No matter how many countries she bombs.
She hasn’t bombed any countries yet, since she has never been President (or in the military) before. One of the major reasons I will vote for her over any Republican candidates is that I think she’s far less likely to get us into another stupid war than the Republican. Her latest rhetoric makes me hope she’s less hawkish then before, but even the “old” Hillary is less likely than the Republicans to get us into another dumb war. Hillary, at least, unlike many of the Republican candidates, recognizes how big a mistake the Iraq war was, and supports the nuclear deal with Iran.
Well, you should know by now that her current rhetoric is meaningless. It’s campaign talk. And you deny that she was the primary person behind the war in Libya?
I’d be very interested in knowing why you’d vote for her in a primary given the much better record of every other Democrat running against her on war issues.
I don’t know if she was the “primary person”. She was involved with the decision – I was just taking issue with your flippant “no matter how many countries she bombs” post. As far as her rhetoric, it’s early, so we’ll see.
I haven’t decided yet who I’d vote for. If I choose her, it will probably be because I think she has the best chance to beat the Republican, which I consider the most important thing. But I still haven’t decided yet – it’s way too early, and I have several months before my primary.
Democratic primary voters know the Clintons’ record and they know her record as SecState. They just don’t care.
And a lot of dead brown bodies is just collateral damage on the way to making sure Democrats stay in power.
When compared to the Republicans? Yes, her record is much, much better, and we believe that she would be a much better president. We know her record and we vastly prefer it to the Republicans. As to comparing her record to other Democrats’, there have been no votes cast yet, but if she wins I think it would be because most Democrats, knowing her record, think she has the best chance to win the election.
??? Whatever Clinton’s record and rhetoric, it’s entirely reasonable to believe that many fewer dead bodies, American and other, would be created under her Presidency than under any of the Republicans’ presidencies.
Clinton and Obama had much more violent Presidencies than Reagan or Bush. GWB was an outlier, although it’s understandable if you think that another Republican will be more like him than Reagan or Bush 41.
But as a general rule, the Democrats have been far more willing to bomb people than Republicans if you leave out that one Republican administration.
In terms of American deaths? In any case, cite, 'cause this sounds like bullshit (especially in Obama’s case, when he inherited two wars and ended them).
Considering the rhetoric lately from Republican candidates, this is very understandable.
Considering the latest positions of the most recent (and current) presidents and candidates, the Democrats in general are against more wars and more bombings and the Republicans are for them. A big reason for my opposition of the Republicans is how disastrous the Iraq war was, and more importantly, how much most Republicans refuse to admit this.
That’s all that matters?
In practical terms, how is Republican foreign policy different from Democratic? Everyone now acknowledges that preemptive war was a mistake. That doesn’t leave much daylight between the parties, since we’ll all fight if an ally is attacked. The only difference is that Democrats are probably slightly more likely to drop bombs in other people’s civil wars.
Clinton is against more wars in a Democratic primary. When not running in Democratic primaries, she’s as hawkish, if not more, than any Republican.
It’s a huge piece that you consistently seem to ignore. Further, you haven’t proved that Reagan and GHWB were “less violent” than Clinton and Obama.
No they don’t. Many and maybe even most of the Republicans don’t acknowledge this. And they pretty consistently say that the Iraq war should have been extended and US troops should have stayed longer (and possibly still be there en masse).
Bullshit – lots of daylight.
Bullshit. She recognizes how much the American public turned against the Iraq war, and how much they turned against continuing deaths of American soldiers, unlike many/most of the Republicans.
Fewer elective interventions(The Gulf War was not elective and in any case the smartest war conducted since WWII).
The only other interventions in the Reagan Bush years were Grenada and Panama, both complete successes with low casualties on both sides.
The problem with bombing only is that it’s not quick, it increases foreign casualties(important if we don’t regard the foreigners as enemies), and usually doesn’t result in complete success. The proper way to do foreign interventions is the way Reagan and Bush 41 did. The Clinton/Obama method only accomplishes one thing well: minimizing US casualties.
No they don’t. Many and maybe even most of the Republicans don’t acknowledge this. And they pretty consistently say that the Iraq war should have been extended and US troops should have stayed longer (and possibly still be there en masse).
Then why was she clamoring for intervention in Libya?
As opposed to the zero American casualties for Obama on “elective” interventions.
There is no “proper” way to do interventions in today’s middle east. Bombing might suck, but the Republican method is much, much worse. Worse outcomes, more casualties, more expense, and nothing gained. Far better to stay out, but bombing is far superior to invading.
Presumably she thought it was necessary to save lives in Benghazi (which also was the President’s motivation, as I understand it).
What did Hillary accomplish? Well, for one thing, **Adaher **really doesn’t like her. Because reasons.
Which makes me like her.
Wait, what? Is there an elephant in the room you perhaps are ignoring, perchance?
On the proposed Iran deal, Democrats by-and-large support it as a good deal with unprecedentedly strong enforcement mechanisms. Republicans, OTOH, unanimously have invented their own alternate reality in which they’ll tear up the deal on day one of their presidencies, magically reinforce sanctions with full compliance from our allies plus Russia and China, and force Iran to accept a ‘better’ deal. Quien es lo mas macho, indeed.
I’ll always fondly remember Secretary Clinton’s initiation of the “reset” policy with Russia, by first presenting her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov with a big button, where the Russian word for “reset” was misspelled, getting laughed at by Lavrov and the actual “reset” policy collapsing, when Russia invaded Ukraine, in one of the most blatant violations of European safety in post-war years. Keep in mind that the disastrous “reset” was initiated AFTER Russia invaded and dismembered its neighbor Georgia, and that’s all you’ll need to know about the level of competence and strategic vision of Madam Secretary.
What did Colin Powell accomplish as Secretary of State? I mean other than destroy his reputation by testifying to the UN that Saddam had nuclear weapons? Lawrence Eagleburger? Condoleezza Rice?
It can be difficult for more generalists to recall and frankly the OP didn’t look like it was worth responding to. But the question might come up again so I’ll give it a shot. I borrow heavily from Brock (2015).
As Senator, Clinton gained a reputation for being more workhorse than showhorse: that was her intent. During her election campaign, upstate New Yorkers marvelled at her quick mastery and encyclopedic knowledge of local issues. And Clinton does have a lot of experience running middle sized offices and inspiring loyalty and hard work from her staff.
She certainly works hard. She broke the record for most nations visited by a Secretary of State, flying something like 1 million miles to visit 112 countries. So what did all that travel accomplish?
[ul]
[li]Well she helped impose the toughest sanctions Iran had ever seen: their economy seized up and forced them to the bargaining table. Now all evidence suggests that unilateral sanctions do very little outside of symbolism. To be effective, you need other nations on board. That means treating them like adults, even if they aren’t close allies. To be candid, you can’t put pressure of Iran if China and Russia aren’t on board. Clinton secured their acquisence. A tough diplomatic challenge. [/li]
Subsequently, Secretary Kerry was able to cut a deal whereby the Iranians would destroy all of the uranium they had enriched beyond 3.67% - weapons grade is 90% - and cut their centrifuges by 2/3. Iran had wanted to increase their centrifuge program twentyfold. Remember that George W Bush’s get-tough policy on North Korea was all wet: the North Koreans responded by unsealing their plutonium -kept under wraps by Bill Clinton- and eventually testing a live nuclear bomb in 2006.
.
[li]Putin invaded Georgia during the Bush administration: well nobody said the Russians were nice guys. Then he stepped down and Medvedev took over. Clinton and Obama seized this geostrategic opportunity to, you know, get some work done. Very liberal of them. The result was the New START treaty, reducing the number of strategic missile launchers by half and establishing a stronger inspections regime. Clinton lobbied 50 US Senators of both parties to ensure the necessary 2/3 passage. [/li].
[li] Back in 2012, the Israelis and Palestinians were at it again: war had broken out and had continued for eight days. Politico: “…hope seemed dead for a rapid end to the violence.” Clinton stepped in and arranged a ceasefire. [/li].
[li]Afghanistan. Oh yeah! Afghanistan. Obama withdrew at a prudent pace, despite the sabre rattling of Washington’s perpetual bathrobe fighters. Clinton conducted the diplomatic grunt work, arranging a support plan among our NATO allies following the US’s withdrawl. [/li].
[li] Three trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.[/li].
[li] US exports increased by a third. A fantastic accomplishment which has little to do with any sitting Secretary of State IMHO. [/li].
[li] Soft power stuff with women’s issues.[/li].
[li] Obama’s team debated about what to do about Bin Laden. Now they were all unanimous that calling off search like GWBush did was terrible for America. But Secretary of Defense Gates thought that Bin Laden should be taken out via airstrike - no soldiers on the ground. CIA Director Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton reviewed the evidence and concluded that a better course would be to use Special Forces and to be damn sure they had practiced this mission over and over. They advised Obama to take the risk, arguing it was a necessary one. [/li][/ul] Finally, in my personal opinion, not doing stupid shit is an excellent over-riding foreign policy principle.
Yeah, but that’s an Obama doctrine which Clinton does not wholly agree with. Good list otherwise though.