podesta_email_01860.txt

podesta-emails 6,156 words email

D6 P17 P22 V11 V9

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- [image: Inline image 1] *Correct The Record Thursday August 14, 2014 Afternoon Roundup: * *Tweets:* *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@allidablack <https://twitter.com/allidablack> wrote in @TheAdvocateMag <https://twitter.com/TheAdvocateMag> how @HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> has demonstrated her commitment to gay rights http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/08/14/op-ed-hillary-ready-us … <http://t.co/DxmCRZGr0O>[8/14/14, 12:35 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/499957462246916096>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: The @HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> that @AllidaBlack <https://twitter.com/allidablack> met in 1993 has always stood by #LGBT <https://twitter.com/hashtag/LGBT?src=hash> people. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/08/14/op-ed-hillary-ready-us … <http://t.co/DxmCRZGr0O> [8/14/14, 12:08 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/499950587258347520>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> worked to advance policies helping parents balance work and family #HRC365 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/issues.html … <http://t.co/fOgQneFnrE> [8/13/14, 6:00 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/499676843566723072>] *Headlines:* *New York Times: “Is This Island Big Enough for Clinton and Obama?” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/us/politics/is-this-island-big-enough-for-clinton-and-obama-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>* “Hillary Rodham Clinton blew into this tiny island town like a fast-moving hurricane on Wednesday, creating a commotion at the Bunch of Grapes bookstore, where hundreds of admirers waited for hours in the rain for a glimpse of the woman who they hope will be the next president.” *The Daily Beast: “Obama Stifled Hillary’s Syria Plans and Ignored Her Iraq Warnings for Years” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/obama-stifled-hillary-s-syria-plans-and-ignored-her-iraq-warnings-for-years.html>* “But for Clinton personally, the engagement of the armed groups was crucial and the White House’s forced policy of pretending that the best way to support the revolution was through the civilian opposition based in Turkey was foolish.” *Wall Street Journal opinion: Karl Rove: “Hillary's Risky Hawkish Makeover” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-hillarys-risky-hawkish-makeover-1407971047?KEYWORDS=karl+rove>* “Moving away from Mr. Obama may look good on paper, but it may not work so well. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton cannot point to any notable successes during her State Department tenure.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Even with Hillary Clinton in the race, 2016 is basically a toss-up” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/even-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-race-2016-is-basically-a-toss-up/>* “A new poll from McClatchy and Marist College documents that decline pretty well. In hypothetical matchups with potential 2016 Republican candidates, Clinton has seen her lead decline from 20-plus points in February to the mid-single digits today.” *CNN: “Gap shrinks between Hillary Clinton and Republicans” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/14/gap-shrinks-between-hillary-clinton-and-republicans/>* “While Hillary Clinton still maintains an advantage over potential GOP rivals in 2016, a new poll shows that her lead is narrowing. And as her book tour has received extensive coverage, her support has dropped below 50%, according to the McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday.” *Politico: “Poll: Hillary Clinton’s 2016 lead drops” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/poll-hillary-clinton-2016-110009.html?hp=l6>* “A McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday shows that support for potential Democratic candidate Clinton has dropped to under 50 percent in head-to-head matchups as support for Republican potential candidates such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is gaining.” *Time opinion: Sen. Rand Paul: “We Must Demilitarize the Police” <http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>* “The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.” *Articles:* *New York Times: “Is This Island Big Enough for Clinton and Obama?” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/us/politics/is-this-island-big-enough-for-clinton-and-obama-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>* By Michael D. Shear, Jonathan Martin and Amy Chozick August 13, 2014 VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. — Hillary Rodham Clinton blew into this tiny island town like a fast-moving hurricane on Wednesday, creating a commotion at the Bunch of Grapes bookstore, where hundreds of admirers waited for hours in the rain for a glimpse of the woman who they hope will be the next president. “When I heard Hillary was going to be here, I literally started crying,” said Lily Richards, a 17-year-old high school senior from Greenfield, Mass., whose high school thesis paper argued for Mrs. Clinton’s election as president. “Oh my God, I have to go.” Up island from the hubbub, President Obama is vacationing at a sprawling shingled home, still setting off friendly waves from locals when his motorcade glides by. But after six years, energy here and elsewhere appears to be shifting from Mr. Obama toward Mrs. Clinton, as the former secretary of state moves away from the president’s orbit toward her own political future, generating tensions that are spilling out in unusual ways. Mr. Obama is fast becoming the past, not the future, for donors, activists and Democratic strategists. Party leaders are increasingly turning toward Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as Democrats face difficult races this fall in states where the president is especially unpopular, and her aides are making plain that she has no intention of running for “Obama’s third term.” The moment is an awkward one, and some moves by Mrs. Clinton are reopening wounds from the 2008 primary contest. Her blunt public criticism of the president’s foreign policy in The Atlantic this week touched off frustration among Mr. Obama’s advisers and supporters, especially her suggestion that under Mr. Obama, the United States lacked an “organizing principle” in its approach to international relations. “ ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Mrs. Clinton said. Christine Pelosi, a longtime Democratic activist and daughter of the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, said her phone and email “just exploded” after Mrs. Clinton’s remarks. “Now is not the time to second guess the commander in chief, particularly when you’re a former member of his cabinet and national security team,” Ms. Pelosi said. The sharpest response to the interview came from David Axelrod, who helped Mr. Obama crush Mrs. Clinton in the primary six years ago in part by calling attention to her support for the Iraq war. “Just to clarify: ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision,” Mr. Axelrod wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. Mrs. Clinton then issued an unusual public statement, saying that she had called the president to reassure him that she had not intended to attack him, and that she looked forward to “hugging it out” with him at a party hosted by Vernon E. Jordan Jr. on Martha’s Vineyard on Wednesday night. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama sat at the same table during the party, a birthday celebration for Mr. Jordan’s wife, Ann, at the Farm Neck Golf Club. The president and his former top diplomat ate surf ’n’ turf and pasta, but White House officials declined to say whether they hugged. When Mrs. Clinton arrived Wednesday to begin signing copies of her latest book, “Hard Choices,” on Wednesday, she paused to respond to reporters who called out questions about her relationship with Mr. Obama. She answered without missing a beat, saying: “We have disagreements, as any partners and friends — as we are — might very well have. But I’m proud that I served with him and for him.” Then she turned her focus to her waiting fans, greeting them with a big smile, a “thanks for being here” or “hello, sir, how are you?” and a quick flick of the pen as she signed their books. Owners of the bookstore said they had sold more than 1,000 books in advance of the event. “Awesome. I just talked to the 45th president!” said Cynthia Woolbright, 63, who pumped her fist in the air after the former first lady signed her copy. Some Obama administration officials complain privately that Mrs. Clinton is already making the president’s job more difficult. As Mr. Obama navigates multiple foreign crises abroad, they say, he finds few vocal supporters in the Democratic foreign policy establishment because would-be diplomats and advisers have their eye on jobs in a future Clinton administration and do not want to be seen as taking sides in a dispute between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Even before Mrs. Clinton’s critique of Mr. Obama, some of the president’s original loyalists were questioning the wisdom of her high-profile book tour, which has been likened to a trial run for a national campaign. “I don’t even understand why they’re doing this,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview earlier this summer. “If I were her, I would be so sparing. With this, she makes herself a candidate and a target. Why she’d want to be out there so early is beyond me.” Robert Gibbs, another former adviser to Mr. Obama, said Mrs. Clinton risked being drawn into an extended news media examination that would not benefit a potential candidacy. Plus, Mr. Gibbs noted, Mrs. Clinton is inevitably going to draw attention from Mr. Obama’s agenda in the small window that exists between now and when the 2016 campaign is fully engaged. “There’s no doubt that there’s a certain amount of news that you’re going to cede each day,” he said of Mr. Obama. Officially, Mr. Obama’s aides dismiss the notion that there is strain between the president and Mrs. Clinton and insist that their staffs have worked hard to develop trust. And they say it is natural for Mrs. Clinton to stake out her own positions. “It would be weird if she had no differences with us,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said shortly after “Hard Choices” was published. “She has every right to say where there are some differences, even as she’s made clear they agree on most issues.” Still, the role reversal is a striking reminder that nothing in politics is fixed. Mr. Obama eclipsed the Clintons in 2008 as the fresh, new face of the Democratic Party, portraying them as baby boomer relics. Now, Mr. Obama is in danger of becoming a lame duck, and his party has once again started thinking about tomorrow — with the Clintons in mind. Democratic strategists say the difference in standing will be especially striking this fall. The party is being overrun with candidates’ requests for the Clintons to campaign for them, while almost no candidate wishes to appear with Mr. Obama. Others suggested that Mrs. Clinton’s criticism of the president’s foreign policy could actually help some Democratic candidates in places where Mr. Obama is very unpopular. And her aides clearly believe it will help her. Many of those who lined up for the book-signing in the steady rain, patiently submitting to Secret Service screening and following lines marked with yellow police tape, were women. “I love Obama,” said Patti McGrath, 72, of Harwich, Mass., “but I want to see women leading countries.” *The Daily Beast: “Obama Stifled Hillary’s Syria Plans and Ignored Her Iraq Warnings for Years” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/obama-stifled-hillary-s-syria-plans-and-ignored-her-iraq-warnings-for-years.html>* By Josh Rogin August 14, 2014 [Subtitle:] The rift between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over Syria that spilled view this week was three years in the making and was about much more than just arming the rebels. Throughout 2011 and well into 2012, President Obama’s White House barred Hillary Clinton’s State Department from even talking directly to the moderate Syria rebels. This was only one of several ways the Obama team kept the Clinton team from doing more in Syria, back before the revolution was hijacked by ISIS and spread into Iraq. The policy feud has flared up again in recent weeks, with Clinton decrying Obama’s Syria policy, Obama’s inner circle hitting back, and the president himself calling criticism of his Syria moves “horseshit.” Obama and his former secretary of state promised to patch things up at a social gathering on Wednesday. But the rift is deep, and years in the making. Clinton and her senior staff warned the White House multiple times before she left office that the Syrian civil war was getting worse, that working with the civilian opposition was not enough, and that the extremists were gaining ground. The United States needed to engage directly with the Free Syrian Army, they argued; the loose conglomeration of armed rebel groups was more moderate than the Islamic forces—and begging for help from the United States. According to several administration officials who were there, her State Department also warned the White House that Iraq could fall victim to the growing instability in Syria. It was all part of a State Department plea to the president to pursue a different policy. “The State Department warned as early as 2012 that extremists in eastern Syria would link up with extremists in Iraq. We warned in 2012 that Iraq and Syria would become one conflict,” said former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford. “We highlighted the competition between rebel groups on the ground, and we warned if we didn’t help the moderates, the extremists would gain.” But the warnings, which also came from other senior officials—including then-CIA chief David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta—fell on deaf ears. Obama’s small circle of White House foreign policy advisers resisted efforts to make connections with rebel fighters on the ground until 2013, when the administration began to train and equip a few select vetted brigades. For many who worked on Syria policy inside the administration, it was too little, too late. In the spring of 2012, the State Department prepared several classified reports for the White House that provided evidence that the Assad regime was much more durable than thought and was not on the verge of collapse, as both the White House and State Department had assessed up to that point. Back then, the al Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra was the main extremist threat, but Clinton’s State Department was prevented from having any relationship with the rebels who were fighting both the terrorists and the regime, often having to work through intermediaries. But for Clinton personally, the engagement of the armed groups was crucial and the White House’s forced policy of pretending that the best way to support the revolution was through the civilian opposition based in Turkey was foolish. “Clinton understood that the guys with the guns mattered, not the people in Istanbul, that it would have regional implications, and that it could become one large operating area for al Qaeda,” said Ford. “In 2012 and the start of 2013 the most we could do was to provide help to the civilian opposition. We had no permission from the White House to help the FSA, so we did not do so.” Toward the end of 2012, the White House allowed Ford and other State Department officials to have direct contact with the FSA but still barred even the provision of non-lethal aid. John Kerry, who also pushed to arm the rebels, finally got the White House to agree to non-lethal assistance in February 2013. The CIA ticked up its support for some armed rebel groups later that summer. Throughout Clinton’s tenure, the White House ban on doing more to help the Syrian rebels wasn’t explicit, but over time everybody got the message. Even U.S. allies in the region, who wanted the United States to take control of the arming of the rebels, were complaining loudly to U.S. officials that the extremists were taking advantage of U.S. inaction. “There was never a stated policy, but there was a well understood view that we were not going to do any more in Syria than we absolutely had to,” said James Smith, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 2009 to 2013. “The Saudis wanted us to be more involved. They were very concerned about the U.S. being perceived as weak and ineffectual.” White House and National Security Council press staff did not respond to requests for comment. Another State Department official who worked on Syria during Clinton’s tenure said the fights between White House and State Department staff over whether to help the rebels got heated at times. The State Department tried to alleviate Obama’s concerns about helping the rebels—it’s too risky, the arms could get lost, it won’t help—by working hard to figure out who the rebels were and how the United States could help them safely. “[The State Department] tried to get the opposition to a place where if the president did decide to arm the rebels, it would be easier to do,” the official said. “But the institution of the State Department and the institution of the White House were not on the same page. The president didn’t budge, and Hillary had no control over that.” Several former officials expressed exasperation this week after President Obama told The New York Times that the idea that arming the rebels would have made a difference had “always been a fantasy” and that “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth” could win the war “was never in the cards.” They say Obama’s recent comments reveal that he was pursuing a policy that he didn’t believe in, by eventually agreeing to let the CIA arm some rebels, but only a little. This year, the president is asking Congress for $500 million to train and equip the very rebels Obama thinks are hopeless. “It wasn’t a fantasy when the U.S. government started training and arming these doctors, farmers, and pharmacists, and led them to believe the U.S. was coming to help them,” said another former administration official who worked on the Middle East. “To them, the president’s remark is a kick in the gut.” Clinton had to call Obama and apologize after the publication of her Atlantic interview, in which she said Obama’s “failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Bashar al-Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” Obama’s and Clinton’s press staffs have both tried to deescalate the feud this week and emphasize their areas of agreement. Obama is particularly sensitive about the criticism that his refusal to arm the rebels contributed to the current crisis in Syria and Iraq. In a meeting with lawmakers even before Clinton’s interview, he called that criticism “horseshit.” But even as the White House and Clinton team tried to paper over dispute this week, White House and State Department spokespeople were still sending different messages about the Syrian moderate opposition and whether the U.S. will help them. The State Department emphasized American assistance for the rebels; the White House downplayed the efficacy of that assistance. “The U.S. has increased the scope and scale of our assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition, including announcements made last year and a request the president made of Congress this year to fund and authorize a train-and-equip program for the moderate Syrian opposition. That’s something we think is important, and we’ve continued to increase our efforts in that area,” said State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf on Tuesday, emphasizing that Assad helped start ISIS in the first place and facilitated its activities in Iraq for years. “The Syrian opposition is alive and well in Syria.” Deputy National Security Adviser for Communications Ben Rhodes, on the other hand, emphasized Obama’s resistance to Clinton’s strategy to help the rebels, because Obama never thought it could work. “The reason that the president was very deliberate in his decision-making there is 1) we wanted to make sure that we were providing assistance to people who we knew, so that it wouldn’t fall into the wrong hands given how many extremists were operating in that area,” he said. “And 2) we didn’t see a plan that was going to decisively tip the balance against Assad.” *Wall Street Journal opinion: Karl Rove: “Hillary's Risky Hawkish Makeover” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-hillarys-risky-hawkish-makeover-1407971047?KEYWORDS=karl+rove>* By Karl Rove August 13, 2014, 7:04 p.m. EDT Barack Obama believed his legacy as president would be that he ended the Iraq war. It looks increasingly that his legacy could be that he lost it. By their admission, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden inherited a war that had been won. In 2011 Mr. Obama said America was "leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq," and Mr. Biden proclaimed Iraq "one of the great achievements of this administration." Mr. Obama then committed a massive error in judgment by withdrawing all U.S. troops. That allowed the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, the world's most formidable, merciless and dangerous terrorist army. ISIS is now establishing an Islamist caliphate that stretches from Aleppo in Syria to Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and beyond. The president was warned about the ISIS threat for months, yet did essentially nothing. As in so many other important moments when decisive action was required, his actions were haphazard and reactive, his leadership detached, his will almost nonexistent. Even this past week, with ISIS threatening Kurdistan's capital and engaging in genocide against Yazidis and Christians, the best the president could do was order "targeted" airstrikes and send 130 additional troops to serve as "military advisers." While better than nothing, these actions do not demonstrate a commitment to defeating ISIS. Instead, Mr. Obama seems content to cede much of Iraq and Syria to the terrorists. That will have catastrophic consequences. The Iraq calamity is the most recent in a staggering run of foreign-policy failures, from Syria to Libya to Afghanistan to Russia to Gaza. The president is paying a political price for his bumbling. The July 14 Pew Research poll found only 35% approve of Mr. Obama's handling of Iraq, while 54% disapprove, down from 46% approve and 41% disapprove in January 2011. Mr. Obama's numbers are likely worse today, one month further into the crisis. Things are so bad that Mr. Obama is even drawing fire from his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. She is distancing herself from his foreign policy, telling the Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg that she favored aiding Syrian opposition groups when Mr. Obama did not. His refusal to provide aid, she said, left a vacuum that was filled by ISIS. Mrs. Clinton also made it clear that she would be tougher on the Iranian nuclear program and a stronger supporter of Israel than Mr. Obama. Then she added a wicked jab. Playing off the president's earlier quip that his approach to foreign policy is "Don't do stupid s—", she said, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle." Mrs. Clinton is calculating that she must separate herself from the president she served because voters increasingly see him as inept and weak. She argues that she is a foreign-policy Goldilocks, balanced between the frontier rambunctiousness of Mr. Obama's predecessor and the erudite timidity of Mr. Obama. Moving away from Mr. Obama may look good on paper, but it may not work so well. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton cannot point to any notable successes during her State Department tenure. If she developed a strategy that was more than the laughable "reset" button she used to mend U.S. relations with Russia, it escaped public view. Distancing herself from the president's foreign policy also underscores her failure to persuade Mr. Obama to act otherwise. Mrs. Clinton's shots at the president have angered administration loyalists. Former Obama senior adviser David Axelrod reacted by tweeting that her vote as a senator to authorize the use of force in Iraq was "a tragically bad decision." Liberal commentators are warning that Mrs. Clinton's comments show she is not the inevitable nominee. After being whipsawed, her people now say she called Mr. Obama to "clarify her criticism" and looked forward to "hugging it out" with him at a Martha's Vineyard party Wednesday. There is a historical precedent worth considering. Vice President Hubert Humphrey found it difficult to distance himself in 1968 from an unpopular President Lyndon Baines Johnson, and he suffered because of it. It was not until a Sept. 30 nationally televised address, when he broke completely with LBJ over the Vietnam War, that he felt he got his campaign back on track. But it was too little, too late, and Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon. While she is starting her distancing earlier, in some respects Mrs. Clinton faces a greater challenge than Humphrey did in 1968. A gifted politician might be able to pull off what she is attempting, but she is hardly that talented. It's more likely that she will fail to win over many of Mr. Obama's critics as she alienates many of his supporters, making her road to the nomination and White House more difficult. *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Even with Hillary Clinton in the race, 2016 is basically a toss-up” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/even-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-race-2016-is-basically-a-toss-up/>* By Aaron Blake August 14, 2014, 1:19 p.m. EDT It's no big surprise that Hillary Clinton has come back down to earth polling-wise in the last few months. Her stumbles aside, it was basically bound to happen eventually -- for a whole host of reasons. A new poll from McClatchy and Marist College documents that decline pretty well. In hypothetical matchups with potential 2016 Republican candidates, Clinton has seen her lead decline from 20-plus points in February to the mid-single digits today. She leads Chris Christie by six points after leading him by 21 points six months ago. She leads Jeb Bush 48-41 after leading him by 20 in February. She leads Rand Paul 48-42 after leading him by the same margin early this year. Here's how that looks: [GRAPHS] Democrats will point out that Clinton is still ahead against all comers. And that's true. It's also true, though, that these polls pretty much show the 2016 presidential race is a toss-up. Clinton's continued lead, at this point, is pretty clearly a function of her superior name ID. While Clinton wins the votes of 97 percent of "strong Democrats" in all three matchups, Christie and Paul take only 91 percent of "strong Republicans." While Clinton takes 79 percent of "soft Democrats," Paul only takes 65 percent of "soft Republicans." That's largely because these Republicans aren't as well-known to their base. In all three matchups, Clinton continues to take at least 20 percent of so-called "soft Republicans." That's to her credit, and good on her if she can somehow keep it up. We would wager, though, that as those "soft Republicans" actually get to know Republicans and the GOP's campaign against Clinton begins in earnest, there's no way Clinton will continue to pick off one in five of even the most casual GOP voters. It's just not possible in today's polarized political environment. As for pure independents-- those who don't really lean toward either party -- they continue to favor Clinton in two of the three matchups. But in all three matchups, around one-third of these voters are undecided. These are the voters that will decide the 2016 election, and there are a lot of them up for grabs. We doubt many of them know much about Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, even as all of them know who Clinton is. At this point in the game, Clinton is so well-known that she's effectively the incumbent, trying to ward off her lesser-known challengers. And, as with an incumbent, to the extent that she's below 50 percent in the polls, it's hard to call her a favorite. *CNN: “Gap shrinks between Hillary Clinton and Republicans” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/14/gap-shrinks-between-hillary-clinton-and-republicans/>* By Ashley Killough August 14, 2014, 8:36 a.m. EDT While Hillary Clinton still maintains an advantage over potential GOP rivals in 2016, a new poll shows that her lead is narrowing. And as her book tour has received extensive coverage, her support has dropped below 50%, according to the McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday. The survey also looks at the 2016 Republican primary and who fares best among the potential candidates. *Clinton vs. Republican* In a hypothetical matchup against Sen. Rand Paul, Clinton bests the Kentucky Republican, 48%-42%, with 10% undecided. The 6-point margin is equal to the poll's sampling error, and the gap is narrower than in April, when Clinton had a 55%-39% Matched against Gov. Chris Christie, Clinton leads the New Jersey Republican, 47%-41%, with 12% of voters undecided. That's down from her 53%-42% advantage over Christie in April. Clinton has also lost her wide margin over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who she leads 48%-41%, down from her 55%-39% advantage in April. *Republican primary* The poll also asked Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who they would support in the GOP presidential primary. Like nearly every other 2016 poll, the McClatchy-Marist poll indicates there is no frontrunner in the race, and nearly a quarter of Republicans are undecided. Bush and Christie tie for the top spot at 13% each, with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas following behind at 10%. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who served as the 2012 vice presidential nominee, ties with Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida at 9%. Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry tie at 7% each. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal all receive less than 5% of support. The poll also indicates that Paul, while trying to expand the Republican Party has lost support among tea party supporters. In April, he came in at 20% among tea party backers, with Cruz at 6%. Paul now has only has 7% support from the group, compared to Cruz at 15% - the top spot. The survey was conducted on August 4 with 1,035 adults, including 806 registered voters, questioned over the phone. The registered voters’ subset has a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. For questions about the 2016 GOP primary, 342 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents were interviewed, with a sampling error of plus minus 5.3 percentage points. *Politico: “Poll: Hillary Clinton’s 2016 lead drops” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/poll-hillary-clinton-2016-110009.html?hp=l6>* By Kendall Breitman August 14, 2014, 10:12 a.m. EDT The Republican front-runners for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination are shrinking the gap between themselves and Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll. A McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday shows that support for potential Democratic candidate Clinton has dropped to under 50 percent in head-to-head matchups as support for Republican potential candidates such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is gaining. When asked to chose between Clinton and Christie, 48 percent of those polled said they would vote for Clinton in a general election if one were held today, compared to 41 percent who supported Christie. Four months ago, in April, 53 percent of people said that they would vote for Clinton, while 42 percent sided with Christie. In February, Clinton had an even larger advantage, with 58 percent supporting Clinton and 37 percent saying they would vote for Christie. Paul, another front runner for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, is also gaining on the former secretary of state. In April, Clinton led Paul 54 percent to 40 percent. In August, Paul is catching up with 42 percent of Americans saying they would vote for the Kentucky senator while 48 percent sided with Clinton. A similar shrinking gap can be seen between Clinton and Bush. In April, 55 percent of Americans said that they would vote for Clinton in a general election and 39 percent said that they would vote for Bush. On Thursday, results show that only 48 percent supported Clinton while 41 percent said that they would side with Bush in a general election. This poll was conducted via live-interview telephone survey Aug. 4-7 among 803 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. *Time opinion: Sen. Rand Paul: “We Must Demilitarize the Police” <http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>* By Sen. Rand Paul August 14, 2014, 12:26 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Anyone who thinks that race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. And the root of the problem is big government. The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation. If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot. The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response. The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action. Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote: “Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force. “It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.” The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson: “Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (‘‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.’) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that ‘We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone’?” Olson added, “the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands.” How did this happen? Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current circumstances. There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement. Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement. This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment.” Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.” Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, “today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks included.” When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands. Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them. This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown. Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth. The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country. Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown’s family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.