Hillary Says We Need Assad’s Consent to Put Troops into Syria

In March 2011 Hillary Clinton told CBS “Face the Nation” viewers that the US would not interfere in Syria because Assad is a “reformer.”

That was before his regime slaughtered more than 4,000 of its own citizens.

Now Iran is sending 15,000 elite troops to Syria to help the Assad regime quash the revolution and help maintain order in the country’s provinces.

So who will be there to save the Syrian people? No one.
Hillary Clinton told reporters today that the US needs Assad’s consent to put troops into Syria.

Foreign Policy
reported:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a clear and unified message coming out of their meeting in Washington, D.C. Monday: They are looking for a political solution in Syria and won’t consider putting international troops there unless the Syrian regime agrees.

Clinton and Davotoglu spent the afternoon preparing for the upcoming inaugural meeting of the “Friends of Syria” group this weekend in Tunisia. Following the meeting, they both urged the international community to support the Arab League’s recommendations for Syria following their Sunday meeting in Cairo, which included a request for a U.N.-Arab peacekeeping force in Syria. But Clinton said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who the State Department accuses of murdering civilians, would have to agree first.

“We support the Arab League’s decisions coming out of the meeting in Cairo to try to end the violence and move toward a transition. And we look forward to working closely with them in the lead-up to the meeting in Tunisia. There are a lot of challenges to be discussed as to how to put into effect all of their recommendations,” Clinton said. “And certainly, the peacekeeping request is one that will take agreement and consensus. So we don’t know that it is going to be possible to persuade Syria. They’ve already, as of today, rejected that.”

Clinton then explained the main mission in Syria is to persuade the Assad regime to change course and give up its hold on power voluntarily so that a process can begin to change the Syrian system of government.

“Ultimately, it’s going to be important to convince the Assad regime that they are leading Syria into the outcome that we all deplore. We do not want to see a civil war in Syria,” Clinton said. “No one wants to see a civil war in Syria. So we have to encourage the Assad regime, and those who support it, to understand that there’s either a path toward peacemaking and democratic transition – which is what we are promoting – or there’s a path that leads toward chaos and violence, which we deplore.”

The Syrian Assad Regime was blamed for bomb attacks that killed at least 6 prominent anti-Syrian political leaders in Lebanon, including the giant blast that killed Rafik Hariri on Valentines Day 2005.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    Hillary Clinton told CBS “Face the Nation” viewers that the US would not interfere in Libya because Assad is a “reformer.”

    Huh???

  • Remco Kimber

    The entire administration reminds me of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.

    Nothing but lunacy comes out.

  • DaMav

    I can’t improve on #2’s comment.

  • SpideyTerry

    Well, I don’t see why Assad wouldn’t give consent. After all, he’s a reformer – right, Hillary?

  • bg

    ++

    WTF??

    ==

  • Pingback: Hillary Says We Need Assad’s Consent to Put Troops into Syria()

  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    Ah, it’s fixed now.

    I was wondering, “Libya??”

  • jony101

    did obama get kadaffy consent before he started bombing libya? To many flip flops in washington.

  • NeoKong

    Obama’s administration only goes after the easy low hanging fruit. Gadaffi was a pushover compared to Syria. Syria is backed by Iran and Obama won’t lift a finger against Iran.

  • Barrack’s Liberty

    #2

    Brilliant description of Obama’s posse.

  • Moemoe

    Al-Qaeda declaires war on Assad: http://tinyurl.com/76275s5
    (from theblogmacracy.com)

    love it when Islamists go at it! In this case its the admitted secular regime of Bashar Assad vs. Al-Qaeda. During the Iraq war, Syria played footsie with AL-Qaeda. They allowed AL-Qaeda to establish safe havens and use Syrian territory to attack American soldiers in Iraq. Assad although himself very Secular as a minority Alawite, is allied with 12ther Shiite Iran and Hizballah. Now, an Islamic piss match is beginning in Syria. AL-Qaeda has declared war on the Assad regime and there ar reports, AL-Qaeda fighters are coming in from Iraq!

    (AP) BAGHDAD – Al Qaeda’s chief has called on Muslims from other countries to support rebels in Syria seeking to overthrow President Bashar Assad, saying they cannot depend on the West for help.

    Ayman al-Zawahri, in a videotaped statement released late Saturday, asked Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to join the uprising against Assad’s “pernicious, cancerous regime.” All four states border Syria.

    So now we have Iran supporting Assad and Al-Qaeda supporting the uprising and Hillary is discussing sending in peace keepers…What a dope.

  • Matt

    Are you ready to declare war?

  • Carbon Pootprint

    I don’t give a crap what excuse they use, I don’t want to see our military any where near this chithole mess.

  • Pingback: Hillary Says We Need Assad’s Consent to Put Troops into Syria | ()

  • WillofLa

    “Friends of Syria”? Who? US? American’s?

    You mean Obama is the friend of Syria? We’re not friends of a murdering, throat cutting, back stabbing, filthy Muslim Syrian’s. We’re not friends with any Islamic regime whatsoever. Think of one Muslim nation we are really friends with. That’s right, none, not one. Now, are we friends of any nation in the Middle East? Now, that is a totally different question. Firstly we’re friends of Israel. That’s enough.

    Hillary Clinton loves Muslims because they are so much like Communists. It’s been my saying for quite a long time now that, “If Communism had a religion it would be Muslim.” And the reason why is because the two are so closely related in how they treat the individual. Talk about belonging to the state and the state owning everything, and you don’t do anything unless the state gives you permission, which may never come. So other than the mentioning of god Allah, and it’s prophet Muhammed, they overpower the person completely. Sure it lets men do things that it prohibits women to do, but I’m talking how it treats individuals in general, and how it restricts the freedom of the individual.

    And Obama does not have the authority to send troops to any foreign country I don’t care how he’s worried about Kenya’s safety, we need to get them out of there, and if any are in Libyia, we need to demand they be sent home. Who can we turn to that we can demand that our soldier’s be sent home and prohibited from being sent anywhere?

    Obama does not have the authority to send troops anywhere anyway because he is not a legal American citizen because he was not born here as a natural born citizen, so the soldiers don’t have to obey a foreigner who is also a illegal Kenyan alien.

  • WillofLa

    And the worse part is, if we did send troops over to Syria to protect Assad, we would automatically become the dire enemies of Al Quaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and every other terrorist jihadist in the entire region. And that would be all the more reason for them to attack us here to!! We just need to prepare to go to war right here in America!! Who are we going to go to war with? Just pick somebody who hates White middle class conservative Christian’s who all voted against Obama.

  • Tjexcite

    WillofLa….we would automatically become the dire enemies of Al Quaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and every other terrorist jihadist in the entire region.

    We already are the dire enemies they don’t need any more reasons to make that. But Assad is fighting AlQ and Muslim Brotherhood so if the US does help anything you get a dictator or Caliphate. It is a no win situation.

  • shibumi

    So, let’s take this to another place. If civil unrest breaks out in the U.S., Hillary will NOT want anyone to step in here because Obama is a “reformer” so it’s OK if he slaughters U.S. citizens.

    Is that what she is inferring?

  • Srsly….

    Choose a position and stick with it Jim. You complain the U.S. interference in Libya, and
    non-interference in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen has led to “Islamist
    Control”, and now you’re complaining that we haven’t sent troops
    to invade Syria to topple their secular dictator?

    How would Syria end up any different? That’s putting aside the regional
    war we’d become involved in with Iran, and the possible proxy war
    with the Russians, who have a naval base there.

    How this good for us? Or will you simply take any side if an argument
    ad long as it suits you at a particular time?

  • Adi

    Replacing a brutal despot with an AlQ MB propped Sunni theocracy (Saudi-Arabian style) looks like a good idea.

    Let them eat baklava.

  • Adi

    #19

    How about the Chinese who have oil field concessions there?

    The long this goes on, the weaker all parties become, which is perfectly fine.

  • http://none tommy mc donnell

    why would jim hoft or anyone else want this administration to intervene any where? the only thing that will come out this administration getting involved is another islamic state. how many times are you going to keep making the same mistake.

  • http://osontlesescargotsdantan.blogspot.com/ The_Basseteer

    I suppose Hillary would have said we needed Germany and Japan’s permission to bomb them too?

  • Pingback: Hillary Says We Need Assad’s Consent to Put Troops into Syria | Liberal Whoppers()

  • wanumba

    The Cut and Run Clintons enabled the Rwanda genocide. 800,000 slaughtered.

    That was the biggest no-brainer in history: all the plans provided before the Hutu cabal moved, sitting legit government begging for help, the citizens begging for help, UN troops murdered, the UN Peacekeepers begging for help, no entangling alliances … they don’t come as straightforward and simple as Rwanda. Nope.

    The Rwandan rebels with not much in the way of arms, stopped it … the only reason it took so long is they had to walk most of the way. So, the military requirements to take on the rampaging Hutus were simple and basic. The Belgium peacekeepers were murdered expressly to scare CLINTON, based on his cut and run from Somalia, this Hutu strategy was available in writing to the WHite House months BEFORE the murders occurred. Clinton performed exactly as the Hutu extremists judged he would. 800,000 murdered.

    Syria? Hillary “Rwanda” Clinton? Seriously?

  • justavoter

    Someone wrote that if good men did nothing to stop evil then evil will prevail, this is a civil war going on there with Iranians helping the Syrian military against Al Qaeda elements.
    No matter who wins here, evil wins.We better stay the heck out IMHO and not get too smart by half and figure we can arm Al Qaeda there to give Assad and Iran a hard time, that never seems to work out well.

  • squeaky
  • John Fembup

    Hillary Says We Need Assad’s Consent to Put Troops into Syria

    She means for example, just like France obtained King George III’s consent before sending Lafayette to help out George Washington at Yorktown.

  • Moreliberty

    This is none of our business. I know you neoliberals and neocons love to send Americans off to war and ware trillions of dollars but we can neither afford this should bother. Feel free to donate to those fighting the regime, or how about you go join them. But another ill faited foreign adventure is not in Americas best interest. We are broke.

  • Steve

    US federal debt is now more than 100% of GNP. 40% of federal expenses are paid for by debt. And you Americans should start a new war in Syria? In practice to help the salafists, like in the Arabian spring?
    Syria has been a rather good country for minorities, like the Christians. (Assad himself is an Alawite.) And you want it to be islamist now?

  • of interest

    Turkey and Syria have had long standing differences. Mr. Mubarak was invaluable in helping to mediate and to help maintain peace and stability in the region.

    (Of course w/ Mr. Mubarak gone and the new “Arab Spring” all is now sweetness and light)

    This is one source w/ some interesting history:

    http://www.mideastinfo.com/archive/paper1.htm

  • Marsh626

    Eh, what’s really going on in Syria is that the country is led by a religious and racial minority shi’ite group who most sunni muslims view as “infidels”.

    That’s the real reason Syrians want to overthrow him. Not because he’s a brutal dictator. T

    hey also hate him because he isn’t fundamentalist enough for their liking. He doesn’t do enough to kill Jews in Israel for example.

    Don’t get sucked into adopting the Al’s Jizz driven narrative adopted by the Western press which is trying to protray the rebels, and the so-called “arab spring” in general, as these noble human rights loving liberal democrats bravely resisting Assad’s tyranny. They’re even worse than he is.

    Try not to misunderstand my condemnation of the rebels as support for Assad.

    In the Mid East, there never is a good option. It’s 2 or more evil forces duking it out for power.

    We shouldn’t support either side unless it serves our interests.

    Assad is a left-wing socialist tyrant who flirts with islamism.

    The rebels are islamists who will create a backwards/brutual islamic sharia theocracy which will barbarically oppress females, gays and religious minorities and will support the annihilation of Israel.

  • Estragon

    I think her statement about Assad being a “reformer” is now inoperative.

  • MER

    The comment from SoS Clinton was from 2011. One year ago. Cant we do better? cant we find some outrage that beats this made up stuff?

  • Remarkulus

    Let’s just skip over the part where Hoft and his readers feign concern for the Syrian people for a minute, and take a look at some obscure history for a second. Did you all know that when country A “places” its military inside the borders of country B it used to be called an “invasion” (ancient Sumerian) or an “act of war” (Greek)? It’s true! Some historians even claim these rules apply today. If we pretend this isn’t just another opportunity to slag Sec’y Clinton and Obama, and further stretch the bounds of imagination to believe Hoft, et al., actually do care about the Syrians, maybe now would be a good time to start lobbying for UN involvement? You know, like in Libya? That way, we don’t have to wallow into another war fresh on the heels of the other two. I know, I know, it’s all just cloud talk…

  • http://www.themadjewess.com MJ

    ‘That was before his regime slaughtered more than 4,000 of its own citizens.’

    They have NO choice. What are they supposed to do? Just allow Jihadists take over Syria like they have in Libya and Egypt??

  • http://www.truthandcommonsense.com archer52

    That woman is stupid. This is an example of secular humanist thinking. Right and wrong can be adjusted to fit the situation, not set by any moral standard. (See my post at my website about humanists)

    We know we can’t do anything but she still insists on acting like we can.

    Either we go in, or we shut up about it and hope it works out. Or, we can fund the freedom fighters through another country and arm them up with things like anti-tank missiles and machine guns. Let the Iranians send their elite forces, we’ll kill as many as we can now and not have to worry about killing them later.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    It’s heartless of me, I know.

    But, after we went to aid of Moslems in Kosovo—and helped them set up an Islamic government, wherein they burn Serbian churches, and persecute Serbs; after we dumped untold gazillions of dollars into “Palestine”—after which the Palestinians danced on our graves, on 9/11; after setting up Shari’a governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, dumping gazillions on Egypt—which is repaying us by holding 19 of our citizens hostage; after getting screwed by our dear “ally”, Pakistan and after we bombed Libya, drove out Gadaffi—and it’s still a mess—guess what?

    I no longer give a damn about saving Moslems. Yes, they kill each other—that’s what they do. It’s been going on for centuries. we aren’t Islam’s Janissaries (look that term up); there’s no reason why we should be spending our cash, and the lives of our soldiers, intervening in their conflicts, or trying to establish peace between their warring factions, or acting as their policemen. Anti-semities are always ranting about how we supposedly fight Israel’s wars, and give it money. Um, no—we’re giving money to Islam, fighting its wars and establishing Shari’a governments for it. (For some reason, the Jew haters never get upset about this.)

    The one revolution we should have intervened in was the Iranian one. But that wasn’t Arab springlike enough for the powers that be, so we missed our chance. Now, the Iranians are working on getting nukes. That worked out well, didn’t it?

    I do agree with the one poster, who said that setting up a precedent of supporting dictators who are “reformers” could have bad consequences for Americans.

  • chilipalmer

    Number 30 is right. Look at what our tax dollars bought in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places Obama is arming all over. In every case Christians have been driven out or killed, female genital mutilation has become almost universal, deadly Islam rules. Or as the NY Times and the BBC call it, “conservative” Islam. Some people still have the romantic notion of the US military as being part of the US. George Soros and various other psychotic criminals are in charge of the US military now. The US does not exist except as an idea. If they use our military it is only to drain US taxpayers and to make another country free for radical Islam. It’s only a matter of time anyway. Christians now living in Syria will be killed first when Assad is gone.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Speaking of outrage MER—when are we all gonna go on that big crusade you were talking about on another thread, a while back? When you were posing as this ultra-militaristic Christian (or your idea of one)? You showed plenty of outrage, then. Somehow, I don’t think it was really sincere. . .

    Hey, I got my warhorse, got my battleaxe, let the pillaging and plundering begin! /sarc.

  • wanumba

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    #39 February 14, 2012 at 9:11 am
    Rhinestone Suderman commented:

    It’s heartless of me, I know.

    But, after we went to aid of Moslems in Kosovo—and helped them set up an Islamic government, wherein they burn Serbian churches, and persecute Serbs; after we dumped untold gazillions of dollars into “Palestine”—after which the Palestinians danced on our graves, on 9/11; after setting up Shari’a governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, dumping gazillions on Egypt—which is repaying us by holding 19 of our citizens hostage; after getting screwed by our dear “ally”, Pakistan

    :::::::::::::::::

    Common thread here … Clintons. So, the outcomes and approaches and decision-making would have been very very different had someone like Bush or Reagan been in charge at the time.

    The CLintons had and have a Left agenda. They meddle where they shouldn’t, ignore what is important to US security.

    A lot of people have suffered and died world-wise because of that.

  • wanumba

    #36 February 14, 2012 at 7:55 am
    Remarkulus commented:

    Let’s just skip over the part where Hoft and his readers feign concern for the Syrian people for a minute, and take a look at some obscure history for a second. Did you all know that when country A “places” its military inside the borders of country B it used to be called an “invasion” (ancient Sumerian) or an “act of war” (Greek)? It’s true
    :::::::::::::::::::

    I noticed you skipped over Iran invading Syria and its proxy control of that country for the past twenty years. Always the USA … never anyone else … like the completely innocent Soviet Union and its KGB.

    The Syrians have been jerked around by foriegn invaders for a long time, so yes, do feel sorry for many of them, and with the Clitnon’s history, they aren’t the ones to trust with proper reaction.

  • wanumba

    Samantha Powers argued “military humanitarian intervention” to invade Israel. All these non-interfering Lefties going to turn on a dime and come up with all sorts of excuses as to why that’s necessary?

    Sounds like not really concern about “costs” but “ideology.” The Left didn’t say squat about military intervention in South Sudan, even after 2 million dead, but cried and begged for military intervention in Darfur, which is just western Sudan. What was the difference?

  • Moemoe

    Stay out of it and let them destroy each other. Iran fighting Al-Qaeda…priceless

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Yes, Wanumba, I know.

    The Clintons, and the left, have a lot to answer for.

    I fear the real concern here is “ideology”, and our “humanitarian” invtervention is going to wind up getting a lot more people killed than if we’d just left things alone.

    As you point out, they didn’t care at all about South Sudan.

    I think Islam is the difference.