State Department Revolt Against Obama on Syria Is All About Hillary
RUSH: And then I saw this last night. And I had to read this from three or four different sources to understand it 'cause the writing is so confusing. This version is from the Wall Street Journal. "US State Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria’s Assad -- Dozens of officials sign confidential document protesting Obama administration policy, urge regime change." Now, the first version of this was so convoluted I had to eventually find this.
The upshot of this is there are 51 or 52 people at State Department who are dramatically opposed to the fact that we're just letting Assad run roughshod in Syria, that we're not doing anything to stop him. And they all wrote and signed a confidential document stating their disagreement and Obama and the administration and demanding that we take out Assad and Damascus as the only way we're ever gonna be able to deal a serious blow to ISIS.
\
Now, one of the reasons we're not is because supposedly we don't want to anger Putin and Putin is gonna take ISIS out, too; we don't want to supersede. But that's all a distraction. So what do we have here? In two days we have the CIA director saying under oath something completely different than what the president said about the condition of ISIS. The next day, 52 people in State -- and these are not your average card-carrying conservatives in the State Department, understand.
These are progressive leftists, and 52 of them have had it. And they signed a confidential -- leaked, obviously, one of them leaked it -- stating that our current policy is a waste. It's the ineffective, irrelevant, and we need to take out Assad and we need to take out Damascus. So I'm asking myself, now, what...? You know, with this bunch, the first thing you say is, okay, what is the deceit? Why would Obama order this kind of thing to happen?
And you deal with that, say, "Okay, maybe that's not what happened here." So the next possibility: Why the revolt? I mean, it's been 7-1/2 years and this stuff hasn't happened. I don't have this... There hasn't been anybody come out, for example, and say that Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East, sidling up to the Muslim Brotherhood was disastrous. There hasn't been anybody come out and say, "Oh, my God, what we've done to health care is an absolute disaster! Oh, we've ruined it!"
None of that.
But now, when it comes to ISIS, we've got the CIA and elements in the State Department now publicly disagreeing with and whatever else you want to say Obama on this. My original thought was, "Is there a revolt going on here? And, if so, what could be the explanation for it?" And then I had to grab hold of myself and say, "Wait a minute. It's not that. There's no revolt going on. Not in the sense that you probably understand it." I finally figured out, these are all Hillary people. I don't know about Brennan, but I wouldn't be surprised.
These are all Hillary people who are doing everything they can to separate Hillary from Obama and this disastrous policies of his involving ISIS. Because they think the Hillary campaign can clearly see... The Hillary campaign does not want to run for office having to echo what these clowns at the Regime are saying. Hillary doesn't want to have to run against Christians.
She doesn't want to have to blame the Second Amendment for this. I guarantee you... Well, I can't guarantee you. I am surmising that what this actually is, is Clinton people trying to separate her from what they see as very potentially damaging, disastrous, incompetent, immature, irrelevant Obama foreign policy. That's the explanation. It has to be.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/state-department-syria/
RUSH: And then I saw this last night. And I had to read this from three or four different sources to understand it 'cause the writing is so confusing. This version is from the Wall Street Journal. "US State Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria’s Assad -- Dozens of officials sign confidential document protesting Obama administration policy, urge regime change." Now, the first version of this was so convoluted I had to eventually find this.
The upshot of this is there are 51 or 52 people at State Department who are dramatically opposed to the fact that we're just letting Assad run roughshod in Syria, that we're not doing anything to stop him. And they all wrote and signed a confidential document stating their disagreement and Obama and the administration and demanding that we take out Assad and Damascus as the only way we're ever gonna be able to deal a serious blow to ISIS.
\
Now, one of the reasons we're not is because supposedly we don't want to anger Putin and Putin is gonna take ISIS out, too; we don't want to supersede. But that's all a distraction. So what do we have here? In two days we have the CIA director saying under oath something completely different than what the president said about the condition of ISIS. The next day, 52 people in State -- and these are not your average card-carrying conservatives in the State Department, understand.
These are progressive leftists, and 52 of them have had it. And they signed a confidential -- leaked, obviously, one of them leaked it -- stating that our current policy is a waste. It's the ineffective, irrelevant, and we need to take out Assad and we need to take out Damascus. So I'm asking myself, now, what...? You know, with this bunch, the first thing you say is, okay, what is the deceit? Why would Obama order this kind of thing to happen?
And you deal with that, say, "Okay, maybe that's not what happened here." So the next possibility: Why the revolt? I mean, it's been 7-1/2 years and this stuff hasn't happened. I don't have this... There hasn't been anybody come out, for example, and say that Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East, sidling up to the Muslim Brotherhood was disastrous. There hasn't been anybody come out and say, "Oh, my God, what we've done to health care is an absolute disaster! Oh, we've ruined it!"
None of that.
But now, when it comes to ISIS, we've got the CIA and elements in the State Department now publicly disagreeing with and whatever else you want to say Obama on this. My original thought was, "Is there a revolt going on here? And, if so, what could be the explanation for it?" And then I had to grab hold of myself and say, "Wait a minute. It's not that. There's no revolt going on. Not in the sense that you probably understand it." I finally figured out, these are all Hillary people. I don't know about Brennan, but I wouldn't be surprised.
These are all Hillary people who are doing everything they can to separate Hillary from Obama and this disastrous policies of his involving ISIS. Because they think the Hillary campaign can clearly see... The Hillary campaign does not want to run for office having to echo what these clowns at the Regime are saying. Hillary doesn't want to have to run against Christians.
She doesn't want to have to blame the Second Amendment for this. I guarantee you... Well, I can't guarantee you. I am surmising that what this actually is, is Clinton people trying to separate her from what they see as very potentially damaging, disastrous, incompetent, immature, irrelevant Obama foreign policy. That's the explanation. It has to be.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/state-department-syria/