Featured Post

Man behind the Curtain for al-Qaeda in Syria is Assad

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad wanted the recent Geneva II peace conference to focus on terrorism. He says terrorism is the main problem a...

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Did Dishonest Jill Stein change her Syria statement on the sly?

Green's Jill Stein first posts:
US should be working with Syria, Russia, and Iran to restore all of Syria to control by the government rather than Jihadi rebels. 
Then deletes this unconditional support for the murderous Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his allies that are currently doing this to Aleppo:
Without comment!

Even after all I've written critiquing Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's support for fascist dictators, this tweet from Patrick Strickland surprised me because its hard to imagine a worst position on Syria. It is a complete betrayal of the Syrian people, who have already paid such a high price to be rid of Assad. It promises much greater suffering in their future. It represents no solution to the Syrian refugee crisis because they will refuse to return to a Syria run by Assad. It blames the United States for all of their suffering and calls upon our government to collaborate with their mass murderers:
But when I went to the link to validate it, I couldn't find that quote at all. Instead I found this:
Jill Stein on Syria

Jill Stein made the following statement on Syria in a 9/15/16 interview with RealClearPolitics:

The situation in Syria is complicated and disastrous, with an all out civil war in Syria, and a proxy war among many powers seeking influence in the region. US pursuit of regime change in Libya and Iraq created the chaos that promotes power grabs by extremist militias. Many of the weapons we are sending into Syria to arm anti-government militias end up in the hands of ISIS. In Syria it’s extremely difficult to sort out this complicated web of resistance fighters, religious extremists and warlords with backing from regional and world powers.

The one thing that is clear is that US meddling in the Middle East is throwing fuel on the fire.

I call for principled collaboration in bringing a weapons embargo to the region, freezing the bank accounts of countries that continue to fund terrorist groups, promoting a ceasefire, and supporting inclusive peace talks. The region is extremely complicated.

The best thing we can do for Syria, the Middle East and the world is to de-escalate this conflict, and involve as many of the players as we can in that de-escalation.
This statement doesn't contain the phrase that was highlighted in the tweet. So why did the tweet link to it? Was somebody putting words into Jill Stein's mouth? Was someone trying to make her really terrible position on Syria even worst? Or laying a trap? Still Google search insisted it should be found on that page:


What is going on here? This only happens when a document has been changed and Google's cache still holds the original version. Then I found the original in Google's cache:
Stein Opposes Obama’s Troops on the Ground in Syria

Calls for Middle East Arms Embargo, and for US Allies to Stop aiding ISIS

November 2nd, Lexington, Massachusetts

Jill Stein, who is seeking the Green Party nomination for President, said today that she opposed President Obama’s recent decision to put American troops on the ground in Syria.

“After the catastrophic failure of regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the last thing that the U.S. should be doing is trying to orchestrate regime change in Syria. To stop ISIS we should lean on our allies Saudi Arabia to cut off funding and for Turkey to close its border to jihadi militias. We should convince our allies to stop buying Isis oil on the black market. And we need to enact an arms embargo on the Middle East rather than effectively arming all sides,” noted Stein. It is estimated that the U.S. has supplied 80% percent of the weapons in the area.

“By establishing a weapons and ammunition embargo to the Middle East, we can effectively disarm ISIS. We should work to engage Russia to jointly sponsor this weapons embargo,” added Stein.

Stein said the US should be working with Syria, Russia, and Iran to restore all of Syria to control by the government rather than Jihadi rebels. Collaboration could lead to real success against ISIS. And it would stop the flow of refugees that is reaching crisis proportions in Europe.

Stein noted, “By putting U.S. troops on the ground, Obama has set up a tripwire for drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict. If U.S. personnel are embedded with Syrian rebels, and Russia bombs the rebels, then Russia could inadvertently kill Americans, creating a dangerous international incident. The US would have political cover to provide ground-to-air missiles to “protect American lives”. By destabilizing Syria, Obama opened the door to ISIS. Now he is forced into a policy that is doomed to failure. He is funding radical militias who are anti-democratic and unfriendly to the United States. And he is asking Americans to die to support those militias.”

Middle East expert Stephen Zunes points out that empirical studies have demonstrated repeatedly that international military interventions in cases of severe repression actually exacerbate violence in the short term and can only reduce violence in the longer term if the intervention is impartial or neutral. Foreign military interventions increase the duration of civil wars, making the conflicts bloodier, and the regional consequences more serious, than if there were no intervention. Such military intervention often triggers a “gloves off” mentality that dramatically escalates the violence on all sides.

As Medea Benjamin recently pointed out,
“If you look at the results of U.S. intervention, it’s been to take a relatively isolated place like Afghanistan, where there were extremists, and now spread them out to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, northern Africa.”
So what she has done here is simply "disappeared" the original, probably because it was embarrassingly honest about her support for the murderous Assad regime, and replaced it with a much milder, shorter version. This could be seen as a positive change except for the fact that it has bee done unscrupulously. She has done these "1984" totalitarian "edits" on her website before. As I reported in How Jill Stein was for Brexit before her Orwellian attempt to say otherwise, which prompts this suggest: If you see something on Jill2016.org that you might want to return to, its not enough to bookmark it. She changes content without acknowledging the changes, so you had better take a screenshot as Patrick wisely did. That way you will be in a position to confront Jill Stein if she claims to never have posted something she later became embarrassed by and changed without notice.

Since she has zero chance of winning, we don't have to concern ourselves with the question of how would such an unethical person handle federal records. Would they still be just redacted, with embarrassing info whited out like now:


Or would be be filled with fabricated info in the spirit of Hitler's Germany or Stain's Russia?

My other recent posts relating to this unique election cycle:
Republican support for Green Party @DrJillStein is emerging
Why "Jill not Hill" is a pro-Trump slogan
Donald Trump can only win if Jill Stein stays in

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

No comments:

Post a Comment