Hillary Clinton

Why Is Hillary Clinton Still a Hawk?

She refuses to learn from every failed foreign intervention.

|

Hillary Clinton
Andy Martin Jr./ZUMA Press/Newscom

In an era of endless military conflict, anti-war sentiment abides among Democrats. In 2004, their presidential nomination went to John Kerry, who was strongly critical of George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. In 2008, they chose Barack Obama, largely because he had opposed that war. This year, 12 million people cast ballots for Bernie Sanders, who voted against it. 

According to Gallup, 68 percent of Democrats think the Iraq War was a mistake—compared with just 31 percent of Republicans. Two in three reject the use of ground combat troops against Islamic State. 

Then there is Hillary Clinton, who will be this year's nominee. Few Democrats have more consistently favored the use of military force. She voted for the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she urged President Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan. 

New York Times correspondent Mark Landler, author of the new book Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power, told me her aides have told him she favored shipping lethal defensive military equipment to the government of Ukraine after the Russian invasion, something Obama rejected. 

She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya. She proposed similar action in Syria. She has recounted her advice to her husband in dealing with Serbia in 1999: "I urged him to bomb." 

Most Democrats, particularly Obama, have learned to be wary of entangling the United States in wars of choice. But not Clinton. Despite the disaster in Iraq, the failure in Afghanistan and the chaos in Libya, she remains a hawk at heart. 

Landler, who covered Obama and Clinton for The New York Times, sees a clear difference between her approach to foreign policy and that of the president she served. Obama believes "the United States resorts too readily to military force to defend its interests," he writes. Clinton thinks "that American intervention does more good than harm, and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as George W. Bush once declared, into 'any dark corner of the world.'" 

Robert Gates, who was defense secretary under Obama, likes and admires Clinton. But when she pressed Obama to bomb Moammar Gadhafi's forces—which Landler says he probably would not have done otherwise—Gates resisted, arguing that Libya was not a vital U.S. interest and that there was no telling what would happen next. "In meetings, I would ask, 'Can I just finish the two wars we're already in before you go looking for new ones?'" he wrote later. 

Clinton has gotten endless criticism for her handling of the 2012 attacks on a U.S. facility in Benghazi. She deserves more, but has gotten far less, for recommending an intervention that led to that attack and left Libya in violent turmoil that continues today. 

The question is why a child of the 1960s, whose husband strenuously avoided being drafted for the Vietnam War, would grow so fond of military power. Obama needs a compelling reason to use force. Clinton needs a compelling reason not to. 

Landler attributes this bias to several factors, including her conservative Midwestern upbringing, her rapport with generals and, in the words of one staffer, "a textbook view of American exceptionalism." 

Other reasons come to mind. She saw Democratic senators politically damaged by voting against the 1991 war against Iraq, and she was not about to take the risk of opposing the next one. As a woman, she doubtless has felt the need to demonstrate that she can be as tough—as that term is typically defined in American politics—as any male leader. 

Obama made the mistake of intervening in Libya, but in a recent interview with The Atlantic, he admitted, "It didn't work," and "Libya is a mess." Clinton, however, has never expressed second thoughts. During his recent visit to Chicago, I asked Landler about her ability to confront the possibility she was wrong. 

"I don't find the same evidence of a learning curve with her," he said. "I would have liked to see a little more introspection from her on that, because I think that's the key case where she led the charge, it didn't go the way they hoped it would and there are some really important lessons to be drawn." 

In that instance, she apparently didn't learn from our failed military intervention. If she becomes president, I'm guessing, she'll get another chance. 

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc. 

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.

135 responses to “Why Is Hillary Clinton Still a Hawk?

  1. I can suggest an additional reason she is so militaristic. Mao famously said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

    1. When all you have is a walkman everything looks like a cassette

      1. I believe the expression is “when all you have is a hammer, nobody can tell you you can’t touch this”.

        1. Somewhere out there, there are pictures of many of you wearing hammer pants.

          This thought pleases me.

          1. As opposed to the pictures of you in Zubaz.

            1. I had to google that.

              Initially, they were marketed as a comfortable, functional pair of shorts for weightlifting.

              My father’s flannel shirts and Aquanet, my good man.

            2. It isn’t too late http://zubaz.com/

        2. Too legit, man… too legit to quit.

        3. Flashing back to The Wall by The Who I’m getting some dissonance on this one, sorry… It was Hammers, right? Yellow Submarine had the Gloves?

  2. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …
    ?????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

    1. Khimki Forest dot com. You will care.

  3. Most Democrats, particularly Obama, have learned to be wary of entangling the United States in wars of choice.

    Drawn a red line, has he?

    1. Assumes facts not in evidence.

      1. Good Lord, this SO much.

        I see no evidence that fucktarded worst president ever has learned much of anything, except how to be even more thin skinned and petulant. What a fucking piece of shit. I despise him.

        1. worst president ever

          Except all the rest of them, except Coolidge and William Henry Harrison.

          1. And Cleveland.

            1. Cleveland was sabotaged by the prohibitionist changing regs to inspect railcars from godless Canada a couple weeks before Inauguration Day. Also, by then the Dems were caving to support the commie income tax… but he tried to be honest.

        2. Bush didn’t run on creating war, and he created plenty of war.

          Obama ran on ENDING war, and still created plenty of war.

          Clinton is explicitly running on creating war. After the last two underpromised/overdelivered war, I’m terrified how things go with a president who doesn’t even pretend war is bad.

      2. Yeah… the article really seems to make it sound like Obama was anti-war and that Clinton is some throwback to the Bush era…

        When the reality of the situation is that Obama was the second Bush, and Clinton is more WAAAAAAAR than the two ever were.

    2. It’s so thin as to be invisible.

    3. The only thing anti-war about Obama is that he doesn’t think Congress should vote on if we go to war or not, and he doesn’t like calling them wars. The only time he seemed interested in having Congress vote on if we should get involved, it was pretty clearly a setup for a later ‘gotcha’ moment that, as far as I know, never really materialized.

  4. As a woman, she doubtless has felt the need to demonstrate that she can be as tough?as that term is typically defined in American politics?as any male leader.

    I can see this happening: the U.S. ending up in a bloody and unnecessary war just so Hillary can brag about how big her balls are.

    1. “Hillary can brag about how big her balls are.”

      1. Her balls have never been the issue, it’s her lizard soul.

        (to any offended lizard people in the audience, I apologize)

        1. I was about to get pissed, but then I saw your parenthetical apology and stepped out of the sun to let my blood cool down.

        2. *glares intently*

          Jerk

      2. Hillary Clinton is a fiery raging cunt. Too bad her husband wasn’t more of a douche to extinguish that fire.

  5. In 2004, their presidential nomination went to John Kerry, who was strongly critical of George W. Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq.

    But wasn’t Kerry “for the war, before he was against it”?

    If Democrats were sincerely anti-war, they could have nominated Howard Dean or something.

    1. Anyone who screams like that is itching to pull the trigger

      1. “YAAARGH!!!”

        Last time I heard something like that, I shot it, because I was playing a game and it charged me.

  6. “Two in three reject the use of ground combat troops against Islamic State. “

    Avoid putting boots on the ground is the important thing.

    Remember how agonizing it was to finally withdraw ground troops from Libya? The three trillion dollars in taxpayer money we spent? The tens of thousands of American casualties?

    Oh, wait, that’s right. Libya only cost us $1 billion, there were no American casualties during the war, and it wasn’t agonizing to withdraw ground troops–because there weren’t any ground troops to withdraw.

    Iraq, on the other hand, cost taxpayers $ 3 trillion, there were around 4,500 American troops killed, another 32,000 wounded, and we still have 4,000 troops stuck there indefinitely.

    Whenever we do an investment analysis, we should always put a circle around our risk. An investment that requires a smaller commitment, and, hence presents a lower risk, is better. That way, if you make a mistake (and for the sake of this argument, let’s assume both Libya and Iraq were mistakes), your downside is limited. See the downside of Libya vs. Iraq for examples.

    So, from a purely cost/benefit perspective, I don’t care whether we go to war as much as I care that we don’t send ground troops. If we don’t want to spend a trillion dollars, suffer tens of thousands of American casualties, and get stuck in some hellhole until Jesus comes back–all because we sent ground troops to Syria? Then there’s an easy way to avoid that.

    Don’t send ground troops to Syria.

    1. Avoid putting boots on the ground is the important thing.

      No – having clarity on what you’re trying to achieve at all is the important thing.

      There’s no point getting involved in *any* way – “boots” or “no boots” – if there’s no articulation of what the desired outcomes are, and the intended means to achieve them.

      Just pretending that “more of this” (whatever’s being done) is always OK simply because it involves “no boots” is incredibly stupid.

      You compare Libya as the “cost effective” example – but effective *of what*? Its a bigger problem now than it was before. We “only” spent a billion to accomplish ‘worse than nothing’?

      Iraq, for all its costs, is still actually close to the “intended result”. While 90% of the “nice to have” boxes never got ticked, the 10% “must haves” were mostly achieved.

      The fixation on “troops” as some sort of essential limiting feature is idiotic. The primary thing should always be “what are we trying to do, and can it be done – and is it necessary at any cost?” Just because something is perceived to be “low cost” is not a reason to do it – which is where your rationale eventually leads.

      1. “There’s no point getting involved in *any* way – “boots” or “no boots” – if there’s no articulation of what the desired outcomes are”

        You can be as clear about your objectives as you want to be.

        Your objectives will end up being appeasing the headlines, justifying past spending and American casualties with ever larger surges and offensives, and trying to spread democracy at the point of a gum–just like it was in Vietnam and Iraq–no matter what your original objectives were or how clear they were when you began.

        When we invaded Iraq, our objectives were very clear. We were there to replace Saddam Hussein with democracy, to eliminate his WMD programs, and to break his ties to Al Qaeda.

        When we sent troops to Vietnam, our objectives were very clear. We were there to protect a fledgling democracy against communist aggression and expansion.

        It doesn’t matter whether your objectives are bogus or legitimate, achievable or unachievable, realistic or unrealistic. The important thing is that you don’t send in ground troops–because the moment you do, the war stops being about whatever objective you intended, clear or unclear. The objective becomes spending lives and treasure in increasing amounts until the people you’re fighting realize that the beatings will continue until morale improves and they become moral beacons for democracy to the world–just like in the United States.

        1. The demos philia was he root problem in Iraq. Libertarians are rightly skeptical f the efficacy of it here. Imposing it on a country that has never experienced it and that has a culture anti-thetical to all of the factor that leads to its imperfect working n the us – property rights, respect for the individual, and minorities; separation of church and state; limits on state power, etc. : was a grand folly. Predictably it quickly degenerated into mob rule and civil war, which not only failed to,secure a better future but instead eroded that aforementioned factors that enable a civil society in the first place. It didn’t and doesn’t matter if that folly is enacted cheaply or at great cost, it can only lead to disaster.

          1. The good people of Montana don’t want yuppies from California coming by the thousands to tell them how to do things either.

            Adam Smith taught us that cultural values evolve over time into something better and more appropriate than government can impose from above through law.

            Maybe it is time for the Muslim world to evolve and embrace something better–but that doesn’t mean it should be imposed on them from above through law. . . . and yet there we were having them write a constitution for themselves under occupation.

            1. It worked in Japan, kinda.

              1. It worked in Japan, kinda.

                After two nukes showed that no more shit would be taken, yeah.

                Not that I’m discounting such a suggestion.

            2. I think it’s safe to say nearly every middle eastern country already has their cultural values opposed from the top down. You really can’t just assume, “that’s what’s here now, so it must be what they want” any more today than you could twenty years ago, or a hundred.

              1. It’s much more complicated than that. Suffice it to say, the Muslim world has been struggling with modernity since they were introduced to mass media and world travel, all of which came to a head at the end of the ’80s. Islamist fundamentalism can actually be seen as a reactionary movement against modernity.

                http://tinyurl.com/mk3faez

                Americans used to have serious arguments about whether it was possible for a man to rape his wife as recently as 30-40 years ago.

                Regardless, much of Darwin is rooted in Adam Smith’s observations, and Adam Smith’s observations about social adaptation being superior to and more complicated than anything imposed from the top down by way of the nation state remain as valid after Darwin as they were before Darwin. Think Theory of Moral Sentiments rather than Wealth of Nations

                Think of it this way: If religion is a social adaptation, like language and taboos, then Islam predominated where it did because it served some purpose for those people in their historical, social, and cultural environments–better than other alternatives. If they wish to adapt Islam, they’ll probably do so within the context of Islam.

            3. You might know the gubernatorial race here in Montana is between a blue dog incumbent and a transplanted Rick Scott Lite. There’s also an unserious Libertarian guy running, who seems to have not even left his property since he filed, so I expect to vote for him. Actually, he might get more votes than he thinks he will, as a third of our voters are independents, and Johnson/Weld will probably gain some traction here.

              1. No California yuppies to choose from on the ticket?

                What’s the matter, don’t the people of Montana want them some California style democracy?

      2. The British sent troops to Nigeria, Kenya, and Sudan with the clear intention of stamping out slavery at its source. Same thing happened to them that happened to us in Vietnam and Iraq. Find me an American style liberal executive who lost a war, and I’ll find you someone who blames a fiscally conservative legislature for refusing to give them the troops and funds they needed to win. Find me an American style conservative executive who lost a war, and I’ll find you someone who . . . blames a legislature for refusing to give them the troops and funds they needed to win.

        Avoiding awful wars involves refusing to put troops on the ground. Ending awful wars involves refusing to send more troops on the ground.

        Troops should only be put on the ground in wars of self-defense–however you want to define that. You want us to roll that rock up the same hill everyone else has for millennia, getting the same results, you need to justify it in terms of self-defense. Want us to put troops on the ground in Syria, Ms. Clinton? Explain it in terms of self-defense. Otherwise, she can go to hell.

        http://tinyurl.com/jrqlwnv

        http://tinyurl.com/z2w4tty

        1. The Pottery Barn rule isn’t something people either subscribe to or don’t. It’s like a natural law. If you violate people’s freedom of speech–cross culturally and throughout history–certain things happen. And it doesn’t matter whether you believe in that law–those certain things happen anyway. If you break a foreign country, you’ll end up being responsible for fixing it–whether you like it or not. The Romans will have Judea fixed any day now. They just need more money and more troops on the ground, that’s all.

          1. Yes, but what about the bravery of being out of range?

            1. I know you’re kidding, but there is a certain amount of bravery in walking up to patriotic people in a frenzy and telling them that what they want to do is stupid.

              1. +100.

                Imagine defending Mexicans burning the American flag from a bunch of patriotic, ex military bikers. The war is still very much at home.

                1. Imagine defending Mexicans burning the American flag from a bunch of patriotic, ex military bikers.

                  In such a case, the Mexicans are taking on the distinct appearance of “boots on the ground”.

                  And you’re coming out on their side.

              2. Also, I’m never NOT kidding unless being profound in an absolutely depressed kind of way.

        2. I’m going to skip past 90% of your screed because you’re mostly ignoring what i said as well.

          Troops should only be put on the ground in wars of self-defense–however you want to define that.

          Please stop using the ‘troops on the ground’ euphemism.

          You really think just using aircraft and navy assets is any less provocative or intervention-y?

          You can say “stating objectives doesn’t matter” (or whatever it is you’re saying)… but it does.

          Yes, they tend to creep and change when we commit more and more resources. I don’t disagree there.

          I disagree with your arbitrary notion that “everything short of actual troops” is OK and somehow avoids ‘bigger problems’.

          All you’re doing is providing stupid rhetorical cover for “carte-blanche intervention” – as long as it is done ‘cheap’ and ‘low exposure’.

          By your rationale, we should be happy to police the world with drones. And we shouldn’t even need any coherent self-interested reason for doing so.

          1. I thought his point was that it is much harder to disengage once you commit troops. That I would agree with.

            A risk/reward calculation is always important, but tough to do. As is defining ‘national interests’.

            It’s the Dept of Defense; use it that way.

            1. I thought his point was that it is much harder to disengage once you commit troops.

              If that were the extent of the comment i wouldn’t have even bothered replying.

              A risk/reward calculation is always important, but tough to do. As is defining ‘national interests’.

              Both of those things are the entire purpose of having some Foreign Policy-theory more sophisticated and detail-based than these simple-formulae which libertarians seem so attracted to as a substitute

              Of course both of those things are hard. which is why they are/should be the necessary barriers before taking any military action *at all*. And then if you DO take action, something like the Powell doctrine-corollary should apply.

              “”Powell has expanded upon the Doctrine, asserting that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing U.S. casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate.[3] “”

              Ken’s “no troops” rule avoids all that, and in fact sets up a far-worse situation by pretending that purposeless interventions should be accepted so long as they avoid crossing arbitrary man-power limits

              1. “Ken’s “no troops” rule avoids all that, and in fact sets up a far-worse situation by pretending that purposeless interventions should be accepted so long as they avoid crossing arbitrary man-power limits”

                I don’t have a no troops rule.

                I have a rule that says avoiding sending troops in the first place is an excellent way to avoid the quagmire forces that accompany sending troops.

                I’ve also pointed out some of the means by which those quagmire forces operate.

                I think troops can and should be sent in certain situations–and they all involve some form of self-defense either directly or indirectly by way of a defensive alliance.

                Perhaps the most important stipulation in Powell’s formulation was the exit strategy. I don’t go into ant investment unless I know how I can get out, too. The UN used to be good for that, but since Bush Jr. foolishly threw those keys down the drain and burned the bridge to the UN behind us, that option is probably gone forever. That was the one thing the UN was good for–exit strategies.

                Anyway, I didn’t say pointless wars should be fought so long as they don’t involve manpower. I said that whenever possible, the cost and tragedy of pointless wars shouldn’t be blown up 10,000 times in size by sending in ground troops. Risk analysis isn’t simply enabling of more risk–it’s primary purpose is to prevent overly risky strategies from being pursued in the first place.

                1. “”Anyway, I didn’t say pointless wars should be fought so long as they don’t involve manpower. “”

                  Uh ——->

                  I don’t care whether we go to war as much as I care that we don’t send ground troops.

                  1. That doesn’t say pointless wars should be fought–anywhere.

                    It says that limiting the scope of our mistakes is the most important thing. You draw a circle around the risk and say, “This is our maximum downside exposure”. Things can only get so bad in terms of treasure and casualties when we don’t send in ground troops.

                    I don’t think there’s much hope of Hillary not making any foreign policy blunders, but if we can get her to refrain from sending in ground troops, that’s more important than anything. Like I said, compare the downside of Libya to the downside of Iraq in terms of treasure and casualties. If we make more mistakes like Libya, that probably doesn’t matter.

                    Avoiding another mistake like Iraq is the important thing, and sending ground troops to Syria would be another mistake like Iraq.

                    Sending ground troops to Syria until it’s a democratic and civil rights respecting paradise is the biggest likely blunder–and if those aren’t the minimum terms of acceptable withdrawal, then what are they?

                    1. You know what the Republican establishment criticism of Libya is? It isn’t that we never should have participated in Libya. It’s that we should have invaded and occupied Libya like we did with Iraq. Why, if only we’d send ground troops, there wouldn’t be any ISIS in Libya at all!

                      LOL

                      The Republicans are not using Benghazi to show that we never should have gotten involved. Their charge against Clinton, even in that one instance, is that she was reluctant to send in troops to save our diplomat.

                      Anyway, yeah, avoiding another Iraq is more important than avoiding all future Libyas. And the important difference between the two is that in Iraq we sent in ground troops, but in Libya–for reasons stupid, smart, or just plain lucky–we didn’t send in ground troops.

                      Deal with it.

                    2. “Why, if only we’d send ground troops, there wouldn’t be any ISIS in Libya at all!”

                      If only we got serious about fighting the war on drugs, there wouldn’t be any street gangs either!

                      Pointing out that Daryl Gates going all SWAT with the war on drugs is why LA’s crips and bloods first started going with military hardware and thereafter proliferated nationally just draws empty stares and drool.

                      I know people don’t believe that ISIS is a response to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and I know why. It’s because they’re ignorant.

                      http://tinyurl.com/gqhbwhs

                    3. Who gives a rat’s cavity search about the Ottoman Empire? I want Reason Teevee to run the footage where Ohbummer and Mrs. Clinton each say they want men with guns to continue to make enforcement examples of potheads–just like the four Prohibition Parties.

                      I want Bernie supporters to remember THAT every time they hear prohibitionist looters begging for their votes. Maybe a loop on Youtube with a Hypno-Mandala background…

            2. It is much harder to disengage.

              Part of it is that once troops die, pulling out without achieving total victory makes it seem like they died in vain. And having sent American troops to die in vain is about the worst thing a President can do in the popular imagination. Presidents would rather send more troops to die than let it be said that he or she let troops die for nothing in the past.

              The other problem is that victory in the public imagination mean that the troops have to achieve democracy and civil rights for everyone before we’re ready to call it victory. And, again, it doesn’t matter whether that was your clear objective before you sent troops–that’s what the objective inevitably morphs into once there are troops on the ground and they start coming home in flag draped coffins.

              “Walter Sobchak: I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking strumpet…

              The Dude: I don’t see any connection to Vietnam”

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZR58d77a4A

              That movie is all about casus belli, by the way.

            3. Think about how ridiculous it would be to insist that we can’t bring our troops back out of Syria, with its six way proxy war until the region has embraced democracy and civil rights–over the objections of Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah, on one side, and ISIS itself on the other. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? And yet that’s what the only acceptable conditions of withdrawal will become once we put troops on the ground and they start dying.

              And again, I’m saying this is one part of a near universal affliction that acts like a natural law. The Romans contended with this. So did the Muslim armies that overran the Holy Land, Spain, and Eastern Europe. The British contended with this–as did every other imperialist country in history. The British still feel responsible for what happens where they’ve invaded, from Ireland to Zimbabwe. France still feels compelled to reinvade its former colonies in Africa periodically.

              If we don’t want to be subject to the same compulsions that have kept us from withdrawing troops from Cuba, the Philippines, South Korea, Germany, and Japan, then don’t send troops unless we want to go there forever. For goodness’ sake, those four examples alone demonstrate that the crisis is never over.

              1. , those four examples alone demonstrate that the crisis is never over.

                Pretending that we “left troops” in all of those places for the same reason is idiotic and trying to shoehorn history into your oversimplified formula.

                1. “Pretending that we “left troops” in all of those places for the same reason is idiotic”

                  They may have had local and situational variations in their justifications, but the justifications were always pretty much the same.

                  Even using just one of those examples demonstrates the point.

                  In 1898, we needed Guantanamo to keep the Spanish out. There was a crisis brewing.

                  In 1952, it was the communists who were about to take over Cuba. There was a crisis brewing.

                  In 1990, while communism was imploding, we had to keep an eye on Castro. Nobody knew what he’d do without the support of the Kremlin. There was a crisis brewing.

                  In 2002, there was no way we could get out of Cuba. We needed that base to deposit and interrogate terrorists. For goodness’ sake, there was a crisis brewing.

                  118 years of crises brewing later, and we’re no closer to pulling out of Guantanamo than we ever were.

                  Yeah, the more the justifications change, the more they stay the same.

                  There’s been a crisis brewing in South Korea since 1953.

                  There have been various crises brewing in the Philippines since 1898.

                  And God knows there have been crises brewing in Japan and Germany since 1945.

                  1. We may have deployed troops there for various reasons in the past, but the reason we haven’t withdrawn them afterwards has all been the same reasons. Usually, we don’t leave troops behind only when we lose–like in Vietnam. And like I said, Nixon was ready to double down on another “surge”. It was Congress that was unwilling to give him more money for more troops.

                    The exception was probably the U.S. invasion of Panama, but that was Colin Powell’s doing. If there’s an exception that proves the rule, why wouldn’t it be Colin Powell sticking to the Powell Doctrine?

    2. “Don’t send ground troops to Syria.”

      If you want to effect regime change in Syria and remove President Assad, ground troops will be necessary. And be prepared for war with Russia, as well.

      1. Or it could be done through a proxy war.

        They don’t need to be American troops.

        They could be Turkish, Qatari, Saudi, Jordanian, or they could be ISIS.

        1. Isn’t that HOW we got isis? Yes, I think it is. It’s also how we got the taliban. Proxy wars are, perhaps, worse than official and direct involvement.

          1. ISIS is almost entirely the result of the United States invading and occupying Iraq.

            If we hadn’t invaded and occupied Iraq, you probably never would have heard of ISIS.

            1. He heh. True dat. I remember when Iraq and Iran attacked each other in religious brotherly love, some wag stuck a sign out the car window saying “BUY IRAQUI WAR BONDS!” Then someone circulated “REINSTATE THE SHAH” bumper stickers.

            2. I’m fairly confident ISIS is merely the most recent incarnation of more-or-less the exact same nonsense that formed Al Qaeda and virtually every other terrorist organization in the Middle East. In other words, sectarian religious wars that we simply can’t help but to interject into.

              Whatever the catalyst, ISIS seems to disagree with your assessment. Sure, we’re on the list along with the rest of the West but it’s hard to ignore that the vast majority of their violence is aimed at other Muslims. Does this mean we’re paying ISIS to wage our wars for us? You seem to suggest we should, so I’m guessing you don’t think we’re doing that but even suggesting that we instigate even more proxy wars when everyone knows who does what seems to be an argument for non-transparcy and even more adventurism as long as robots die instead of people.

              Frankly, if more people die and fewer robots than perhaps we would stop this idiocy. You seem more than happy for America to do whatever the hell we want without consequence as long as we can do it quickly with little loss of life. That’s frankly the opposite of what should happen. Without the quagmire, we act before thinking. If anything, our wars are coming closer and closer together than they ever have before precisely because it’s just so darn easy.

        2. “They could be Turkish, Qatari, Saudi, Jordanian, or they could be ISIS.”

          None of these forces are fit to beat the Russians. Only American troops have a chance, and even then not much of a chance. Russians play for keeps. Parking a handful of aircraft carriers off the coast of Syria will not be enough to effect regime change.

          1. Now you want to beat the Russians?

            I thought you you wanted “regime change in Syria” and to “remove President Assad”.

            1. I thought you you wanted “regime change in Syria” and to “remove President Assad”.

              This is what Clinton wants. Or at least it’s a well known neo-con goal. It’s going to result in dead Russians if pursued with conviction.

              1. And two or three highly radioactive areas where we had carrier groups parked.

  7. She’s out of step with her own party on foreign interventions.

    1) Not sure I agree with this statement, but on recent US foreign “policy”, and
    2) Even if true, will not result in so much as one sycophant progtarded lefty shithead voting for someone else.

    It’s truly horrifying to behold. They will literally vote for her not matter what.

    You know who else….never mind…

    1. The total lack of war protests by the left for the last 7 years has been most notable. Those will start back up again the day after Trump is elected. If Hillary is elected, there will be at least 4 more years with no war protests by leftists.

      1. Precisely so

      2. It’s worse than that. Some of the biggest lefties in my circle are saying how important a warboner is, at least when wielded by the Obamessiah or the Crown Princess. It truly is about principals, not principles.

      3. This is related to the one thing that makes me prefer the odious Trump to the wretched Clinton: if we get Prez Trump, the media will wake from its slumber and begin to question the practices of the Executive branch again.

        If we get Prez Hillary, it’s at least 4 more years of cover-up and leader worship.

      4. But what if trump follown thrPugh and ends the wars? I know. No difference.

    2. I shared a website a few weeks back listing Hillary’s accomplishments. Most of them were obscure treaties, etc. But, in the midst of it was celebrating her role in getting Obama to intervene in Libya. So, it’s no longer support her despite her interventionism but because of it.

      1. There are NO accomplishments to be proud of… other than being elected and appointed.

        1. These people would disagree:

          http://whatthefuckhashillarydone.com/

          1. Sure… those were her. Sure. I’m sure she gives more than a shot about gay people, besides their vote tally.

            1. What strikes me is the vacuous nature of some many of the claims: a bunch of them would appeal only to policy wonks, others a basically “intent” that don’t really change anything, traveling as SecState is hardly an accomplishment, having a graduate degree implying she was a trendsetter when it was just the way society had changed since WWII, etc.

    3. Half of them, the females, are voting against ignorant superstitious antiabortion fanatics, and I can see their point. If the LP had any cojones at all we’d help them make the girl-bullying prohibitionist lobby into a stain on the pavement, rather than act like bootblacks for the four religious fascist parties.

  8. If there’s one thing we can count on with Grandmao Pantsuit, it’s that she’ll start more wars.

  9. Hearing what she thinks of the 1st,2,ed,4th,and 5th amendments,I’d say ‘goose step’ is the proper word to describe her policies.

    1. You know who else loved the ‘goose step’?

      1. Geese?

      2. Arthur Murray?

      3. Leopold I, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, the reported 18th-century inventor of the maneuver?

      4. John Cleese?

          1. Classic.

      5. Hitler –

        wait, let me finish

        – impersonators?

  10. Also,Obama has loves to kill from the air in many countries ,out of sight of the American people..He just wants to hide his war boner.

  11. Merry 4th of July, tea fucking rat bastards.

    1. Do you say “Happy Fourth Thursday in November” or “Merry 25th of December?”

      No?

      They why wish a Merry 4th of July?

      It’s fucking Independence Day!

  12. I think it has something to do with the fact that she’s a power-hungry bitch.

    -jcr

    1. Well, she is a committed leftist. But now I’m just repeating you.

  13. In the parable of the scorpion and the frog, why is the scorpion still a scorpion?

    1. To get to the other side?

      Oh wait…

  14. Why Is Hillary Clinton Still a Hawk?
    Military Industrial Complex.

    1. Chickenhawk. Just like Cheney. Tell progs that and watch their brains boil.

  15. If you have to wonder about it, then you haven’t even a half-assed understanding of the woman.

    It’s sort of like the GOP and the press completely in the dark about how Trump is so popular. That they can’t even begin to see how it happened tells me (and it should tell you as well) massive amounts about their worldview and ability to comprehend the big picture outside of their tiny little portion of it.

    1. How is Trump doing in the polls?

      1. The Don is slipping in bookie bets, down from 3 to 1 odds he loses to 3.5 to 1 odds. What bothers me is Independent (Meaning Gary, cause the commies are endorsing the Dems) dropping from 33 to 1 to 40 to 1 against.

  16. This article is naive.
    Figure out where she gets her money.
    Then you’ll know who wants war.

    1. nonsense.

      moneyed interests prefer peace. Wars largely happen despite them. when they see them coming, they certainly aim to benefit, but in general there’s no war-lobby; even the so-called Military Industrial Complex is happy to sell a $500bn worth of aircraft that never get used in combat.

      1. “moneyed interests prefer peace.”

        Strange then how, given the choice, they fund candidates like Clinton.

        1. mtrueman|7.4.16 @ 1:54PM|#
          “Strange then how, given the choice, they fund candidates like Clinton.”

          Yeah, since that the only determinant.

          1. “Yeah, since that the only determinant.”

            Certainly not. America’s weapons manufacturers appreciate her stand on all things gay, just as much as or more than her war mongering.

      2. even the so-called Military Industrial Complex is happy to sell a $500bn worth of aircraft that never get used in combat.

        True, but they would be happier if those aircraft got shot down and required replacing.

      3. Political power is the power to use violence. Those who would use violence to get their way are not the moneyed interests who prefer peace and cooperation. They’re the ones who don’t get their way with peace and cooperation. They need violence and coercion to get what they want. So they hire politicians who will wield violence for them. That’s what Hillary is. She is a politician who is receptive to the use of violence to accomplish the goals of those who can’t rely on voluntary cooperation and markets, and is willing to sell it to the highest bidder.

  17. So two out of three Republicans would do Iraq all over again. Good to know.

  18. I basically profit close to $10k-$12k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it…Then this work opportunity is for you

    ========= http://www.Today70.Com

  19. Found on Reddit, and I don’t vouch for every entry:

    Can you believe Trump’s mentor was a KKK leader at 30 and a segregationist at 50? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump pays his women staff members 70% of what he pays men? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump gave weapons to Middle Eastern countries that illegally donated to his campaign? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump gave the Mexican drug cartel assault weapons that were used in the France massacre? Oh wait, that was Barack Obama.
    Can you believe Trump wants to pay Mexicans less because all they do is mow our grass and make our beds? Oh wait, that was Barack Obama.
    Can you believe Trump sold nuke technology to China, giving them the capability of hitting the USA? Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump rode on an airplane 11 times known for supplying sex-trafficked underage girls? Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump called black teenagers super predators that need to be brought to heel? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump sold our country’s Top Secret information to China, Saudi Arabia and Russia? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump took $250K per speech from Wall Street banks before shielding them from fallout? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump had 49 people conveniently die days before testifying against him? Oh wait, that was Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    1. Fact Checking For Fun

      1st: Robert C. Byrd, correct.
      2nd: Worst Stat I can find on Clinton Campaign Staff Gender Gap was indeed 72%, but only from 2002-2008. Right about now her gap is 87%.
      3rd: Confuses “gave” with “helped buy” but generally true in regards to Saudi Arabia.
      4th: A gun lost in Fast and Furious was used in Paris, correct.
      5th: ?? I think they’re referring to some wage gap thing but I have no idea where they exactly got this.
      6th: Clinton sold the Chinese nuclear power tech, now the Chinese have nukes. Probably connected.
      7th: Jeffrey Epstein, correct.
      8th: Correct
      9th: ?? No clue what this refers to.
      10th: Correct
      11th: The list including 49 persons connected to Clinton who have died in apparent accidents and suicides includes people who were NOT set to testify against the Clintons. Though, of the 49, some WERE set to testify on things either directly related to the Clintons, those being: John Ashe, Ron Brown, Suzanne Coleman, Vincent Foster, Kathy Ferguson, David J. McCloud and John Augustus Wilson. That’s still a rather high amount of deaths, and the list of 49 contains some other fishy deaths not related to people soon to give testimonies, but the statement that all 49 were about to testify before their deaths is wrong. Also of note, a number of people on the list of 49 persons seem to be deaths related to CIA and FBI coverups during Bill Clinton’s tenure as president, but that’s not necessarily something that connects the Clintons.

  20. Can you believe Trump sexually assaulted as many women as Bill Cosby? Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump allowed 4 Americans to die to avoid political fallout 2 months before the election? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Melania Trump harassed and intimidated Donald’s rape victims into silence? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton covering for Bill.
    Can you believe Trump laughed about getting a child molester off without jail time? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump voted for the war in Iraq? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump called mentally challenged children at the White House “f’ng retards”? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump created a phony charity to launder money from ME dictators into his campaign? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton. (And Trump used $50 million of his own money to start.)
    Can you believe Trump armed ISIS? Oh wait, that was Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    1. 1st: Alleged, but not proven, as likely as it may be.
      2nd: Benghazi, likely correct.
      3rd: Correct.
      4th: Correct.
      5th: Correct.
      6th: Alleged, not proven.
      7th: All evidence points to correct, but no one is willing to actually investigate to prove it.
      8th: Correct.

  21. Can you believe Trump targeted liberals with the IRS, tipping the scales of an election? Oh wait, that was Barack Obama to conservatives.
    Can you believe Trump supplies weapons to dictators that throw gay people off of buildings? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump took donations from dictators that believe raping women is legal? Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump signed NAFTA and gutted the American manufacturing industry? Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump lied under oath to a grand jury about committing adultery in the Oval Office? Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton.
    Can you believe Trump has a 30 year history of being racist? Oh wait, he doesn’t. Just the one year running against Democrats.
    Can you believe Trump supporters attacked Clinton’s supporters at her rallies? Oh wait, the exact opposite.
    Can you believe a Trump supporter attempted to assassinate Hillary during a rally? Oh wait, the exact opposite.
    Can you believe Trump supporters interrupted a BLM meeting blowing whistles and threatening violence? Oh wait, that was Black Lives Matter.
    Can you believe Trump supporters plan to riot during the conventions? Oh wait, that was Black Lives Matter.

    1. 1st: Possibly correct, or just IRS acting on its own agenda
      2nd: Correct.
      3rd: The intent of what they’re saying here is correct, but the word choice is wrong. Those dictators are correct in that raping a woman “is legal” at least under the context of marriage. They’re correct because it is THEY who, as dictators, decide what is and is not legal. The Saudi King doesn’t MISTAKENLY believe that it is not illegal in Saudi Arabia to have sex without consent with his wife, he correctly believes this is the case.
      4th: True that Clinton signed, effects are debatable.
      5th: Correct.
      6th: Correct.
      7th: Correct. Though a few fights at Trump rallies are started by Trump supporters.
      8th: This one’s false. Michael Steven Sandford has no known political associations. Nothing reported about him makes him a “Hillary supporter”.
      9th: Correct, but worded poorly.
      10th: Correct.

      1. Thanks. My quick take was that the list was mostly accurate, with some stretches and a few clunkers.

  22. Is there any mystery why the Clintons do anything?

    Profit, everything they do is intended to generate wealth.

  23. The ku-kluxers want a Crusades rumble with the mohammedans to settle who’s deity is meaner. Both sides agree that women are childish-minded apes that need controlling, that hippies and beer swillers belong in jail… The Dems will win because voters can’t tell republicans from mohammedans without the headgear, but the female voters know their enemy and have learnt from Naral the importance of weapons-grade targeted voting. That’s half. The males–a milling herd–are not relevant.
    The election is as good as over. Even if the GOP pulls another Manchurian Candidate job, it’ll only elect Bernie just as killing JFK elected Lyndon. What we need are spoiler votes with which to badger both looter parties into repealing (or getting the looter courts to strike down) idiot laws and taxes.

  24. Why Is Hillary Clinton Still a Hawk?

    Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died

    She is Leftism pure and simple. She gets off on power. Psychopath, like her husband.

    Orwell saw what lurked in their souls.

    George Orwell – 1984

    We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.

    Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?

    Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ? forever.

  25. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  26. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  27. Do modern Presidents and other Top Men really require a learning curve? The US Government has been intervening and freedom bombing around the world for 100+ years. I’m pretty sure they know the deal by now.

  28. RE: Why Is Hillary Clinton Still a Hawk?

    Is Trump the Grump a fascist?

  29. Hillary is Nixon in drag.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.