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

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.”


  • 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




  • 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


    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.