'm still unsure if they actually have a strategy or if they're making it up as they go along. The idea of containment of ISIS, limited arms to resistance fighters and the use of US air power as steps to containing and degradation of ISIS forces is fine but I'm unsure of the end game. In my view, letting these people shoot each other for the next 20 years and containing them to Syria and Iraq sounds great, ultimately though, no one believes it will work out that way. Now Maliki is hinting at a possible coup to keep him in power while this goes on. :roll:

As long as it stays over there and doesn't bleed into the US in the form of terrorist attacks, I'm relatively blase about it. Let's hope Obama however re-tools the Afghanistan model and doesn't make the same exact mistake as he did in Iraq with the draw down.
 
No confusion, I listened to Obama for that 90 seconds and didn't quite hear what you did. Perhaps he specifically threatened president Assad through our ambassador, or other courier. Not some vague serious consequences during a press conference. We do know that he sought a UN resolution for force early on, however failed to secure one, we know that he lost UK support for such, that congress failed him any authorisation and that the American public was steadfastly against it. It would appear that removing the chemical weapons would deny another breach of the red line though.

Well the Red Line was a misstatement. What's curious is that 100,000+ Syrians getting killed in multiple chemical attacks didn't move this administration into action and the Red Line was walked back as being stated by "the world" in that video, not about the WH or Obama. Yet, action in Iraq via air strikes are now warranted, but no action in Syria which is the source of ISIS and the problems in Iraq. It's curious.
 
If one assumes that the situation in Syria, the initial tepid to non-support of the opposition elements in Syria, has led to the uprising of ISIS and the instability they are causing in the region, it is hard to credit Hillary Clinton with any integrity or wisdom on the issue since Mrs. Clinton herself, while Secretary of State, claimed that Assad "was a leader America could work with".

If I'm not mistaken, Assad leads a minority Shia dominated power base and was/is supported by the majority leadership in both Iraq and Iran who are also Shia based. That being the case, as it turns out, supporting the opposition to Assad would have been the equivalent to supporting the opposition to Iraq. And that opposition to Assad/Iraq was largely made up of disaffected Iraqi Sunni who have been quite good at coalescing disparate factions in the Syrian civil war and channeling them back into Iraq in an attempt to brutally take back control of Iraq.

It is clear to any sane person that the disengagement of the Obama administration, including largely under Hillary Clinton's leadership at State, has left a power vacuum in the ME that has been filled by many of the worst actors in the region. Hillary Clinton, if she had any integrity and if she indeed disagreed with the "Obama doctrine" should have resigned her post long before she did and done so on principle not on political expediency. Her words now are meaningless and similar to her limp-wristed attempts to back out of her support for the war in Iraq back in 2003 during her first failed run at the Democrat Presidential nomination.
 
What was Obama's threat?

When you read the exact wording you find it was worthy of a Harvard lawyer. That is not, what most people are, so they believed that the use of CW would have him displace the dictator. Now you can say: "Stupid people!" ....
 
What we also learned after the war was that Saddam Hussein so greatly feared Iran, that he could not abandon ambiguity on the WMD front. He believed that if Iran knew that Iraq had not resumed WMD activities or possessed no WMD, that Iran would pose a mortal threat to Iraq. In other words, he believed he was "stuck" between international demands and obligations he had made regarding WMD and his fears of Iran.

My guess is that those fears were the primary reason he chose not to fully cooperate with the international inspections. After all, even when he was faced with certainty concerning military force following his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 with all the Permanent Members of the Security Council unopposed to the authorization of force, he still refused to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait. Then, as was the case in 2003, he placed greatest priority on his own considerations as he saw them.

Oh, no doubt he did not want to abandon ambiguity. That was certainly important and 1990 had show a lack of carry through, leaving him on his favorite job. Add the two vetos in the Council and the backing of the largest EU polity and he made his decision. Bad call for him and us.
 
If one assumes that the situation in Syria, the initial tepid to non-support of the opposition elements in Syria, has led to the uprising of ISIS and the instability they are causing in the region, it is hard to credit Hillary Clinton with any integrity or wisdom on the issue since Mrs. Clinton herself, while Secretary of State, claimed that Assad "was a leader America could work with".
.....

He was a leader we could work with until he used military force against the demonstrators. That was really very sad, as he had been one of the more enlightened dictators in the region and had actually prepared a constitution that could be claimed to have been proto-democratic.
 
Well the Red Line was a misstatement. What's curious is that 100,000+ Syrians getting killed in multiple chemical attacks didn't move this administration into action and the Red Line was walked back as being stated by "the world" in that video, not about the WH or Obama. Yet, action in Iraq via air strikes are now warranted, but no action in Syria which is the source of ISIS and the problems in Iraq. It's curious.

I agree that a red line should never be publicly drawn, one never knows what can happen, as we just learned with Syria. I didn't think 100,000 were killed by chemical attacks but a couple thousand, although 160,000 have perished in the entire conflict, caught in the middle. As for the willingness to conduct attacks in Iraq against IS and not Syria, again, this is why this whole thing smells rotten. Though it wasn't to the extent many hawks wanted, the US has armed president Assad's opposition, and in the course of time they are strengthened, and now, as Russia and China warned, it has caused the crisis to spill out into the neighbouring region and I suppose we don't yet know how far it will spread or what the damn cost is going to be to contain a problem that we are largely responsible for creating. It's quite a maddening situation.
 
If one assumes that the situation in Syria, the initial tepid to non-support of the opposition elements in Syria, has led to the uprising of ISIS and the instability they are causing in the region, it is hard to credit Hillary Clinton with any integrity or wisdom on the issue since Mrs. Clinton herself, while Secretary of State, claimed that Assad "was a leader America could work with".

If I'm not mistaken, Assad leads a minority Shia dominated power base and was/is supported by the majority leadership in both Iraq and Iran who are also Shia based. That being the case, as it turns out, supporting the opposition to Assad would have been the equivalent to supporting the opposition to Iraq. And that opposition to Assad/Iraq was largely made up of disaffected Iraqi Sunni who have been quite good at coalescing disparate factions in the Syrian civil war and channeling them back into Iraq in an attempt to brutally take back control of Iraq.

It is clear to any sane person that the disengagement of the Obama administration, including largely under Hillary Clinton's leadership at State, has left a power vacuum in the ME that has been filled by many of the worst actors in the region. Hillary Clinton, if she had any integrity and if she indeed disagreed with the "Obama doctrine" should have resigned her post long before she did and done so on principle not on political expediency. Her words now are meaningless and similar to her limp-wristed attempts to back out of her support for the war in Iraq back in 2003 during her first failed run at the Democrat Presidential nomination.

Assad IS a leader America could work with. Perhaps not ideal, but margins better than what the alternative is, should they prevail. And to hell with Hillary Clinton.
 
It means that it is better not to issue what appears to your listeners to be an ultimatum and then not do, what was understood to be your threat, when the ultimatum is broken, to leave it dangling on an open note.

Well it was congress that denied him the ability to back up his "red line" ultimatium.
 
Well it was congress that denied him the ability to back up his "red line" ultimatium.

It is no matter why. You cannot draw a red line and not adhere to it. You lose credibility, which increases you cost later. A President should not do that. If you cannot keep your promise, do not make it.
 
It is no matter why. You cannot draw a red line and not adhere to it. You lose credibility, which increases you cost later. A President should not do that. If you cannot keep your promise, do not make it.

And that is where Congress failed the president and it is congress to blame for losing credibility.
 
And that is where Congress failed the president and it is congress to blame for losing credibility.

Wait, no UN resolution, the UK backing away, no congressional authorization and 70% disapproval of use of force from the American citizens.
 
And that is where Congress failed the president and it is congress to blame for losing credibility.

Nope. If the President cannot do, what he said he would, it is his fault. He misjudged, he lied, he blew hot air, it makes no difference. He failed and hurt those that relied on him.
 
Wait, no UN resolution, the UK backing away, no congressional authorization and 70% disapproval of use of force from the American citizens.

What you are saying is that he should never have opened his mouth.
 
Nope. If the President cannot do, what he said he would, it is his fault. He misjudged, he lied, he blew hot air, it makes no difference. He failed and hurt those that relied on him.

Again, you'd have him be the belligerent to save face?
 
What you are saying is that he should never have opened his mouth.

Well yeah. I already said, publicly, red lines shouldn't be declared.
 
Nope. If the President cannot do, what he said he would, it is his fault. He misjudged, he lied, he blew hot air, it makes no difference. He failed and hurt those that relied on him.

Yes, the president misjudged congress and congress would rather play political games. However, the fact remains that congress did not let the president act so it is on them.
 
Assad IS a leader America could work with. Perhaps not ideal, but margins better than what the alternative is, should they prevail. And to hell with Hillary Clinton.

Part of America's disengagement from the region has been it's abandonment of leaders who've secured stability in allied countries, often using brutal force we choose to ignore. With America's abandonment of these leaders has come far greater instability all over the region. It will be decades before it becomes clear if such a move was brilliant or incredibly naive.
 
Part of America's disengagement from the region has been it's abandonment of leaders who've secured stability in allied countries, often using brutal force we choose to ignore. With America's abandonment of these leaders has come far greater instability all over the region. It will be decades before it becomes clear if such a move was brilliant or incredibly naive.

Not just allied countries. But yeah where we removed them or failed to support them as the lessors of two evils, the instability is significantly worse.
 
Wow, 70 replies between having posted this and being able to return to it. Interesting discussion, thank you all for participating.
All right, so it seems like what Hillary is doing is understandable, as a pre-candidate. They all do it; it's politics.
But no, there is no guarantee that she would have done any better, or that even at this very specific issue, her idea would have worked. So, she seems just as clueless.
Indeed, if we only have H. Clinton and Jeb Bush to run in 2016, we are in bad shape, since it would be more of the same that we've seen over the last 16 years or even longer if we think of Bill and Bush Sr. and these dynasties have largely been ineffective and wrong in so many foreign policy issues (although I do think that Bill Clinton was the least bad of the bunch).

On the other hand, I see perplexity from all sides. Given the long string of historical blunders by our last several presidents, the world is in such a mess that both hawks and doves may not know what to do next, and will be posturing for partisan advantage but neither side seems to have a solution for the mess.

I've been thinking that the presidential system and the de-facto bipartisan system are what is dooming our nation. A multi-party, parliamentary system with a prime minister subject to political compromise and consensus and also subjected to being demoted when his/her administration is ineffective maybe would have prevented the blunders of executive action by a president who is basically almost unaccountable for either four or eight years, and the paralysis of a divided Congress left with two opposing parties that can never agree on anything and are always trying to engage in political games to undermine the other party, rather than taking care of the nation's business and global interests.

We're doomed, my friends. Doomed. And by "us" I mean not only the United States, but also the entire world. Things are not going well in the 21st century.
 
Yes, the president misjudged congress and congress would rather play political games. However, the fact remains that congress did not let the president act so it is on them.

I think you'll find that it was the President's own party, in the majority, who were opposed to this move. If you want to call it "congress", that's fine. But your implication is that it was Republicans who opposed the President regarding action on Syria.
 
I think you'll find that it was the President's own party, in the majority, who were opposed to this move. If you want to call it "congress", that's fine. But your implication is that it was Republicans who opposed the President regarding action on Syria.

I'm satisfied republicans would have supported it had it ever got as far as a vote. I'm glad that it didn't however. And I still believe that it was impossible to control the arms being supplied to the syrian rebels from Benghazi through Turkey, with the Turks largely responsible for vetting, and not fully trustworthy as to their loyalties, particularly with Erdogan's actions of late. This having led to IS benefitting and being strengthened in the process.
 
What does that say for us when Clinton and Bush are our two strongest potentials! Dear lord.

I came to that conclusion by looking at the electoral college and comparing trustworthy state for both parties. I did not take ideology or the popular vote potential into consideration. Hillary would start off with Democratic trustworthy states worth 256 electoral votes, just 14 shy of the 270 needed to win. Jeb Bush would start off with 220 counting Florida. Most other Republican potential nominees start off at 191. Now if Bush were to pick either Portman and or Kasich from Ohio, he could narrow that margin down to 256-238. Then North Carolina is another must win for him with its 15 electoral votes as if the Democrat/Hillary won NC, that would put her at 271. Bush probably can win NC. Then it becomes a crap shoot over Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia.

Oh, a Kasich/Bush ticket would accomplish the same as a Bush/Kasich ticket.
 
Interestingly, I agree with some of the things Obama is currently doing, though I'm still unsure if they actually have a strategy or if they're making it up as they go along. The idea of containment of ISIS, limited arms to resistance fighters and the use of US air power as steps to containing and degradation of ISIS forces is fine but I'm unsure of the end game. In my view, letting these people shoot each other for the next 20 years and containing them to Syria and Iraq sounds great, ultimately though, no one believes it will work out that way. Now Maliki is hinting at a possible coup to keep him in power while this goes on. :roll:

As long as it stays over there and doesn't bleed into the US in the form of terrorist attacks, I'm relatively blase about it. Let's hope Obama however re-tools the Afghanistan model and doesn't make the same exact mistake as he did in Iraq with the draw down.

I really expected Afghanistan to come apart before Iraq. Like a lot of other people, I never seen ISIS coming. In Afghanistan what most Afghans wanted was to be ruled by leaders/elders of their own tribe in whatever little portion of Afghanistan they controlled. Not by some other member of another tribe in far off Kabul. In a lot of the Afghan's eyes, we are no better than the Taliban. The Taliban wanted to ruled all 18 tribes by a member of their tribe, the U.S. enforced Democracy upon the Afghans and even though they have a vote, it is still viewed a being forced to live under another tribes ruler.
 
Back
Top Bottom