• Agreeing with Hillary: Citing Iraq Failures, Clinton Avoids Endorsing Syrian Rebels

    December 5, 2012

    Tags: , ,
    Posted in: Afghanistan, Embassy/State, Iraq, Libya

    Better check the weather report to see if it is below freezing in hell, because a) Hillary just said some things that are intelligent and to the benefit of the U.S. and b) no matter how many beers I have cannon-balled this afternoon, I still agree with her and c) OMG.

    Madame Clinton, no doubt under the influence of some freakishly diabolical inhaled hallucination agent, said in actual human words:

    The U.S. must adopt a sophisticated approach in choosing who to support within Syria for fear of repeating mistakes the U.S. made after invading Iraq in 2003. Supporting the opposition must be paired with endorsing local councils committed to “continuity” and “Syrian governmental institutions,” to ensure these institutional forces don’t collapse. We know from our Iraq experience that can be extremely dangerous.

    Clinton went on to add that U.S. hesitancy to get more involved militarily and politically is at least partially because “there are so many interests by all the players, many of which are contradictory.”

    OMG. This almost suggests that Clinton has “learned a lesson from history,” that looking at the horrific nightmare created in Iraq has somehow informed her as to how to proceed in a future endeavor. “Learning from one’s mistakes” is commonly held to be a sign of sentient intelligence, an indication of higher brain functionality.

    Now, we don’t want to get too far ahead of ourselves. We know that shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles have magically appeared in Syria this month, a possible game-changer in the same way that U.S.-supplied shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles significantly influenced the outcomes in Libya and 1980’s Afghanistan, not that the U.S. had anything to do with supplying said shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles to Syrian fighters. No, no, that would be wrong. Old Blood ‘n Guts Hils also joined in the chorus of threats if Assad uses chemical weapons, telling us all that “Suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur.”

    We’ll stick to the bright side of life for today, hoping that Clinton’s thoughts are somewhat sincere and representative of the White House’s broader position on Syria (she did drop another sad hint that she is running for president in 2016). Tearing apart the fiber of the Middle East certainly seemed like a good idea when we invaded Iraq in 2003, and when Hillary lustily celebrated the sodomizing of Qaddafi in 2009, and so on, so it is such a nice thing that she wishes to avoid the same scenario today. Yea for progress!

    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

  • Recent Comments

    • John Poole said...


      “We came, we saw, we hesitated and pondered?” Don’t buy into it PVB. We were bamboozled by Obama. Hillary is studying his playbook.

      12/5/12 1:46 PM | Comment Link

    • jo6pac said...


      hallucination agent

      From my own expertise it will wear off.

      12/5/12 3:24 PM | Comment Link

    • jim hruska said...


      There’s a bit of slick wordplay in HRC’s statement.
      She’s laying the whole shebang on a war in IRAQ(which was enabled by Democrats)which we can lay off on GWB alone.
      This allows her to ignore the gross screwups that we called the Arab Spring.
      Forget GWB-Yesterdays Gone-concentrate on the errors and policy malfunctions since 08.
      jim hruska

      12/5/12 3:31 PM | Comment Link

    • Meloveconsullongtime said...


      If she had learned anything from history she would just leave Syria alone.

      12/5/12 4:57 PM | Comment Link

    • pitchfork said...


      quote:”We were bamboozled by Obama.” unquote

      Bamboozled. Perfect. I’ll remember that one. 🙂

      12/5/12 7:15 PM | Comment Link

    • jim hruska said...


      Last nite i gave this post and my reply a lot of thought.
      If HRC believes that IRAQ was a mistake then i must ask-why did she devote all the energy of the State Dept. to that mistake? Why did she serva a false prophet? What did she do that was different from Rice?GWB?
      Why did we spend 2008 to present reinforcing a failed effort?
      Do we devote life and money to a war that lacked strategic goals at any level?

      12/6/12 1:26 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      For Jim Bruska- I sense there comes a time for any empire where the insiders do things which are not logical or beneficial. They are done because they CAN be done and nothing more. We could remove Qaddafi from power so we did. It made no sense! I think Hag Hillary blurted out her demented ethos out of relief. The guy hung on way longer than anyone imagined he could. The USA probably felt impotent to take down guys like Assad so to kill time and stay active it went after Qaddafi for no other reason than it was “doable”. This is the madness of late stage empire. Expect more insane actions from Barry and his team.

      12/6/12 7:56 PM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)