Clinton, the Worst Warmonger Running for President, Warns That Trump or Cruz Might Start a War

Clinton and Cruz both condemn Trump's "isolationism," code for asking why America must police the planet.



In a speech at Stanford University yesterday, Hillary Clinton warned that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who are vying to run against her in this year's presidential election, are risky choices because they're apt to get the United States involved in another war. That is pretty rich coming from a politician who has supported every war America has waged since the last time she lived in the White House, plus at least one that it didn't.

"It would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly ground war in the Middle East," Clinton said. "If we've learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that people and nations have to secure their own communities." It is doubtful that the former secretary of state has learned anything from Iraq or Afghanistan. She certainly did not learn anything from Libya. But maybe her point is that the United States should run headlong into another costly ground war in the Middle East, as opposed to stumbling into it.

For the record, Trump and Cruz also say they want to depend on local proxies for ground troops in the war against ISIS. Cruz is big on bombs but not keen on sending U.S. troops, which he says "should always be the last step." During the March 10 Republican presidential debate, Trump seemed to indicate that he could imagine sending "20,000 or 30,000" American soldiers to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria if that is what it takes. But Trump retreated from that suggestion in an exchange with Washington Post Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl during a visit to the paper on Monday: 

Diehl: And could I ask you about ISIS, speaking of making commitments, because you talked recently about possibly sending 20 or 30,000 troops and—

Trump: No I didn't, oh no no no. OK, I know what you're saying. 

There was a question asked to me. I said that the military, the generals have said that 20- to 30,000. They said, would you send troops? I didn't say send 20,000. I said, well the generals are saying you'd need because they, what would it take to wipe out ISIS, I said pretty much exactly this, I said the generals, the military is saying you would need 20- to 30,000 troops, but I didn't say that I would send them.

Diehl: If they said that, would you go along with that and send the troops?

Trump: I find it hard to go along with—I mention that as an example because it's so much. That's why I brought that up. But a couple of people have said the same thing as you, where they said did I say that and I said that that's a number that I heard would be needed. I would find it very, very hard to send that many troops to take care of it. I would say this: I would put tremendous pressure on other countries that are over there to use their troops, and I'd give them tremendous air supporters and support, because we have to get rid of ISIS, OK, just so—we have to get rid of ISIS. I would get other countries to become very much involved.

Based on exchanges like this, I can totally picture Trump stumbling into another costly ground war in the Middle East. But the same goes for Clinton, Cruz, and anyone else who tries to "destroy" ISIS, only to find that bombs and proxy soldiers will not do the trick. The fact remains that Trump has been notably more skeptical of foreign entanglememts than Clinton or Cruz. That skepticism extends not only to deposing Middle Eastern dictators but to participating in obsolete alliances and defending rich countries that are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

Clinton sees the latter criticism as a sign of Trump's naiveté. In her speech Clinton rebuked Trump for questioning the value of NATO, which she called "the most successful alliance in history" and "one of the best investments America has ever made." Even while suggesting that European countries should spend more on their own defense, she criticized Trump for suggesting that they could at least pay the U.S. for services rendered. "Turning our back on our alliances or turning our alliance into a protection racket would reverse decades of bipartisan American leadership and send a dangerous signal to friend and foe alike," she said.

But what Trump is suggesting, in his own inconsistent, semi-articulate way, is that "bipartisan American leadership," which is code for trying to run the world, is part of the problem. Both Ron and (to a lesser extent) Rand Paul have made the same point about the perils of policing the planet. When a reporter asked Cruz about that yesterday, he drew a distinction that was accurate but irrelevant. "Ron Paul and Rand Paul both are informed and have a well-thought-out foreign policy position," he said. "I disagree with many aspects of that position, but they actually know what they're talking about."

Yet Cruz had just cited Trump's criticism of NATO as evidence of his cluelessness, saying it illustrated the Republican front-runner's "weakness and a dangerous isolationism." The sanctity of current military commitments—like Cruz's (and Trump's!) insistence that the U.S. must spend more on the military, even though it already devotes more resources to so-called defense than the next seven biggest spenders combined—cries out for questioning. The fact that the questions come from Trump does not make them any less valid.

NEXT: Starbucks Gets Sappy About the 2016 Election in Full-Page Newspaper Ads

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. Report abuses.

  1. But a couple of people have said the same thing as you, where they said did I say that and I said that that’s a number that I heard would be needed

    wtf is this gibberish

    1. It’s only gibberish to sexist pigs. People who aren’t sexist pigs listen and hear wisdom that is truer than that ever spoken by a mortal human.

      1. Meh. It’s not LATINA wisdom.

      2. I think it’s probably CIYP’s time of the month. He’s not very perceptive. Not good to listen to. Everyone says so.

        1. He’s bleeding from his eyes, bleeding from his… wherever.

    2. That’s a transcription problem, I think.

      But a couple of people have said the same thing as you, where they said, “Did [I] say that?” and I said that that’s a number that I heard would be needed.

      In the context it actually makes sense. The sentence, I mean. I don’t speak to Trump’s truthfulness or any points he’s making or trying to make. He’s responding to the questioner and referencing others who have similarly questioned his citing of specific troop numbers. I think.

      1. This makes you a Trump supporter. Quick, someone alert The Worst!

        1. She’s probably repairing the last Starbucks window she threw brick through.

      2. Of course, Trump is also the guy who said the troops would have no problem following his illegal orders.

  2. She is such a sociopath. She knew early on we were supporting jihadis and veterans of Al-Qaeda in Iraq which had America blood on their hands and kept freaking doing it in Libya. In her declassified emails she was told point blank AQ forces were showing up at our special forces training camps and this was just one month after Libyan protests even started. try her for treason, supporting America’s only real enemy.

    1. Yep. Hillary loves radical Muslim terrorists, just like Obama does. She still wants to overthrow Assad so that they can become even more powerful.

  3. Clinton, the Biggest Warmonger Running for President, Worries That Trump or Cruz Might Start a War against countries that have “donated” to the Clinton Foundation.

    Edited for accuracy.

  4. If ISIS attacks the US, I assume that any president will go to war.

    They won’t want to look weak on defense for whatever the next election is.

    It’s just a question of degree.

    1. Degree of incompetence too, I think Hillary would fuck things up the most

    2. Except that the democrats and the vermin in the media are never going to acknowledge that any act by their Muslim terrorist friends qualifies as an attack on the US, no matter how many Americans get killed.

  5. Why do people keep using the Brussels attack as evidence that we need NATO when a) NATO was powerless to stop this attack and b) NATO’s only value is as a military alliance against *states* so NATO has no value when it comes to fighting terrorists?

    1. Bc they are throwing spaghetti against a wall hoping that something sticks so us citizens don’t get any ideas that it is pointless and so NATO can continue to be the excuse we have to sell and develop major multi-billion dollars weapons systems and perpetuate the massive bureaucracy. oh you meant good reason?

    2. Some argue that Brussels is not a counter-terrorism situation anymore, but a counter-insurgency op. Since Belgium only has a few hundred infantry, US troops will have to be deployed to patrol their neighborhoods. Like in Northern Ireland.

      1. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. We’re supposed to go patrolling first world countries for counter insurgency purposes because they’re such welfare queens they won’t pay for it themselves?

        1. We’re supposed to go patrolling countries because they won’t pay for it themselves.


      2. You have proof of that? Just curious.

        1. Here’s the argument (a little on the pants shitting side):
          I don’t think it is a counter-insurgency level problem – yet. But aspects of the situation in Belgium is getting to that end of the scale.

        2. Poe’s law strikes again?

      3. Americans don’t like boots on the ground, so Belgium will have to settle for us drone bombing the bad parts of Brussels.

  6. My solution: double-down on Obama’s foreign policy plan, but call it “Smarter Diplomacy.” You have my number, Mrs. Clinton – I’ll be waiting.

  7. “I disagree with many aspects of that position, but they actually know what they’re talking about.”

    Trump’s problem is he’s incomprehensible and Cruz’s problem is he isn’t.

  8. God, I hate that women with the passion of a thousand suns.

    1. So does her husband.

  9. “…or turning our alliance into a protection racket…”

    It’s awfully cute of her to now be opposed to one group having a monopoly on violence.

  10. Trump and Cruz are spoiling for blood and violence and probably a ground war, despite what they say. Hilary may end up in a war, but only reluctantly, and only because she has some bad military advisors. So I’d vote for her over them. But I’m leaning towards Gary at this point, based on what (little) I know about him.

  11. But she can’t be a war monger…she’s a woman! – Clinton Campaign Spokeshuman

  12. Based on exchanges like this, I can totally picture Trump stumbling into another costly ground war in the Middle East.

    This is a stupid statement, based on a stupid question addressed to Trump. When asked if he would send 20-30 thousand troops, what was he supposed to say? That he would never send troops? That he would absolutely send troops? Who would ever say that they can’t foresee some combinations of scenarios where troops might be sent? Or who, in other words, has a crystal ball to say that troops will never be sent?

    1. BTW, nice pants-shitting about Trump there. Makes you sound much like Clinton.

  13. I still say that Democrats are differentiating between war and war-war.

    How else can Am-soc continue to post here and whine about the potential of going to war when we elect Reagan as president while completely ignoring the war against ISIS in which we’re currently engaged, partnering with the Russians to prop up the Asad regime.

  14. Clinton, the Worst Warmonger Running for President Who Actually Started a War, Warns That Trump or Cruz Might Start a War


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.