During a joint question-and-answer session with Sen. John McCain at the McCain Institute for International Leadership in Manhattan Tuesday night, former President Bill Clinton sharply criticized the way President Obama has handled the ongoing crisis in Syria.
Why did Clinton suddenly lash out at Obama and criticize his handling of the Syrian crisis? Is the former President paving the way for Hillary's 2016 Presidential bid by absolving her of any responsibility for the way Obama has handled the turmoil in Syria? Who knows.
According to Politico, the former President told McCain - during the joint question-and-answer session - that he agrees with his sentiment that President Barack Obama is not acting forcefully enough to support anti-Assad rebels in Syria.
"I agree with you about this", Clinton told McCain. Blaming a lack of intervention on opposition in polls or among members of Congress would be “lame”, Clinton said, adding that the American public elects presidents and members of Congress “to see down the road” and “to win."
The former President implied that Obama or any president risks looking like “a total fool” if they listen too closely to opinion polls and act too cautiously, Politico reported.
The masterful and cunning politician and PR man - albeit nowhere near a cunning and masterful politician as Obama - went on to say that Syria "is like Afghanistan was in the ’80s when they were fighting the Soviet Union … when President Reagan was in office [and] got an enormous amount of influence and gratitude by helping to topple the Soviet-backed regime and then made the error of not hanging around in Afghanistan” to try to cash in on the gains.
The former President omitted the fact that Obama and Hillary Clinton made the decision to prematurely withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan even as the level of violence in the country continues to rise at an alarming pace. On the flip side, Ronald Reagan had no way of knowing in the 80's that an Al Qaeda threat would arise from Afghanistan and attack the U.S. In fact, the Taliban did not take over the reigns of power in Afghanistan until 1996, and, guess who the U.S President was in 1996?
Oh, and did we forget to mention that Bill Clinton refused to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance.
Whether President Obama should intervene in Syria or not, or whether he should have intervened at an earlier date, before Al Qaeda had significantly infiltrated the rebel ranks, is a question that can be debated. What is an indisputable and sad fact is that, although Syria had been, and still is, designated by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, Obama, in 2009, eased sanctions on the Syrian regime. And, despite the fact that the U.S ambassador to Syria had been recalled by President Bush because of Syria's involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Harri , Obama returned the U.S. ambassador to Syria in 2010, because, well, because, as Hillary Clinton likes to say: "What difference does it make?"
And, as long as we're quoting Hillary Clinton, let's not forget what the former Secretary of State called Bashar Assad, shortly after the turmoil in Syria started to brew: "A reformer." Heh...
Bottom line: "Incompetence" would be one way to describe Obama and Hillary, but a more appropriate label would be "terrorist appeasers". And, believe me, that's putting it mildly........