Hillary: ‘I will not hesitate to take military action’

Hillary at warSeriously? As a senator, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize George W. Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq, an ill-fated invasion and occupation halfway around the word that led to enormous loss of life and ongoing chaos in the Middle East, and mind-boggling deficits at home.

Now she says: “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

In other words, Hillary has learned nothing about what constitutes an illegal war of aggression. Fortunately for all concerned, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and their theocratic government regards nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as un-Islamic. It’s an empty threat.

We can’t help wondering if Hillary thinks that the first woman president needs to take America to war again just to prove she’s a tough commander-in-chief – and never mind the consequences.

Bernie 2016!

UPDATE:
Amanda Marcotte suggests the loud Tea-GOP freakout over peace with Iran is mostly if not entirely about political calculation for 2016.

[P]ainting Hillary Clinton as some kind of weak-willed surrender monkey, mostly by dropping the word “Benghazi” a lot, is clearly going to be the centerpiece of the anti-Clinton strategy.

This may explain, but certainly doesn’t excuse, Hillary doubling down on her hawkish foreign policy views.

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on September 9, 2015 - 4:14 pm

    I heard some of the speech. It made me cringe.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on September 10, 2015 - 3:53 pm

    • #3 by Richard Warnick on September 10, 2015 - 4:00 pm

      Thanks for that link. Glenn Greenwald warns us:

      If Hillary Clinton is already this hawkish and war-threatening while trying to fend off Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary while bolstering her liberal credentials, imagine what she’s going to be doing and saying about all of this once she’s the Democratic nominee running against a Republican in the general election and, even scarier, once she occupies the Oval Office and, as far as the U.S. military is concerned, assumes the title of Commander-in-Chief.

  3. #4 by Larry Bergan on September 10, 2015 - 3:58 pm

    Who is this Sanders guy I keep hearing nothing about in the media?

    Time to get the ever powerful, media darling Biden to run. Second only to McCain for appearances on the Sunday round tables.

  4. #5 by Larry Bergan on September 10, 2015 - 6:16 pm

    Guess I’m going to have to backtrack a little. CBS antenna news started out with Trump, but actually had a pretty good segment about Bernie’s Iowa lead on Hillary. Guess they had to keep that news facade up.

    I noted that Sander’s said he was a proud “progressive” and Hillary said she was a proud “moderate”. Too bad moderate means war monger these days. It’s that Newspeak thing our media has been nurturing for decades or more. :(

  5. #6 by Larry Bergan on September 10, 2015 - 8:39 pm

    I’m about ready to give up on PBS’s the “News” Hour. The election coverage started with Trump, Fiorina, Jindal, and Carson. Went right to Hillary commenting on Trump, with no mention of Sanders on the day he went ahead of Hillary in the “all important BATTLEGROUND” :) state of Iowa.

    I don’t like being jerked around by a station that’s very purpose is to cater to the public, and one I USED to donate to!

    • #7 by brewski on September 12, 2015 - 2:01 pm

      NPR is a tool of the establishment.

      That’s what you get with government and corporate funding.

      Power to the People, Right On!

      • #8 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2015 - 4:49 pm

        Has a lot to do with corporate and Koch funding. When The government was funding it with tax payer money, it was fine and it’s still the best programming around. The News Hour is disappointing though.

      • #9 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2015 - 4:57 pm

        I’m very much looking forward to the Walt Disney two nighter coming up. Should be interesting and probably isn’t going make me dizzy like most of the corporate funded shows that think they might lose your attention if they stay on one camera shot for more then five seconds.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: