It is rare for a succinct foreign policy platform paper to so fully encapsulate a candidate’s thinking process. A policy paper sent to Hillary Clinton, available on WikiLeaks, lays out the Democratic front-runner’s strategy as an architect of US intervention in Syria, shows the flawed reasoning that beget the scheme. Perhaps most importantly, the document shows utter blindness to the huge problems that the war ultimately led to.
As with so many US wars in the Middle East, it all starts with Israel, and saw the US imposing regime change in Syria as primarily about benefiting Israel and spiting Iran, a position that closely mirrors that of several Israeli officials.
The paper’s ideal was that the US would impose regime change by supplying arms, but without US troops, and that Russia wouldn’t dare oppose America (noting Russia did nothing during Kosovo), that the new US-backed Syrian government would abandon ties with Iran, turn against Hezbollah, and potentially negotiate a peace settlement with Israel, while the rest of the Arab world cheers America “as fighting for their people.”
There are myriad flaws in this reasoning, and in hindsight very few of the paper’s predictions came to pass, from her declaration that the Iran nuclear talks wouldn’t lead to a deal, that Russia wouldn’t defend the Assad government from US-backed rebels, that US pledges of arms would lead to more defections from the Syrian military, etc.
Perhaps the most glaring mistakes was the failure to acknowledge even to the prospect of Islamist groups getting involved. Five years into the civil war, US-backed rebels are still comparatively ineffectual, despite huge weapons shipments, and ISIS and other Islamist groups control more than half of the country.
The position seems to be wrong at nearly every turn, with one correct analysis being the fairly trite observation that Israel wants to retain a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, without offering any plausible reason for why the US should commit forces to supporting of this objective
While the paper reveals Clinton’s State Department’s interventionist leanings, it may also be elucidative regarding interventionist mentality in general, showing how quickly the notion of a “low cost” war becomes official policy, and that policymakers are ultimately blind not just to the reality on the ground, but also to the bigger risks of their schemes.
Correction: A previous version of this story falsely attributed the authorship of the paper to then-Secretary Clinton, because the email was an attachment sent by her to a State Department employee. The original author, however, appears to be James Rubin, and Clinton was forwarding the attachment.
81 thoughts on “Clinton Email Shows US Sought Syria Regime Change for Israel’s Sake”
But of course. It’s all about israel all the time. The only reason the US even has a “foreign policy,” if it can be called that, is for the sake of israel. It’s not like what has been going on since the 90s has represented American values or benefited the US in any way. bibi and the neocons write the policy papers, Americans pay and die for it, thanks to the cowardly and corrupt harvard lawyer types who present themselves as the nation’s political elite.
I could not have put it better. THANKS
That is especially true of Hillary in particular, who just said so again at the AIPAC conference.
Meanwhile, Bernie said the opposite.
Trump was all over the place.
Of the three, Hillary is the worst by a wide margin.
But Bernie will never discuss this new info. Bank on it.
“….cowardly and corrupt harvard lawyer types….”
Hit a nerve? Good.
Once term ends for the regime in power, all their mails and recordings become public.
Why wait? Release them now and possibly short-circuit this downward spiral to disaster.
Shes a bubblehead bobblehead.Toxic poison for America.
I just read that memo on the Wikileaks link in the article.
The memo is even more awful than the story says it is.
It is declaring the Iran negotiations a failure. It explains that Israeli’s nuclear monopoly is what allows the wild aggression, and that an Iran bomb would stop those wars, and it presumes stopping those to be a bad thing.
The memo is a rare and terrifying glimpse into the mind of a psychopath, and provides some indication of what HC meant when she said that as US President she will take the US/Israel relationship “to the next level.”
James Rubin is a dangerous man. When he wrote, in the memo, “the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region”, what he really meant is that the Libya war had no negative consequences for Israel.
Libya is in a state of civil war, jihadis use Libyan territory as a base to destabilize neighboring countries, Libya has become a point of entry into the EU (through the Mediterranean) for millions of African migrants, but it doesn’t count: only Israel is important.
Just look at the Law Obama signed about becoming Israels ” Protector and Financier” Law 112-150
Where is this to be found?
It was statute 2165 but was taken off the net so I found it by punching in law 112-150 Israel. There is stuff starting to get harder to find these days. Remember the Word – Projection– it means – accusing others of what you – yourself- is doing ! The Government’s position to a Tee.
As President, Hillary will get us into bigger wars with stronger opponents.
The date on the email is “2000-12-31”. Hillary had only just been elected Senator then and had not even taken her seat. What does this have to do with the State Department?
That can’t be the correct date, because the memo refers to the Libyan intervention.
I despise Hillary Clinton, but she didn’t write the memo. James Ruben did. It was sent as an attachment to this e-mail:
Clinton’s judgement in foreign affairs is abysmal. Vote for Bernie.
But Bernie will not discuss this. He is too pro Israel to go down this rabbit hole.
Bernie will not bring this up in the campaign and I think we know why.
“….A previous version of this story falsely attributed the
authorship of the paper to then-Secretary Clinton, because the email
was an attachment sent by her to a State Department employee. The
original author, however, appears to be James Rubin, and Clinton was
forwarding the attachment…..”
The entire story is laughable since it obviously didn’t happen….Assad is still; there.
Is this website a fan of Assad?
This web site is about peace, world affairs and US foreign policy, not about liking any particular politician. That’s not to say that our writers never express opinions about particular political figures, but when they do those opinions are their own, not “the site’s.”
In case you hadn’t noticed, Assad is not a man of peace and he has been brutal to the people of Syria, including using chemical weapons.
I find it odd that a website that claims to be about peace would support someone like Assad.
No, you don’t “find it odd that a website that claims to be about peace would support someone like Assad.” In order for you to “find it odd,” it would have to actually be the case. It isn’t.
The article itself is an anti-Clinton piece of propaganda regarding her alleged support of a plan to get rid of Assad.
Tell me what I’m missing.
What you are missing is that Antiwar.com is about opposing war. We publish a wide range of views within that spectrum, and no one opinion writer’s views indicate that Antiwar.com “supports” or “opposes” anything except war.
Not this article. It is a piece of anti-Clinton propaganda falsely accusing Clinton of doing Israel’s bidding by supporting the overthrow of Assad.
There is already a civil war in Syria that these efforts to overthrow Assad would be designed to end, and that civil war has nothing to do with Israel.
You realize that an opponent of war can be opposed to Clinton AND Assad at the same time?
Silly comment. People who support Bernie or Trump are opposed to Hillary.
That has nothing to do with my comment about this article being a piece of anti-Clinton propaganda falsely accusing Clinton of doing Israel’s bidding by supporting the overthrow of Assad.
Do you even logic?
“Do you even logic?”
Try English now.
For an anti-war type you’re quite hostile and aggressive.
I get it. You’re a Bernie bot and you hate Hillary Clinton.
Not even close, but nice try. I’m a libertarian and I hate all of them.
An “anti-war” type who is hostile and aggressive and hates everyone.
You realize that Knapp (and myself) do just that? We also oppose Trump AND Bernie.
I think the evidence is strong that Hillary is beholden to Israel.
So, are you a Hillary apologist?
Not only are you deflecting from my comment about article, you are missing the fact that even though the footnote at the end of the article clearly says it was NOT Hillary’s email and that the article mistakenly said that it was, the headline and title of the article still lies and says it was Hillary’s email.
Also…. you’re not addressing the substance of the email itself and the fact that there are many reasons to overthrow Assad having nothing to do with Israel.
This website and people like you and Knapp are as bad or worse than the worst folks over at Breitbart, Truth Revolt and the Daily Caller.
As a lifelong liberal Democrat I am appalled and embarrassed by both of you.
I’m also very disappointed at Knapp’s abuse of his position as a moderator.
I’m not deflecting. I don’t see it as relevant.
In case you overlooked it: I’m not a pro(ag)gressive. I thought I was as a child.
This entire exchange begins with my comment about this article, which includes my quote of the admission at the end of the article of the mistake in saying that the email in question was by Hillary Clinton when it wasn’t.
What isn’t relevant or of any interest whatsoever is whether you are a progressive or not and whether you support Bernie or Trump or neither.
You’re even more appallingly immature and self-absorbed than I thought after your first comment.
I no longer care.
This is all about you…. not the so-called “Clinton email”.
If someone told me that arguing with a troll instead of just banning him meant I wasn’t doing my job, that might make sense.
For the troll himself to suggest that arguing with him constitutes abuse of the position is … well, droll.
You’re demonstrating my point.
You keep claiming that various behaviors having nothing whatsoever to do with war are “odd” for an “anti-war” website. It’s that claim itself that I find “odd.”
I just re-read this thread to make sure I was correct in my recollection that nobody has threatened to ban or flag you for any reason. I suppose you’re so used to that happening everywhere you spread your sunshine that you just assumed it had happened here rather than bothering to check and find out whether or not it had before claiming it had.
You might want to consider concentrating on fewer sites and doing a better job. You mar your sublime record of exemplary trolldom by spreading yourself so thin.
Your dishonesty is remarkable.
You’ve made several references and implied threats about flagging and banning here….in response to comments that I’ve made.
You even tried to make the silly point that you, in your capacity as a “moderator” have checked on the numbers of my comments that were flagged on other sites…information that only you have as a “moderator”.
Here’s an example:
“….Being a lying jerk is not a banning offense here. At least not usually. I
suppose I could be talked into making an exception, but nobody has even
bothered to ask yet. I think maybe everyone finds your complete
cluelessness a little entertaining….”
Note, too, the childish attempt by you at a personal insult…which seems to be a regular ingredient of your abuse of your moderator position.
You’ve yet to show any ability or interest in the actual subject of the substantive comments here about this silly article that admits that its own headline about a “Clinton email” was a mistake but doesn’t bother to change the headline.
As for your behavior and the content of this site being “odd” for an “anti-war” site, you’re both dishonest and hostile and aggressive, as well as combative and personally insulting….. qualities that are inimical to something so dependent on morality and peace as an “anti-war” position.
Each comment you make is a further example of how much of a disgrace you are as a moderator.
You’re the troll in this exchange.
Have a great night, Harold. I’ll spend it contemplating the irony of a guy who brags that his first vote was for LBJ lecturing me about what actions are or are not congruent with being “anti-war.”
You’re even more clueless and silly than I thought possible.
LBJ ran only once… in 1964… and he ran against Barry Goldwater.
The Vietnam War wasn’t an issue in that race….
As a supposed “anti-war” person you should be aware who Barry Goldwater and what he represented to the “anti-war” crowd.
You’re also lying when you say I “bragged” about voting for LBJ. My comment said I’ve been a liberal Democrat since I cast my first vote for LBJ.
Sorry, I forgot that you never brag. Because you’re so incredibly modest and self-effacing.
I’m well aware of when the Vietnam War became a major issue. But I suspect Clifton DeBerry, the Socialist candidate, had a few things to say on the issue of war in general.
You’re getting more childish and defensive with each comment you make.
Which part of “we publish a wide range of views within [the spectrum of opposing war]” did you not understand the first time?
More silliness from you.
The comment you’re having trouble with is my criticizing this article as being a piece of anti-Clinton propaganda falsely accusing Clinton of doing Israel’s bidding by supporting the overthrow of Assad.
My comment has nothing to do with “opposing war” at all.
And it certainly isn’t part of the “anti-war” movement to make false accusations, which is what this article does.
I don’t have any trouble with any of your comments. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble maintaining a train of thought. You started off by accusing Antiwar.com of being pro-Assad, then when it was pointed out to you that we aren’t, claimed that having a column hating on Clinton proved we were, then when it was pointed out to you that we carry all kinds of columns by all kinds of people, as long as they are anti-war, claimed that no, we’re just anti-Clinton, then when someone asked you why it was impossible to be both anti-Clinton and anti-Assad, you forgot that Assad was where you started.
Antiwar.com doesn’t endorse or oppose candidates for a political office. You don’t have to believe that. That’s how it is whether you believe it or not and regardless of how fervent your belief is.
“…seem to have trouble maintaining a train of thought. You started off by accusing Antiwar.com of being pro-Assad,…
You’re being both dishonest and insulting.
No…I never accused “Antiwar.com” of being “pro-Assad” at all.
I said this this article is a piece of anti-Clinton propaganda falsely
accusing Clinton of doing Israel’s bidding by supporting the overthrow
I pointed out that there were good reasons to want to overthrow Assad having nothing to do with Israel.
Your first comment ended with: “Is this website a fan of Assad?”
Your second comment ended with “I find it odd that a website that claims to be about peace would support someone like Assad.”
Now you’re claiming that no, you didn’t mean Antiwar.com is pro-Assad.
I am the comments moderator for this site. I also engage fully in the discussion on this site, often, but not always, by way of defending Antiwar.com from false accusations like the one you made.
You’re even more a jerk than thought.
Asking the question “Is this website a fan of Assad?” is not an accusation.
It is a question.
When you didn’t answer the question, but instead defended the article, I observed that it would “odd that a website that claims to be about peace would support someone like Assad”.
You’ve now added dishonesty and being a jerk to your hostility and aggressiveness.
I find it odd that an anti-war website would be run by someone as hostile and aggressive, and yes, dishonest, as you are.
Feel free to point out where I “defended the article.” You can’t, because I didn’t. I haven’t so much as mentioned whether I agree with the article or not. All I did was point out that no, Antiwar.com is not “pro-Assad,” that we neither endorse nor oppose candidates, and that we run all kinds of articles by all kinds of people here.
The rest of this conversation has pretty much amounted to you demonstrating why it is that 1/4th of your comments across all web sites get “flagged.” I’m a very active commenter across many sites and the total number of my comments, in four times as long as you’ve been a member of Disqus, come to about half the number of “flags” you’ve racked up.
Conclusion: Lots of people think you’re an asshole.
I confess that I’m not entirely sure they aren’t right.
You’re proving just how much of a jerk you really are.
Comments get flagged because people disagree with the comments of the person posting or because the person posting pointed out lie or flaws in their arguments.
Just as I’ve just done with you.
Usually flags aren’t done over mere disagreement.
Unlike you, most people are capable of disagreeing without insisting from the beginning on being as disagreeable as humanly possible while doing so and then lying when their claims fall apart. This seems to be habitual rather than happenstance with you.
More dishonest nonsense from you. Far left and far right extremists take anything that exposes their lies and ignorance as a personal insult and regularly flag comments.
You’ve proven by your actions on this very thread what a dishonest little creep you really are.
Your response to my pointing out your lies is to throw a tantrum.
You can relax. Being a lying jerk is not a banning offense here. At least not usually. I suppose I could be talked into making an exception, but nobody has even bothered to ask yet. I think maybe everyone finds your complete cluelessness a little entertaining.
You’re just being more of a jerk.
There is nothing in my exchange with you that would merit a flag or being banned.
Unless pointing out that this article is piece of anti-Clinton propaganda without any truth or substance and your lies about what I posted merit flags and banning.
I see that you’re doubling down on the juvenile personal insults as well:
“..I think maybe everyone finds your complete cluelessness a little entertaining…”
Have a nice night, Herald.
Go flag yourself.
Your “disques” profile shows:
My “disques” profile shows:
How does that square with your stats about the comparison of the number of your “flagged” comments vs. what you claim to be my “flagged” comments?
You’re a hoot.
I’m not sure why you think two completely unrelated things would have to “square” with each other.
According to Disqus, about 1/4th of your comments — 6,607 out of 24,600 — get flagged. That’s a measurement completely unrelated to upvotes.
An upvote means that someone liked your comment.
A downvote means that someone disliked your comment.
A flag means that someone is claiming — not proving, just claiming — that your comment is “inappropriate.” And of course there are various meanings for “inappropriate,” ranging from violating some particular site’s guidelines, to just generally striking the flagger as something no good person would say in public, or whatever. When a comment gets flagged, the moderator or moderators for that site get a notice so they can go have a look and decide whether or not it violates their site’s standards.
I’ve seen no “flagged” notices on any of your comments here yet. I’m not surprised. Not only do we not get a lot of that, but you’re more entertaining than anything.
My “disque” profile doesn’t show “flagged” comments.
Where do you get your information?
If you get it by virtue of being a “moderator” then you are further abusing your position as a “moderator” by disclosing it in these comments as part of your childish attempt to discredit me.
You’re even more of a disgrace as a moderator than I thought possible.
I have no idea whether or not my ability to see how many “flags” you’ve received bears any relationship to my status as a moderator.
I acknowledge your expertise on the topic of childishness. Where’d you do your graduate studies in the subject?
As far as defensiveness, no, not especially. Just because you have entertainment value, that doesn’t make you a threat. If I considered you a threat, you wouldn’t be here.
You’re getting more silly and dishonest with each comment you make.
Only you know where you get your information about what you claim to be the number of comments of mine that are “flagged” on other sites.
I certainly don’t have access to that information.
You’ve obviously abused your status as a “moderator” by publishing what you claim to be the number of “flags” of my comments on other websites.
Your latest little snit shows just how juvenile and how much of a disgrace you really are as a representative of this site and the”anti-war” movement.
“….If I considered you a threat, you wouldn’t be here….”
There you go again…abusing your “moderator” status.
Since my job as moderator is to make sure that threats are removed, how is a simple statement of the fact that I do my job an “abuse?”
Your “threat” is your reaction to my pointing out how much of a disgrace you are as “moderator” by publishing information about how many of my comments on other sites are “flagged” to try to discredit my comments.
You’re so out of sorts you actually said this in reply to my comment that the number of “flags” of my comments on other sites is not shown on my profile on disque and certainly not available to me.
“I have no idea whether or not my ability to see how many “flags” you’ve received bears any relationship to my status as a moderator..”
You’re actually the only one who knows where you got your claimed information.
Why dissemble so blatantly?
I didn’t do anything to try to discredit your comments. You do a fine job of that yourself.
I’ve already told you where I got my information — I clicked on your name and looked at the information provided. I have no idea whether that information other other information (like the big fuchsia “low rep” banner next to each of your comments) is available only to moderators, or whether everyone can see it, or what.
It’s not like the fact that you’re really good at making an ass of yourself in public is some kind of national secret that nobody would figure out unless I mentioned your unusually high “flag” ratio.
More dissembling from you.
The number of flags of my comments on other sites is not shown in my disque profile and not available to me.
When you “click” on my name you get my profile which doesn’t show which comments were flagged.
The only purpose of your posting your claim is to try to discredit my comments.
You continue to abuse your position as a moderator with your dissembling, threats and childish attempts at personal insults.
I think it’s reasonable to politely request that if you’re going to troll here, you keep it interesting by coming up with new stuff instead of just repeating the same BS over and over until it’s long past worn out.
You might consider responding to an article instead of hoping you can get a rise out of me.
You might even try doing so in an organized and logical fashion instead of going off the rails and forgetting what your original complaint was after only three or four comments, then immediately descending into pity party territory instead of bothering to even try to get back on track.
Or you can keep boring me — and, I suspect, pretty much everyone here.
“…You might consider responding to an article instead of hoping you can get a rise out of me…..”
Ludicrous dissembling from you.
This thread begins with my comment about this article to which you’ve responded with childish personal insults, dissembling and lying and threats and other abuses of your position as a moderator.
And you’ve yet to offer a coherent grown up response to the comments I’ve made about this article, including what it says about Assad and Syria.
You’ve made a fool of yourself and you know it.
I’m starting to wonder if you have the self-awareness to ever figure out that the fact that you’re still here puts the lie to any claim of abuses of my position as moderator. I strongly suspect that your game at this point is seeing how far you can push things past the point where the usual moderator shows you the door. Have you considered solitaire or something instead?
I’ve never seen a “moderator” act the way you do….I’ve never seen a moderator make comments, much less engage in an exchange of comments as you’ve done.
All you’ve done and are doing now is making another threat and attempting more childish personal insults, and confirming what I’ve said about your behavior on this thread.
As I said early on, there’s nothing I’ve posted here that merits flagging or banning.
That said, you proved early on that you were incapable of having a coherent grown up interaction regarding this article and its subject, Assad and Syria.
Does anyone review what you do as “moderator”?
Given the number of comments you make around the web, the only plausible explanations for you having never seen a moderator make comments or engage in an exchange of comments are that they don’t feel like they can get a word in edgewise and just go ahead and pull out the ban-hammer instead of trying.
Your response to an article on Assad and Syria was to first ask whether or not Antiwar.com supports Assad, and then to imply that, and proceed as if, we do, even after a clear, concise and simple explanation that no, we don’t. I agree that there’s a lack of coherence and grown-upness to the discussion, but we clearly disagree as to where those aspects of it might be emanating from.
Yes, I have bosses. I’m surprised they haven’t chewed me out let for letting you pull your “loud obnoxious drunk who really thinks he’s scoring some kind of big political argument points” routine for two straight days. That’s probably because I don’t get paid by the hour.
You’re dissembling again. My first comment to this article was:
“….A previous version of this story falsely attributed the
authorship of the paper to then-Secretary Clinton, because the email was an attachment sent by her to a State Department employee. The original author, however, appears to be James Rubin, and Clinton was forwarding the attachment…..”
“The entire story is laughable since it obviously didn’t happen….Assad is still; there.
“.Is this website a fan of Assad?”
To which you replied:
“…This web site is about peace, world affairs and US foreign policy, not about liking any particular politician….”
Your comment didn’t address anything substantive about the comment regarding the article, including the “Clinton email” and the fact that Assad has not been replaced.
And your reference to a “particular politician” makes no sense when given in reply my pointing out that Assad is still in power in Syria-he hasn’t been replaced…. most people who engage in discussions of foreign policy and world affairs understand who Assad is and what he’s done in terms of committing atrocities.
And again, you dissembled about my reply which, as I’ve already pointed out to you, didn’t accuse this site of being being in favor of Assad, but merely observed that it would be “odd” for an “anti-war” website to be supportive of Assad.
You further failed to respond to my comments about there being good reasons other than that Israel might at one time have wanted it, to support efforts to replace Assad. People with even a small modicum of awareness understand Assad’s relationships with Putin and Iran and what he’s done to his own people in Syria.
I see that you continue to spew childish personal insults and show what a disgrace you are as a moderator and representative of an “anti-war” site.
Comments are closed.