Clinton Repackages Her Syrian ‘No-Fly’ Plan

Exclusive: In a surprise twist, Hillary Clinton dramatically revised her scheme for a “no-fly zone” over Syria, presenting it as a subject for negotiation with Syria and Russia, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

While the major news media focused on Donald Trump’s agnostic response about whether he would respect the results of the Nov. 8 election, Hillary Clinton slipped in a little-noticed but important revision to her call for a “no-fly zone” in Syria, suggesting that it would be negotiated with Russia and Syria.

“This would not be done just on the first day,” Clinton replied to a question about the military cost and human toll that imposing a no-fly zone would require. “This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Before Wednesday night, Clinton had left the impression that the U.S. military would unilaterally impose a “no-fly zone” on Syria, a military action that not only would violate international law but would require a major commitment of U.S. forces to destroy Syrian air defenses and to shoot down planes from the Syrian and possibly the Russian air forces.

President Obama and the U.S. military high command have resisted pressure to implement Clinton’s suggestion because of the potential for killing large numbers of civilians and dragging the United States into a wider war, potentially a clash with nuclear-armed Russia.

Debate moderator Chris Wallace noted, “General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you’re going to get into a war – his words — with Syria and Russia. So the question I have is, if you impose a no-fly zone — first of all, how do you respond to their concerns? Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”

Breaking from her usual belligerent tone, Clinton repackaged her idea as something quite different, a diplomatic initiative to persuade the Syrian and Russian governments that they should allow the creation of a “safe zone” so Syrians fleeing the fighting could have a place to live inside Syria.

Clinton said: “We’ve had millions of people leave Syria and those millions of people inside Syria who have been dislocated. So I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria, it would help us with our fight against ISIS.”

Whether the Syrian leadership and the Russian government would accept such a plan is doubtful, since it would amount to inviting the U.S. or NATO military to establish a beachhead inside Syria from which rebels, terrorists and other insurgents could operate beyond the reach of military retaliation.

Distrusting Clinton

The Syrians and the Russians are also well aware of the duplicity of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011 when she led the effort to persuade the United Nations Security Council to authorize an emergency program to protect Libyan civilians around Benghazi from an offensive by the Libyan army seeking to root out Al Qaeda-connected terror groups

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Once the Security Council agreed (with Russia abstaining rather than vetoing the plan), U.S.-coordinated airstrikes decimated the Libyan government’s forces. Next, NATO military advisers began assisting the rebels on the ground, with the “humanitarian” mission quickly morphing into a “regime change” operation, with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi driven from power, captured, tortured and murdered.

After Gaddafi’s death on Oct. 20, 2011, Clinton exulted in a TV interview, “We came; we saw; he died.”

So, a President Clinton isn’t likely to get the benefit of the doubt again, especially since she has made clear that her desire is to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad suffer a fate similar to Gaddafi’s. Clinton’s open hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom she’s compared to Hitler, also is not likely to make Russia eager for concessions.

But Clinton’s repackaged “no-fly zone” – as a negotiated undertaking, rather than a unilateral act of war – suggests that the Democratic presidential nominee is at least trying to present a less warmongering face to the American voters, especially to peace-oriented Democrats. Whether the American people have any more faith in Clinton’s words than the Syrians and Russians do is another question.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and

32 comments for “Clinton Repackages Her Syrian ‘No-Fly’ Plan

  1. Abe
    October 21, 2016 at 22:19

    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad interview by Swiss TV SRF Channel 1 (18 October 2016)

    INTERVIEWER: “But it’s true that innocent civilians are dying in Aleppo.”

    ASSAD: “Of course, not only in Aleppo; in Syria. But now you are talking about Aleppo, because the whole hysteria in the West about Aleppo, for one reason; not because Aleppo is under siege, because Aleppo has been under siege for the last four years by the terrorists, and we haven’t heard a question by Western journalists about what’s happening in Aleppo that time, and we haven’t heard a single statement by Western officials regarding the children of Aleppo. Now, they are talking about Aleppo recently just because the terrorists are in a bad shape. This is the only reason, because the Syrian Army are making advancement, and the Western countries – mainly the United States and its allies like UK and France – feeling that they are losing the last cards of terrorism in Syria, and the main bastion of that terrorism today is Aleppo.”

  2. Abe
    October 21, 2016 at 22:03

    Clinton Reaffirms Commitment to No-Fly Zone in Syria
    The Real News Network

    “Chris Wallace correctly pointed out that General Joseph Dunford, the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in testimony before the armed services committee in the Senate, recently said that imposing a no fly zone over Syria would mean going to war with the Syrian and Russian militaries, a war he didn’t seem inclined to authorized. It’s not only because you’re required to shoot down aircraft if they fly everywhere. You have to destroy runways, military installations, government installations. And you have to somehow suppress Russian S300 anti-aircraft missiles, which might actually be sort of difficult to do.

    “It’s going to require the full strength of the US Air Force along with probably all other branches of the military (according to a 2012 Pentagon estimate), and this is before Russia was involved in the Syrian theater. 70,000 US service members would be required to impose a no fly zone. So naturally, Hillary Clinton pivoted away quickly to the image of the 5-year-old Omran Daqneesh covered in dust and blood, pulled out of the rubble in eastern Aleppo.

    “So this is the best that our probable next president can do in defending a no-fly zone, which is to not defend it at all. And I think she will in February in 2017, get the same assessment Barack Obama has gotten, which is that a no fly zone is not only not feasible but it will lead to regime change, will hand over Syria to a collection of Salafist radicals, jihadists and other assorted extremists, and these will be the people that a no-fly zone will provide air cover to. That’s why Barack Obama hasn’t done it.”

    – Journalist Max Blumenthal, author of Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel (2013) and The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza (2015)

  3. Selemon Selam
    October 21, 2016 at 16:38

    Hillary Clinton is trying to have a military base in Syria, so that her government can attack the syrian soldiers towards her regime change,I think the USA has to change it’s basic policy towards another countries. The American people has to try to make America not for 1% richest Americans only but for the rest 99% of the Americans too.What the American government has been doing, is not the right thing for the people of the world. The American government must help the 99% Americans in America that creating terrorist groups who are mostly mercnaries.

  4. Gregory Kruse
    October 21, 2016 at 13:33

    Whatever else she is, Clinton is a consummate politician. As Parry mentions, her purpose in the repackaging is to draw more anti-war supporters into her tent, but beyond that, it seems like an indication that the threat of a Trump election is waning steadily, and she is now safe in moderating her belligerent attitude. The worse thing that could happen to her is to be accused of being a peacenik.

  5. bill
    October 21, 2016 at 07:25

    To build around Stalins remark that its counters not voters who decide elections,Trump needs to employ well-respected independent polling companies to do exit polling with computer specialists as monitors throughout and be ready with teams of specialist lawyers,because theres no doubt there will be a very serious attempt to steal the election for Clinton.
    This was why he was asked the question,”would he accept the result” in the final debate followed by hosts of media wonks condemning his sensible wait and see reply.They attempted to trap him then rubbished him as intended when he wouldnt climb inside.

    Now were Obama in any way the real deal,he would have been horrified by the way Sanders was stuffed during the Primaries and he didnt have to enter into the more controversial areas of vote flipping and go head to head with the likes of Nate Silver brought in to shore up the status quo.He had ample grounds for ordering a complete review of electoral practices from the more obvious misdeeds alone which completely shame the USA-e.g massive queues such as in Wisconsin. He could have ordered that every vote has a paper trail if merely that the system has be seen to be fair and no one would have disagreed with him.But he sadly isnt the real deal though may also be holding back the cork from a highly dangerous extension into Syria.Can he wash his hands of this crisis now and legitimately hand it on to HRC or does he hope that events have moved on ?

    Jill Stein has outlined the huge danger of HRC at the risk of losing her own soft Democrat support and her honesty should be commended.She has far more guts than Sanders who should have listened to his wife and gone to support her….

  6. Joe Tedesky
    October 20, 2016 at 22:25

    Watching how Hillary turned the focus of how the DNC sabotaged the Sanders campaign into a Russian cyberattack story is so geniunely Clintonesque it sickens me that much more to accept they’re return to the center of America’s political theater. Hillary’s ‘Clinton Repackaging’ model of deceit is a Clinton trademark. One of the Clinton ploys when caught in a sticky situation is to use examples of others (Colin Powell) who already set precedent to the wrong doing. While your first grade teacher would never have accepted this from you when you were a little toddler in first grade, it works wonders all the time for the Clintons. Even when others go on record disputing these Clinton claims, the Clinton’s still manage to keep on moving, as though nothing is happening. A target that even when hit by a steady marksman refuses to go down, dispite the alarming noise of the targets bell. The Clintons totally amaze me with they’re managing to escape any accountability, and by that there is good proof of how wrecked our political system really is.

  7. ltr
    October 20, 2016 at 20:51

    I only hope this is a hint of softening, but I heard a fierce, Russia-vilifying Clinton on foreign policy in the debate.

  8. John
    October 20, 2016 at 19:57

    Hillary knows about safe zones…….She knows when it’s time to implement her plan/philosophy to the theater of the events of life…..what I fear…… is Hillary’s strong inclination to display herself as a champion among men…….an over play? LOl…who has the handle….dig deep America…….

  9. Hank
    October 20, 2016 at 19:16

    You idiots are still listening to this lady? She’s softening just to get votes. Don’t believe ANYTHING that comes out of this lady’s mouth please!

  10. Bill Bodden
    October 20, 2016 at 18:26

    But Clinton’s repackaged “no-fly zone” – … – suggests that the Democratic presidential nominee is at least trying to present a less warmongering face to the American voters, especially to peace-oriented Democrats.

    More evidence that what comes out of either side of her mouth is for political expediency and of little to no enduring value.

  11. Monte George
    October 20, 2016 at 18:13

    The ‘negotiated no-fly zone’ is a cynical ploy, a dangerous fantasy, a deception aimed at the public, and yet another giant leap along the path to global thermonuclear war.

    There is nothing ‘safe’ about a zone where FSA/Nusra/AL Queda etc. hold sway. Non-combatants in these areas are terrorized, tyranized, brutalized and summarily shot dead if/when they try to escape; many are sold as slaves in the Arab kingdoms or become body parts donors to the Israeli-run human organ trade. What Hillary proposes is to offer ‘negotiations’ wherein the Syrians will be required to effectively surrender territory to the terrorists, who will then (as they did during the recent ceasefires) regroup, rearm and gather strength to resume attacks on the Syrian people and government. Of course, these proposals will rightly be rejected. This rejection will be just the ammunition that the war party needs. Hillary (and the Great Media Wurlitzer) will then scream to high heaven that Syria and the evil Putin are refusing to negotiate and that they just “don’t want peace”. Then the war drums will start beating in earnest.

    Putin will not back down. The western press is spreading dangerous lies by implying that Russia is weak and/ or isolated.

    Russian military technology overall has pulled ahead of ours by at least one generation (10 years). This came about because: 1) Russian leadership is united, competent, and focused on defending Russia’s sovereignty against a ruthless, cunning foreign enemy. 2) The Defense Industries of the west are totally corrupt – they profit not from delivering a working product, but rather from Engineering Change Requests to fix their inadequate products (e.g., Fubar-35 paper weight, F-22 maintenance hog, the latest crop of self-disabling littoral ships, the heavy- lift rocket engines we have to purchase from the Russians because we lack the metallurgic technology to build our own). We are behind and we will stay behind, no matter how much we spend, until we reform our defense contract industry. Most important of all, we have no effective defense against the Russian strategic nuclear missile fleet, NONE.

    Russia has a serious civil defense program. They have thousands of shelters and supply stockpiles to provide protection/recovery for the civilian population in the event of nuclear attack, and they conduct annual civil defense drills. the most recent (2016) drill involved 40 million citizens; 60 million participated in 2013. USA has a Continuity of Government (COG) program, consisting of restricted, highly classified deep underground bases for a small cadre of government, military and the elite. The American public will NOT have access to these when the warheads arrive. Many Russians will die in the coming war, but many will survive to emerge and rebuild (barring nuclear winter). The USA will vanish forever in the space of a single hour. If we elect Hillary as our president we will deserve this, and what’s left of the world will not mourn our passing.

    • Hank
      October 20, 2016 at 19:30

      Common sense doesn’t rule “democratic” America . . . it IS a dictatorship when the analysis takes a turn to “Hillary means nuclear war” and “Trump means NO war.” One person should NOT be able to determine this kind of action for ANY nation- pushing the red button. In fact, if this “democracy” was working like one should, we would never even get close to a President putting his finger on the nuke button. That’s the problem- the USA is a CORPORATOCRACY and war-profiteering corporations will ALWAYS favor a candidate with a proven penchant for waging needless lie-based wars in which thousands and even millions perish! The cold-hearted one in this election is pretty obvious, the one who as First Lady made the main decision to incinerate scores of women and children right here in the States at Waco in 1993 to end a long siege with the Branch Dravidian. We must remember though that Hillary is a puppet to her sponsors and handlers so what could stop this War Machine, if not an election, maybe a more courageous Congress to do their duty of investigation, deciding whether the USA engages in war or not(their REAL Constitutional duty!) and being the check of power that they’re designed to be, on behalf of their tax-paying constituents. There’s also impeachment.

  12. Piotr Berman
    October 20, 2016 at 16:37

    The weakest part of various “I/we will negotiate” proposals is that it is hardly clear what USA side is willing to concede to make the deal. Usually, the position is “recognize that we are awesome and you are not, so just agree with us”. And it takes years to concede some points, not to mention that USA reneges on agreements with some regularity.

    For example, now USG announced that Russia broke INT, but Putin made it clear that if USA withdraws from ABA then INT is no longer in Russian interest. Which is rather clear: INT disallows land-based missiles in ranges from 500 to 5500 kilometers, but allows sea based. This is why Russia demonstrated the power of its Caspian fleet. But clearly, Russia has much more land to base missiles and USA has a much bigger fleet, so INT is asymmetrically good for USA.

    Here the bottom line is that USA foments an arms race which is good for the industry (influential, because this is where top generals retire, and with good jobs in ALL congressional districts) and provides a desirable excitement in East-Central Europe where nationalistically inclined parties are excited by opportunities of “standing up to Russia” and proofs that the distant USA cares about them.

    Obama for years pursued negotiations with Iran about the nuclear program with no reasonable concessions. In the context of Syria, the government and Russia clearly want total freeze on weapon supplies to the rebels, moderate or not. I do not know what else could entice them to agree on some “zones”.

  13. Abe
    October 20, 2016 at 16:25

    “The escalating charges aimed at Russia and Syria, reinforced by well-orchestrated media campaigns propagating official talking points, are familiar in the sense that such attempts to mould public opinion have traditionally been a precursor to Western military interventions […]

    “Hillary Clinton, who will presumably become the next US president, publically supports the establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria and has openly stated her number one objective in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad’s government.

    “Russia has begun to deploy advanced anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems in Syria. Trust between Russia and the United States has entirely eroded. Russia is holding the cards in Syria and it is difficult to imagine how open conflict can be avoided should the US pursue an escalation. The seriousness of this moment should not be understated.”

    Failure to Accept Russia’s Position in Syria Inching US Closer to War
    By Nile Bowie

    • Zachary Smith
      October 20, 2016 at 17:18

      “Russia has begun to deploy advanced anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems in Syria. Trust between Russia and the United States has entirely eroded. Russia is holding the cards in Syria and it is difficult to imagine how open conflict can be avoided should the US pursue an escalation. The seriousness of this moment should not be understated.”

      The US can destroy the limited Russian systems in Syria if it is willing to pay the price. And that invoice will be a large one. I’m not familiar with all the types of Russian air defense systems, but it’s well known they have the S-400 as well as the latest model of the S-300 in Syria, One must assume the place is also crawling with the highly mobile Buk and the short-range Pantsir. All of these are almost certainly networked, so the skies are being watched by different frequencies and at different angles. The F-22 doesn’t make much of a mark on radar screens, but neither is it totally invisible. Ditto for the B-2.

      Lots is being made by the Corporate Media about the transit of the Admiral Kuznetsov to Syria. The thing is basically a piece of junk in naval terms, and the engines don’t always work. Ha Ha, say the stenographer ‘reporters’. “They must always have a tug boat travelling with the thing”. More literate types harp on how the ski-ramp design means the airplanes must take off with minimal fuel and weapons. What every story I’ve read so far ignores the Russian designation of the vessel – to them it’s a heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser. The aircraft it may or may not have along are irrelevant. According to the wiki, here is what it has aboard which really does matter:

      6 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
      8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 32 3K87 Kortik SAM)
      12 × P-700 Granit SSM
      24 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
      RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets)

      Notice those 192 AA missiles? IMO that’s why the ship was brought to Syria. The Tor missile system has another set of radar eyes, and any attack coming in from the west would have to get past this ship. Or sink it. I’d bet my small saving’s account that the US would lose at least one aircraft carrier should that happen., And at least one major overseas base somewhere if the Russian one in Syria is attacked with any success..

      Is either Obama or Hillary that determined to be the protector of the fanatics who took down two of our skyscrapers back in 2001 killing 10,000 citizens? Even if the situation avoided turning into WW3, an awful lot of Russian sailors and soldiers are going to die for their warmongering lust, and an awful lot of US sailors and soldiers too.

      Are our leaders really this crazy?

      • WG
        October 21, 2016 at 00:36

        Let’s not forget that the Russian battle cruiser – Peter the Great is going to be there as well… check out all the weapons it’s carrying… I’d argue the US Avery well could lose a second carrier (assuming they attempt to implement a no fly zone).

        20 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) anti-ship missiles
        16 × 8 (128) 3K95 “Kinzhal” (SA-N-9) surface-to-air missiles
        6 × 8 (48) S-300FM Fort-M surface-to-air missiles
        6 × 8 (48) S-300 (missile) Fort surface-to-air missiles
        44 OSA-MA (SA-N-4 Gecko) PD SAM
        2 × RBU-1000 (Smerch-3) 305 mm ASW rocket launchers
        2 × RBU-12000 (Udav-1) 254 mm ASW rocket launchers
        1 twin AK-130 130 mm/L70 dual purpose gun
        10 533 mm ASW/ASuW torpedo tubes, Type 53 torpedo or SS-N-15 ASW missile
        6 × Kashtan (CADS-N-1) point defense gun/missile system

      • F. G. Sanford
        October 21, 2016 at 05:07

        Yes, they are that crazy. B-1 and F-22 are only “invisible” to certain radar freqencies. Russians maintained centimetric systems which were in common use during WWIi in addition to developing millimetric units which became the standard western approach after the war. It turns out that the old stone-age systems are pretty good at seeing stealth aircraft. There’s that joke about the F-22 that has a radar signature as small as a seagul. Young Ivan, the radar technician, notes that, “Whenever I see a seagull travelling at 950 kilometers per hour, I become suspicious.” And yes, there are an awful lot of ex-Navy guys concerned that the most likely early outcome of U.S. war in the eastern med is a sunken aircraft carrier. In today’s kinetic environment, their most significant strategic attribute is sinkability.

        • Gregory Kruse
          October 21, 2016 at 13:36

          If such a thing should happen, and I don’t wish it, I hope it is the Ronald Reagan.

        • Zachary Smith
          October 22, 2016 at 22:40

          There’s that joke about the F-22 that has a radar signature as small as a seagul. Young Ivan, the radar technician, notes that, “Whenever I see a seagull travelling at 950 kilometers per hour, I become suspicious.”

          I’ve been needing a good laugh after all the crappy news.


      • Steve
        October 23, 2016 at 18:31


  14. October 20, 2016 at 15:47

    And yet the American people are going to vote to let this psychopath have her trigger fingers on the Nuclear botton. How frightening is that?

  15. Zachary Smith
    October 20, 2016 at 14:55

    Another Hillary Flip Flop for the election.

    “We’ve had millions of people leave Syria and those millions of people inside Syria who have been dislocated. So I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria, it would help us with our fight against ISIS.”

    That statement is pure bafflegab, but it sure sounds purty.

    Just for the record, here are some of Hillary’s other Flips. Yes, the first one is political, but the positions are either verifiable or they aren’t. I strongly suspect the GOP didn’t have to create any lies for this one.


    The Hole in Hillary’s Flip-Flop Excuse

    She keeps saying new information makes her change her mind on policy. But what new information?

    Most politicians lie as easily as they breath, and Hillary is surely in the top 1% of politicians in that one.

  16. Abe
    October 20, 2016 at 14:36

    Hillary Clinton did a hell of a lot more than muse about “safe zones on the ground” and bemoan the labor of “a lot of negotiation”.

    During the third presidential debate in Las Vegas, Clinton TWICE declared her plan to invade Syria after the U.S. presidential election:

    “The goal here is to take back Mosul. It’s going to be a hard fight. I’ve got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.”
    (video minutes 1:10-1:25)

    “It’s going to be tough fighting. But I think we can take back Mosul and move on into Syria and take back Raqqa. This is what we have to do.”
    (video minute 6:30-6:40)

    Watch Clinton’s downward glances at the podium. It is clear that she is reading a prepared statement.

    • October 20, 2016 at 15:05

      Clinton looked downward continually throughout the debate. It is how she remembers her prepared bits.
      Obviously, during prep, she read from notes. Now, unable to have notes, her natural physical memory reaction was
      to look down, her way of remembering, and of course, canned and pathetic.

    • evelync
      October 20, 2016 at 18:27

      I have a hard time stomaching Hillary’s pretensions that she is an expert on military battle plans. Or why that would have any real meaning even if she did.
      She takes on an air of “I’m the authority on exactly what steps need to be taken blah, blah, blah.”
      And all the while I recall the leak where she acknowledges the inevitable civilian casualties of Washington’s plans.
      I don’t believe for a second she has a clue what the fuck she is talking about.
      She spoke with the same assurance before her AUMF vote on Iraq.
      I tried to call her office before that vote to leave the same message I left for the other two Demcratic political hacks who had their eye on the presidency Kerry and Edwards – I left the message for them to vote “no” because GWB intended to use that AUMF for political cover when he invaded Iraq. Bush was so fucking transparent that there was no question in my mind he intended to invade Iraq no matter what evidence of lack thereof justified this illegal “preventive” war.
      Clinton’s office at the time wasn’t taking any calls.
      I am so tired of how these characters use people in the military so cavalierly for their own personal political ambition. And how arrogant they are.
      I remember years ago Noam Chomsky referring to our politicians as third rate people.

      Whatever she’s selling. I’m not buying.
      And The Donald is in outer space except when he gets around to mentioning that our foreign policy has unleashed terrible events. Although he pretends he could have better results with the same mindless counterproductive use of force.

      After the DNC, the MSM and Citizens United succeeded in wrecking Bernie’s momentum, the circus took over. And here we are.

      Retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich said in this interview that voting for Hillary is voting for extending 4 decades of war in the Middle East because neither she nor any other candidate has been able to express to the people of this country that she understands the failure of four decades of failed foreign policies.
      Here’s Bacevich explaining in just a few minutes on Democracy Now what real presidential candidates would offer the people serving in our military and the people of our country were they to be elected as president.

    • Abe
      October 20, 2016 at 19:35

      Making your own choices, ladies? Looks like your ride’s here.

      The distance from the city of Mosul to the Rabia border port is 117 km (72.8 miles). Google maps says that’s 1 hr 39 min without traffic via Route 1.

      Crossing the Syrian border, the distance to Raqqa is 351 km (218 miles). That’s 4 hours 34 minutes without traffic via the M4 highway in one of those shiny Toyota pickups.

      Hillary. She’ll take it from here.

      • Abe
        October 20, 2016 at 20:32

        The 2015 original Toyota SuperBowl ad – “My Bold Dad”

        The 2017 repackaged Hillary No-Fly ad – “My Bold Mom” – will have the daughter coming home in a body bag.

  17. Ol' Hippy
    October 20, 2016 at 14:27

    Now instead of a big bad wolf we now have repackaged her as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and nothing has really changed, just the rhetoric. It’s too bad so many Americans are clueless on actual foreign policy though I can’t blame them because I have lot’s of time to ferret out the real truth; time most busy folks spend with the everyday business of working and taking care of their families. But to just watch the nightly recaps of the “news” tells little of real goings on of foreign affairs. I would like to see some actual talk of what these supposed leaders mean with their bluster on getting tough with our “enemy’s” actions and the consequences of these said actions. Maybe then the voters could make a real informed decision.

    • Skip Scott
      October 21, 2016 at 09:57

      I wonder if the average American is capable of following a rational argument any longer. Their attention spans have shortened to the point that anything more than a soundbite is wasted on them. The youngest seem to have the shortest attention spans. Too much distraction.

      “The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” – Adolf Hitler

      …and that was in the ’30’s. It’s much worse today.

  18. Realist
    October 20, 2016 at 14:25

    But there are already vast safe zones within Syria–those areas controlled by the elected government. I think Hillary is concerned about safe zones for her “moderate head-choppers” from which they can attack the government with impunity. Unless Russia agrees to such a thing, she’s gonna prosecute them for war crimes.

    • Sceptic
      October 21, 2016 at 10:26

      This ongoing western support to jihadists in Syria is indeed cruel.

  19. WG
    October 20, 2016 at 14:07

    “…it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.”

    “…make it very clear to the Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria…”

    This is no different than her previous position, she is simply substituting the phrase ‘make it clear/very clear’ for the phrase ‘no-fly zone’.

Comments are closed.