Hillary doesn’t need to be “compared” to anyone, since she enthusiastically supported torture and the Iraq War, including serving as the main whip of Democratic support for both. If she, the most influential Democrat in the country at the time, had taken a firm stand against the Iraq war, it may not have happened.
In the sense that oatmeal is probably not worse than toxic waste.
No, I’m comparing this conflict of interest issue to a similar one. I’m not comparing Clinton and Cheney in any other way. If Clinton was doing things for companies who gave her foundation money, that would not make her a warmonger anymore than it would make Cheney a womanizer.
It would have happened, but it’s true that her coming out against it would have probably moved quite a few Democratic votes.
But anyone who is voting for her because they think she’s less likely to get us into wars is further deluding themselves. Clinton is as hawkish as they come. She’ll be less likely to get us into really stupid wars, sure, but her willingness to use force as a tool of US diplomacy has a long record and there’s no evidence whatsoever that she’s changed. She was the most hawkish voice in the Obama administration.
I would say that compared to any Republican candidate other than Rand Paul, MUCH less likely. At least she won’t outsource diplomacy to Netanyahu.
None of the GOP candidates are going to get us into dumb wars. GWB was an anomaly. Reagan and Bush 41 and Nixon didn’t get us into dumb wars. They were actually much less hawkish than critics said they would be.
Why should we take that chance?
100 percent of all Republican presidents since 1993.
Lebanon, Grenada, a wide range of lesser-scale support of “anti-communist” dictatorships … Were you alive then?
Dumb wars are wars that we lost or where the costs vastly exceeded what we were trying to accomplish. Only two wars meet that standard: Vietnam and Iraq. So the Dems and Reps are tied 1-1.
But if you want to attack candidate Christie by saying, “He’ll get us into another Grenada!” then I’ll just counter with “Clinton will get us into another Libya!”
They sure seem to rattle the sabers with regard to Iran. No negotiations, just bomb. One candidate even sang about the possibility several years ago. If Netanyahu says “jump”, Ted Cruz says “how high?”. A fight with Iran would be 10x the disaster that Iraq was, yet Republicans seem to be champing at the bit.
Unsurprisingly, Hillary was for warmongering with Iran until she was against it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422
A war with Iran would be dumb – even dumber than Iraq. Iran would be a much, much tougher foe, and we would have much less stomach for it.
Unsurprisingly, your cite does not say what you claim it does. She was warning Iran *not *to attack Israel or Tehran *then *could be nuked.
That’s peacemongering, of the real-world variety.
Didja ever notice than when North Edinburgh golfers threaten to nuke Iran on behalf of Israel it’s “letting Netanyahu dictate foreign policy” and “warmongering,” but when South Edinburgh golfers threaten to nuke Iran on behalf of Israel it’s “real-world peacemongering?”
Bombing first, calling it a preventive measure or some such Pearl Harboresque rationalization = warmongering.
Threatening massive retaliation if the other guys attack first, thereby preventing it = peacemongering.
Happy to help, any time, it’s what we’re here for.
Whether or not we go to war has everything to do with Iran and little to do with us at this point. If it’s going to happen, it will happen regardless of who wins in 2016.
Cheney-esque nonsense. It would be a war of choice, which has everything to do with decisions we make.
It is US policy to not allow Iran to have a nuke. If Iran gets close enough to break out, we attack. That’s our policy and there’s been no indication in any change of that policy.
It is (thankfully) categorically not our policy to go to war if Iran is close to break-out. The President has stated that that option is ‘on the table’, but has definitely not committed to war in that instance. You are incorrect.
If that is the only way to stop them, that is our policy. Allowing them to have a nuke is not our policy. All means are being attempted to avoid war. But by the time the next President takes office, there might not be any other options. There might not be any other options well before that, forcing Obama’s hand.
What if war wouldn’t stop them? I think war would just guarantee in the long run that Iran gains nukes.
This supposes that war is an option that would actually “stop them”, and not actually make it more likely.
You’ve utterly failed to support your assertion that US explicit policy mandates war with Iran should they get close to a nuclear weapon.
That doesn’t mean we can’t use threats of force as a bargaining tool, of course.