Michael Crowley on Hillary Clinton's "Unapologetically Hawkish Record"

[Mr. Morden]

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mordecai]

Well this isn't exactly news, it's the reason why she's not President right now. It will be interesting though to see how she reconciles it with Obama's record in 2016.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Well this isn't exactly news, it's the reason why she's not President right now. It will be interesting though to see how she reconciles it with Obama's record in 2016.

Not too difficult, given that Obama is a warmonger too.

[Beet]

Well there's no question that her call on the bin Laden raid was correct, people were saved when we took out Gadhafi, and had we gone into Syria early in the war, lives would have been saved as well. As for a more long term commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan, while unpopular (and I personally would be opposed) there is undeniable strategic value to the U.S. as a nation to maintain a presence in those countries. As long as we do, they are our allies.

[Eraserhead]

Well, yeah. These sorts of things are part of the reason why I'll never support her.

[Supersonic]

One of the few good things about Hillary.

[Goldwater]

One of the few good things about Hillary.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She refused to apologize for her Iraq war vote. She threatened to obliterate Iran.

But hey, if you don't support that kind of crazy warmongering, you are a "true leftist".

[Zioneer]

She refused to apologize for her Iraq war vote. She threatened to obliterate Iran.

But hey, if you don't support that kind of crazy warmongering, you are a "true leftist".

Basically the reason why I like the idea of Hillary boosting down-ticket Dems, but am terrified of her actually becoming president.

[RogueBeaver]

One of the few good things about Hillary.

[H. Ross Peron]

Well there's no question that her call on the bin Laden raid was correct, people were saved when we took out Gadhafi, and had we gone into Syria early in the war, lives would have been saved as well. As for a more long term commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan, while unpopular (and I personally would be opposed) there is undeniable strategic value to the U.S. as a nation to maintain a presence in those countries. As long as we do, they are our allies.

[morgieb]

One of the few good main bad things about Hillary.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Maybe this is the wrong place to bring this discussion but anyway...

I've seen in a newspaper that the US should not be supporting the Syrian Rebels because they are mostly Al Qaeda members or sunni militias deeply associated with terrorism and I've also have seen that the Iranian Government is strongly willing to support the Iraqi Government because of it's Shia Faith. Another strange thing is that the Gulf Kingdoms, our close allies, tend to support salafists and sunni militias that are extremely radical and that are deeply associated with the Al Qaeda while Iran, the bad guy, is actually helping Shia militias that are fighting against those rebels in Iraq and helping the Iraqi Government.

Don't be fooled by Homeland, Al-Qaeda and Iran are not friends at all and both are fighting against each other....

The question is, maybe we should stop helping those rebels that are strongly anti-American and allow Iran help the Iraqi?

What's the purpose of invading Syria for example if the only effect will be a negative one for the US? I'm still not sure of what to do with the Middle East but it seems that the NeoCon handling is not working....