« | »

Hillary: US Will Not ‘Intervene’ in Syria

From Bloomberg:

Clinton Says U.S. Won’t Intervene in Syria, Sees Progress in Libya Fight

By Nicole Gaouette and Gopal Ratnam – Mar 28, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. won’t enter into the internal conflict in Syria the way it has in Libya, where the international effort to protect civilians from Muammar Qaddafi is progressing.

“No,” Clinton said when asked on the CBS program “Face the Nation” if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities over the weekend after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country.

Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya — international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution — are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”

Boy, whatever Mr. Al-Assad said to Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats who visited Syria back in March 2007 must have been very convincing. Perhaps he promised to contribute to the DNC’s election coffers.

Still, do "reformers" win 98% of the vote in their elections? Do "reformers" have secret nuclear weapons programs? Do "reformers" fire on unarmed protesters?

“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” Clinton said, referring to Qaddafi’s attacks on the Libyan people, “than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”

Correct us if we are wrong, but did not the Libyan protesters take up arms first? None of the Syrian protesters are using weapons that we have seen.

Protecting civilians is one thing. But when civilians take up weapons and start shooting at the representatives of the government, don’t they lose their ‘civilian’ status?

“Each of these situations is unique,” Clinton said, referring to the North African and Middle Eastern countries dealing with change and unrest, a list that now includes Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Syria and Bahrain

Yes, and the message so far is pretty clear. If your regime is stoutly anti-American you are safe. But if your regime ever helped the US in the war on terror, we will support the rebels against you. That would seem to be the ‘Obama Doctrine’ in a nut shell.

Gates said on CBS that the U.S. was receiving “a lot” of intelligence reports that Qaddafi “has been taking the bodies of people he’s killed and putting them at the sites where we’ve attacked.”

“We have trouble coming up with proof of any civilian casualties that we have been responsible for,” the defense secretary said. Coalition forces have been “extremely careful in this military effort,” Gates said.

Just imagine if a Bush administration official had ever tried to claim that civilian casualties had been staged by the opposition. They would have never heard the end of it.

Gates told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the U.S. hasn’t made a decision about whether to arm the Libyan rebels. “The Security Council resolution would permit it,” Gates said, referring the United Nations Resolution 1973. “But no decisions have been made by our government about it,” he said

In other words, we are probably going to start arming the ‘rebels.’ But mind you, this is all part of establishing a ‘no fly zone.’

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, March 28th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Hillary: US Will Not ‘Intervene’ in Syria”

  1. JohnMG says:

    Methinks Secretary Clinton is stilll dazed from dodging sniper fire. That and the bong session she attended Saturday night. How can anyone have confidence in this administration when their ineptitude is on display 24/7?

    Just remember. The choice on the Democrat side was either this bumbling twit or the one with which we wound up. Not much to differentiate from the choice on the other side either.


  2. proreason says:

    “But if your regime ever helped the US in the war on terror, we will support the rebels against you. That would seem to be the ‘Obama Doctrine’ in a nut shell.”

    Steve nails it.

    It’s hard to find a single foreign policy move that appears to be in the interests of the US.

    Or domestic moves either.

    It’s like he’s governing another country, not the one we are living in.

  3. untrainable says:

    Nah, we wouldn’t want to go into Syria. Our troops might trip over all the WMDs that were moved there while we waited for UN permission to go into Iraq. Can’t have that now can we? If we accidentally found all that mustard gas, it could prove that the international intelligence was right all along. I mean, humanitarian efforts are one thing, but political cover is more important for our boy king.

    The most distressing thing is that their doublespeak is so obvious these days, that even Rio Linda doesn’t believe them anymore.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “In other words, we are probably going to start arming the ‘rebels.’ But mind you, this is all part of establishing a ‘no fly zone.’ ”

    Sandinistas vs. Contras, Oliver North, Iran/Contra affair….good times.

  5. Chuckk says:

    Is it just me, or does it seem like Hillary’s eyeballs don’t bug out since she announced her retirement?

  6. jrmcdonald says:

    Of course we won’t go into Syria; they have no oil…

  7. Chase says:

    I rather think that we are “hands off” and appeasing Syria in our fear and trembling of what facing down one of Iran’s satellite states might provoke.

    Either that, or BHO might be holding out hopes that he will find out he is the 12th Imam. Perhaps that is why everything he is involved in smells worse than a dank, forgotten well.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »