Christopher Preble has his suspicions that the Democrats' presidential frontrunner looks for foreign policy wisdom from George W. Bush.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
- Fox Business Network Cancels Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch (2.9)
- Breitbart on libertarians in 2012 (2.11)
- Did the Drug War Make it Any Easier for Whitney Houston to Seek Help For Substance Abuse? (2.12)
- The Inside and Outside of CPAC 2012 (2.10)
- One Possible Reason There Are So Few Liberals, Starring Jonathan Chait. And Some Stuff About Tax Progressivity. (2.10)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|5.1.07 @ 9:29AM|#
Preble devotes the middle part of his column to speculation about Clinton's beliefs, and doesn't even bother to actually discuss the argument she gave at the time of her vote, and ever since?
To paraphrase, "I've been on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and I believe the President needs the authority to use force in order to effectively run America's foreign policy." This says nothing about the execuation of the war, or even whether it should have been launched. Maybe she supported the AUMF to give Bush a better hand in compelling Iraq to comply with its obligations (you know, the argument Bush made when he asked for the authorization).
I don't find her argument terribly compelling - I want Congress to keep presidents on a shorter leash than they have over the past few decades - but shouldn't her stated position play some role in a column about her beliefs about foreign and military policy?
|5.1.07 @ 11:41AM|#
"The latest Gallup poll shows that Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead over Sen. Barack Obama has dropped to a mere five points."
The latest Rasmussen poll has Obama ahead of her by 2 points.
|5.1.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Leave it to the Dems to self destruct.
|5.1.07 @ 1:30PM|#
An exercise for the reader - check the margin of error. ;)
|5.1.07 @ 1:45PM|#
"An exercise for the reader - check the margin of error. ;)"
True, the margin of error is about 3 or 4 points, but Hillary has been in a free fall for the past month.
|5.1.07 @ 3:37PM|#
I'd say that Hillary's foreign-policy mind is an interesting mix of political calculation, Wilsonian idealism, and power intoxication. Pretty much the same mixture that characterized her husband's administration.
After all, the last President to properly heed George Washington's warning was Calvin Coolidge.
|5.1.07 @ 4:29PM|#
The latest Bush pronouncement, "Chaos will result if we pull out" ignores the fact that chaos already exisits.
The debate should be, "WILL PULLING OUT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER CHAOS, ABOUT THE SAME, OR LESS?"
If Hillary or Obama think that it will be about the same or perhaps less, then why not say that and have a real debate, or say they favor a pullout based on that reasoning?
Robert Pape, after studying suicide bombings for 10 years, says they only occur with foreign occupations. Will it really be all that worse if we leave?
What do the candidates think will happen if we leave? The bad thing about Hillary is she refuses to say anything definitive.