Hillary Rodham Clinton Says Military Action In Iraq Is Essential

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

OTTAWA, Ontario (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton says military action against Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria is "essential" and the U.S. would turn away from the threat "at our peril."

Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential contender, gave a speech and took questions in Ottawa at a Canada2020 think tank event on Monday. She says the fight against militants will be a long-term struggle and says an information war on social media is needed, as well as an air war.

Clinton says there is bipartisan agreement on the dealing with Islamic State militants, which is to degrade and defeat them.

Asked about running for president, Clinton she is "thinking hard" but won't make her decision until after the upcoming midterm Congressional elections in November. She previously said she would decide early next year.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CN_CANADA_CLINTON_ISLAMIC_STATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-06-16-24-38

[R.Quinn]

1. Resisting another war-monger presidency in 2016

should also be "essential".

[Scuba]

59. + Eighty Gazillion

[billhicks76]

65. She's Repulsive

She should switch to the Republican Party. If we wanted a Republican we would vote for one who admits what they are. If anything she is making it easier for Jeb Bush to slide in and have Bush power back. Hillary is close friends with the Bushes and she will work in tandem with them. We better dump her now or expect 30% of our party to break off and form a 3rd party...that 30% being the most active and vocal constituency.

[Scuba]

69. The Clintons know the Bushes? Really?

[billhicks76]

99. Exactly...Its all theater for FOOLS...even democrats have STUPID.

Ater 2000 Bush Sr PUBLICLY referred to Bill Clinton as his 5th son.

[Scuba]

100. It's a small club, and we ain't in it.

[billhicks76]

103. George Carlin

As he eloquently has said before.

[pangaia]

101. Is that not George Wallace?

[Scuba]

102. Yep, two Georges there.

[area51]

76. She runs like she's already a republican

Don't forget she started out in politics as a repub. She's a DINO. She'll toss a few bones to democrats but she's a republican in beliefs.

[KamaAina]

2. KamaAina Says A Bernie Sanders Candidacy Is Essential

for this and many other reasons.

[TheNutcracker]

32. Sanders or Warren for sure!

[NYC_SKP]

3. While Hillary is still "deciding", I've already made up my mind.

It's no secret. She gets nothing from me, no support, no votes, no contributions, nothing but active resistance and my funds and support for a real progressive.

[DesertFlower]

45. i agree.

[840high]

53. Same here.

[Scuba]

60. + another

[samsingh]

4. she's absolutely correct

[samsingh]

8. and let the imbecile repugs in - how did bush work out?

[H2O Man]

10. Well, he started

a war in Iraq -- a horrible idea, both then and now.

[samsingh]

12. bush started the war. we are in the middle of a war. isis is starting the new war.

[H2O Man]

18. But we do not

need to be in the middle.

[babylonsister]

20. Exactly. This is not very bright of her. nt

[Nay]

94. No, it isn't very bright, so one has to conclude that she truly believes in the

continuation of war in the ME. I simply will not vote for her. I can't. I just wouldn't be able to make my fingers do it.

[babylonsister]

96. I am stumped by her reasoning,

unless she does truly believe this. Who would she be trying to curry favor with, rethugs? She lost to Obama in large part because of her vote on Iraq. Do Dems no longer matter? Does she think she has it in the bag with us? She might want to think again. And if she pulls a McCain and changes her 'moral convictions', I will really be disgusted. Damage done already.

I won't vote for a republican no way/no how, so I guess we need to see how this shakes out.

[Nay]

98. I'm stumped as well. Does she really think lots of Dems think this war is

A-OK? Really? Does she have any reason to think that any Repug would vote for her after the whole Vince Foster/Bengazi/assorted Pub bullshit propaganda has been swirling around for 15 years? Is she trying to get Pub women to vote for her because she's a woman too?

I just don't get it. For every Pub woman who'd be excited to have a female President, there are a thousand Dems who won't be able to force themselves to vote for her because she's so Republican. I just don't get it. I truly don't know what I'm going to do in the voting booth, it's that bad.

[candelista]

117. Follow the money.

Top contributors to Hillary's presidential campaign: Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and
JPMorgan Chase. And the list goes on here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

[nationalize the fed]

119. and look at the pictures.

[24601]

44. Bush went to Congress for authorization when Democrats held a majority in the Senate. It took two

branches of governments and the prospective presidential candidates fell all over themselves to vote yes.

[merrily]

82. Bush started the war in Iraq-with Hillary helping him to do that as much as she possibly could.

[Ikonoklast]

13. She certainly is right...far right.

Iran will be on her list to please her benefactors.

[blackcrowflies]

19. I think you mean, she's absolutely "Right"

not Left, not Center.

[tularetom]

6. If you posted that without attribution and asked me to guess who said it

My answer would have been "Dick Cheney".

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Well, she admires Kissinger, so this makes perfect sense

Though every time she points it out, she makes it harder for me to cast a vote for her.

[Man from Pickens]

9. That's it, lady

Put who you really are on the record for all to see. Marinate in it so everyone can smell it good when you strut around on that campaign trail like a queen awaiting her coronation.

[Dawgs]

11. Doesn't matter. Being pro-war is fine as long as she has a D next to her name. n/t

[Robbins]

17. It matters to me

She just signaled we will be In middle east for years if she is elected.But,then again she admires Kissinger.She has learned nothing
about the bush years.

If Panetta's attacks on Obama was part of supporting her I will be pissed even though I am 100 % against US involvement In any
mid east war.

Hawkish foreign policy
In bed with wall street
The social safety net

These are all reasons why I don't support her.She is making it hard for me to hold my noise and vote for her if she wins nomination.

I am anyone but Hillary for the democratic Nomination.

[ReRe]

26. If Hillary is elected...

... Panetta will have a permanent place in her Cabinet.

[GeorgeGist]

49. Both former Republicans.

[Scuba]

62. I'm a former Republican, so that part doesn't bother me. Her still being a conservative does though.

Pro TPP
Pro War
Pro Wall Street
Pro XL Pipeline
Pro Monsanto

She may have a "D" behind her name, but those aren't the policies I associate with the Democratic Party.

[merrily]

83. Not traditionally, but New Democrats now control the Democratic Party, including

deciding who runs for the House and Senate. The takeover began with Bubba Clinton's successful run for the Presidency, with everyone seeming to forget conveniently how much Perot's runs help Bubba win both times.

[ReRe]

70. Didn't know Panetta...

... was originally a Republican, too. Do you know if there has been a history written up of the origins of the DLC?

[merrily]

84. Panetta worked for Nixon. Wikepedia is not bad on the DLC, at least for starters.

A book about the DLC and what it has done to the Party would be good, but I don't know of one.

[ReRe]

105. Someone is surely working on it...

... maybe Will Pitt?

[merrily]

108. I hope someone is working on it, but it goes against the narrative of both

of the largest political parties. So, I don't know if anyone will publish it. Also don't know if anyone will give the access and honesty, even off the record, that a good book would need.

[ReRe]

110. I disagree...

... there are some great investigative reporters who could whip out this story in no time flat. If I wasn't over the hill, so to speak, I could probably do it myself. Hedrick Smith could do it.

[merrily]

111. I don't know if that would be a good book and I don't know who would publish. Or buy.

Republicans will diss it and so will Democrats. But, I'll defer to your expertise.. My sister has had many books published, but not political books--fiction or health- and most of the knowledge I have of the industry is though her.

[ReRe]

114. I think people would be very interested in it...

... as the Democratic Party has been hijacked by DINOs. Dems got in bed with the Repubs, and it's turning into one big happy Republocratic Party. It's only a matter of time before someone writes it up.

[merrily]

116. Maybe. I am not sure I agree people would buy it if "their" party puts it down.

I agree most people are clueless, but I don't know if anyone wants to hear it at this point. The mentality now seems to be that of ball fans. Root, root, root for the home team, no matter what. And, if pressed, we come down to the lesser of two evils and don't help a Republlican win and that seems to be enough. But, I don't have a crystal ball. For all I know, publishers will line up to publish and people will line up to buy and read. That I don't see that doesn't mean I am correct.

[ReRe]

118. I'm the kind...

... that wants to know why things are the way they are. I was one of those kids that drove her parents crazy with that question: "Why?" Drove 'em nuts. Takes all kinds, merrily. Takes all kinds. Later, my friend...

[merrily]

123. I am the kind that want to deal in facts, too.

And I take a lot of crap for that, even on this very Democratic board. If you try to keep the facts straight, instead of simply posting "K&R," you'll be accused of all kinds of things. I fea it's KoolAid time, be it cherry or grape.

[nationalize the fed]

120. Once upon a time the DLC took Koch money

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC -- article from '06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
CrossChris (641 posts) Thu Feb-24-11 11:32 AM

I saw this posted elsewhere recently, and thought this was very interesting to revisit:

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC

Do deep-pocketed "philanthropists" necessarily control the organizations they fund? That has certainly been the contention of those who truck in conspiracy theories about the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations funding liberal and neo-liberal organizations...As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."


This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition. (continued)

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council
http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

It's fashionable to hate the Kochs. But the Clintons didn't.

[ReRe]

124. I want to thank you for replying to my question!

I've been sitting here reading all, including the links. I am convinced that the Koch Bros are responsible for the divide in the Democratic Party. I can remember seeing the DLC meetings on C-Span back in the first days of it's existence. I'm going to go see if I can find some of them in the C-Span archives. I would like to know the names of the DLC panelists. I can almost see their faces, but can't remember who they were. Again, thanks!

[TheNutcracker]

34. Don't forget her wonderful speech to Monsanto!!!!! "we need to better educate on GMO foods"

[pangaia]

77. I'm lucky. I live in NY.. Don't have to vote for her.

[MisterP]

73. because it means she's secretly not, or that it's the only possible alternative after long and

difficult nights
or something

[rurallib]

14. Ho boy - not good.

[ballyhoo]

15. Clinton is the real peril. I can't

vote for her. My wife and I and the seniors we care for are too old to lose our entitlements, which I
believe Clinton would try to reduce.

[heaven05]

21. +1000

started receiving my worked for SSI entitlements in 2009, haven't had a worthwhile COLA in all these years. Wat bullshit america gives to it's discarded citizens. I can't see HRC being any kinder than I've seen so far.

[senz]

52. I don't like her either, ballyhoo, but I can guarantee

that a Republican president would go after our senior citizen entitlements way faster than any Democrat. The time to head her off is at the pass known as the primary. We need a progressive alternative.

[ballyhoo]

61. I know, but Warren said she won't run, and Sanders can't

win, even if he changes Parties, IMO. We need someone like George Clooney to run. Someone with charisma.

[pangaia]

78. Now THERE is an idea I hadn't thought of.

[candelista]

95. George Clooney?

He just spent $1.6 million on his wedding.

[ballyhoo]

97. So... She would make a nice first lady, plus

she's a Human Rights Lawyer. Clooney and his friends have their own satellite watching warlords in Sudan. And both these people are already rich. Can we elect a president for once who is a know liberal rather than a media-created one? Having said that, I'm not so sure it matters anymore...

[Nay]

122. The Pubs got Reagan and Schwarzenegger in, why can't we have Clooney?

At least we'd have a real firebrand on our side. And, sad to say, that would bring votes out from people who spend most of their time watching TV and eating cheese doodles. . .

[candelista]

125. Oh, OK.

You should ask him. Or ask your influential friends on the DNC to ask him. I'll do the same.

[Nay]

128. Heh, heh. I'll be lucky if I get to vote for (or write in) someone who's not

a total tool. This is getting old.

[Maedhros]

16. Absolutely essential...

...to the profit margins of her campaign donors.

[AndreaCG]

23. She didn't say ground war

She said air war. Plus a presence in social media. Not quite the warmongering I feared when I read these responses.

And to the poster who thinks she's going to come after his retirement benefits, where in the world did THAT idea come from? Show me an article that says she's contemplating that! Sheesh. That's the Republicans like Paul Ryan's bailiwick.

[candelista]

46. So you are for this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-round-of-u-s-led-airstrikes-launched-in-syria/

[senz]

54. She's the darling of the 1%, and the 1% hates "entitlements."

[geomon666]

24. Won't vote for her.

Sorry if that offends some people but I can't do it, Democratic candidate or not.

[SoapBox]

25. Our house has been holding it's nose, since the Clinton for President

mantra started beating again.

Ugh.

[dembotoz]

27. Did not like clinton one and i don't like clinton 2

[Dont call me Shirley]

28. WWIII...an endless orgasm for the war profiteers

[arcane1]

29. Gee, who else used the threat of "peril" to justify a military presence in Iraq..?

"I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer."

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/

I get so tired of re-runs.

[merrily]

85. Hillary Clinton did. Then, like now.

Here she is, droning on for war in 2002.

Only recently, she finally called her vote on the first Iraq war a mistake. But, not one she's learned from, apparently.

[ReRe]

30. Little by little...

... she has broken for the right. Because she has seen her base move farther and farther away from her. Away from the warring, away from the Corporatocracy. Hey, I'd love to have a first Lady President, but not an "Iron Lady." Hillary has changed. She's not the same Hillary she was is 1993.

[senz]

56. She wants to be president. She and Bill have wanted it since they left the White House. Anyone who

gets in their way is an enemy. Her "base" comprises anyone who wants her for president. That is the qualifier. That is the only qualifier. That's what she stands for.

[ReRe]

71. Then why doesn't she...

... switch back to the Republican Party? This is one of the ways that politicians on both sides of the isle have confused the electorate. OR it's just the two-party system we are glued to. Where is it in the Constitution that says we have to have a two-Party system exclusively?

[merrily]

86. Nowhere in the Constitution. They had no political parties at all then.

Factions, yes, parties, no. Now, we have parties AND factions. and factions within parties.

We need a new system, for sure.

[ReRe]

104. Seems I remember George Washington...

... lobbying for NO parties.

[merrily]

109. I don't know.

A lot of what has come down to us about Washington as fact turns out to be unverifiable via primary sources of his day, like the bit about his adding "so help me God" after the oath of office as written in the Constitution. The allegation about Washington, though, been used to make an issue of it for every inauguration. I believe Washington was also used when they decided on a limit of two terms. He refused to run a third time. Maybe he was just tired, after leading the troops with no money through the revolution, and serving as the first Pres. under the US constitution for 8 years, but his choice got enshrined in the Constitution because Republicans were so pissed off that FDR got re-elected so many times, even when he was all but deceased.

Inasmuch as incumbents often win re-election, if they choose to run, that means we often get a President for over four years who is both a lame duck and impervious to voters, but needing to raise money for his library/legacy Not really ideal. (I am not sure what is ideal and I vacillate about term limits, but I don't like elected officials being impervious to voters.)

So, I don't worry about Washington. He did amazing stuff, and I am grateful and full of awe, but even he was not perfect and that was then.

[ReRe]

112. I agree that he was not perfect...

I definitely don't worship him. But I was just saying that I remember his feelings about being against the establishment of "Parties." Thomas Jefferson figures into the conversation somehow. I should be able to find it pretty quick. Will come back and edit this when I find it.

Edit: to add info about George Washington's feelings about political parties:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/16/opinion/alexander-washington-george/

[merrily]

113. Thomas Jefferson is considered the founder of the modern Democratic Party and the first Pres. under

the system of political parties. His party was ideologically not like the Democratic Party of say, FDR, though. But, they do trace the "lineage" of today's Democratic Party back to him.

[ReRe]

115. Agree

[Jamastiene]

31. Of course, she does.

Didn't she also try to out-hawk that dumbass McCain (I will NEVER forgive him for foisting Sarah Palin on us, I could have lived my whole life without even knowing that woman existed) on Iran and say we needed to have war in Iran too? IIRC, she did. It makes me wonder if there is a war she doesn't think is essential to have.

[gerogie2]

33. Maybe we should invade Iraq...

it will be a cake walk just like the last time.

[OnyxCollie]

35. Line 'em up, knock 'em down.

Iran, Iraq, and beyond!

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

[candelista]

47. This.

[jamzrockz]

89. You beat me to it

I will not vote for a warmonger.

[ChiciB1]

36. Have NEVER Been A Supported Of Hers...

THIS just makes it WORSE! Can't we Democrats do better?? PLEEEEZE!! I just think this is the wrong way to go. Didn't she already say she shouldn't have voted for war before? I could be wrong, but she's made so many comments lately that are making me wonder who the hell she is anyway!

Doesn't sound much like a Democrat, and the KISSINGER stuff is OFF THE WALL!

[ChiciB1]

37. Meant A Supporter... Not Supported! n/t

[Divernan]

38. I rec'd this thread to expose her warmongering, not to indicate support for her.

Air war & social media? Like she'd stop there. We're talking slippery slope, like Vietnam - where we started out with "military advisers". Keep those MIC profits, dividends, board memberships, stock prices and corporate"donations" (cough-bribes-cough) to the Clinton Foundation coming - because the Clintons can never have enough power and money.

[rpannier]

39. Get a gun, enlist or form your own malitia/mercenary group

And have at it Hoss

[cosmicone]

41. Clinton bashing party by Bernie Sanders' supporters

Last I checked, Bernie is not even a democrat ... he has always been an independent.

Perhaps people who support Bernie Sanders against a card carrying democrat (and against DU's TOS to boot) should form a new "Independents Underground" and hold a jubilant party there.

Also, war against ISIS is a policy of President Obama and HRC is simply supporting her president. She may be positioning herself as more hawkish so that independents would not be swayed by repukes by brainwashing them into thinking that HRC is soft.

Candidates always position themselves for the electorate --- how they actually govern is quite different. How many of you have felt the spirit of "Yes We Can" after Obama's election? Wall Street crooks are still on their yachts, Bush and Cheney are not in The Hague facing war crimes and there is no comprehensive immigration reform. Still.

It is time to see who is electable and who is not. Then cut some slack to HRC -- she is still advocating a woman's right to choose, control of firearms, increase in minimum wage, LGBT rights and minority rights - issues that are dear to democrats.

[senz]

58. Bernie's a Socialist whose views align with progressive Democrats. Hillary is a DINO. (n/t)

[Scuba]

63. Please see ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=911918

[Union Scribe]

72. "how they actually govern is quite different"

Yeah, in recent memory they have all moved right once elected. If Clinton follows suit, we can look forward to even more belligerent foreign policy than she's already signaled.

[DonCoquixote]

75. so if she advocates

sending more kids to war, more poverty for the poor, we should all just "lie back and think of the motherland?"

[beerandjesus]

92. Hahahaha!

+1

[awoke_in_2003]

42. One thing both sides always seem to agree on...

we need more war. I would love to see these people's portfolios.

[merrily]

88. She deeply wants to be the first woman President.

[24601]

43. She's just channeling...herself from 2002. Why would anying think she had changed? Wasn't it her

husband who signed the law that made Iraq regime change US policy? And didn't she imply that she was a full partner in all his important decisions?

So why would we think she had changed? Sure, the words may change, but not her judgment or deeply held beliefs.

[candelista]

48. I'm not sure she has "deeply held beliefs."

Opportunists usually don't have any.

[KoKo]

50. Here......

With her donations already through the Roof from Wall Street Donors and other Scurrilous Characters before she's even Declared her Candidacy for 2016......What can one say except:

[Cleita]

66. We still don't have to vote for her in the primary.

I personally can't vote for her because of her admiration for Kissinger so if she's the Democratic candidate I will not vote at all for the first time in my life.

[arcane1]

68. I urge you to at least consider voting in the other races on your ballot.

The choice for president might not be to your liking, but you may have some local elections that are just as important

[Va Lefty]

51. Aw Jeez... we are so screwed

[obxhead]

55. Rec. Let the real Clinton show her true colors.

War, tax cuts, and profit for the 1%.

[YOHABLO]

57. She's thinking hard .. so are we.

[modeforjoe]

64. DU Is Growing UP

I have seen a long overdue shift at DU which pleases me. Formerly, posts and articles on DU seemed principally focused on criticism of Republicans--which is the wrong way to go about this thing. Making fun of Boehner and Co. is not the same as kicking your own forces into line, making them adhere to democratic and socialist principles. The way to make the Democratic party stronger is to force its leaders to an accounting; to refuse to let them get away with supporting republican ideas and policies without censure--simply because they are D's. Which, yes, means that we attack D's when necessary, and that attack (for the good of the order) is a higher priority than masturbatory mocking Boehner & Company.

The oil tanker of state (I was tempted to say ship of state) will not change course until the D's acquire a strong, clear progressive voice. The votes will come later, and I am willing to sacrifice an election or two (long view vs short term view I know) in order to get there. And yes, I am even willing to endure a come to Jesus moment when the country collapses because of Republican victories in the short term. Revolutions are not born out of convenience or comfort, and the more I read the news, it seems that Americans are too comfortable and too smug to realize what is at stake. Until they and the nation hit bottom. And all bottoms are first steps towards a higher place--yes, to be feared, but not fatal in the greater scheme of things.

That's why we voted for Obama, but because he hasn't had the courage to go down to defeat while advocating for what is right (and Reverend Wright was Right!), we can't choose more of the same next time around.

ISIS is Obama's war. I propose that his future speaking fees be donated to meeting the cost of this folly. That's the least we can expect from one who has violated so many hopes and promises of those who needed a leader who believed.

[DonCoquixote]

79. here is where I disagree

Yes, we do need to corral the Democrats and drag them towards the light. On a presidential level, I am relectant to "lose an election" for the greater good, why, because we tried that already in 2000.

Simply put, what W. taught us is that the GOP will make a crisis to stay in power, and that the results of that crisis will cost many lives inside and outside the USA. It is one thing to lay American lives on the altar, it is another to lay the lives of others, especially the third world types that will die by the thousands.

[merrily]

87. No, "we" did not try that in 2000. That was never the strategy of the Party in 2000.

And Gore won that election anyway.

[roamer65]

67. Looks like WW3 is going to start in the ME.

It's gonna start in the remnants of the old Ottoman Empire.

[grahamhgreen]

74. Cuz it worked so well last time?????

[CountAllVotes]

80. Glad she is "thinking hard" ...

She needs to think harder IMO.

U.S. OUT OF IRAQ!!!!

[Paper Roses]

81. Well, she lost me forever. n/t

[yurbud]

91. I would have more respect for her if she said which businesses and banks stand to profit from

hegemonic control of the Middle East, and THEN say military action was essential.

It's offensive to see a Democratic candidate repeating brain dead, right wing talking points.

[bigwillq]

93. WAR! WAR! WAR!

Need.More.War.




Just say NO to Hillary Clinton.

[Reter]

106. And people here will still vote for her

[liberal_at_heart]

107. War hawk Hillary says military action in Iraq is essential? I'm shocked.

[Nye Bevan]

121. So she's on the same page as Liz Warren, then.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday said that the Obama administration should make defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) its top priority.

"ISIS is growing in strength. It has money, it has organization, it has the capacity to inflict real damage. So when we think about a response we have to think about how to destroy that," Warren told Yahoo's Katie Couric.

Warren agreed that "time is of the essence."

"We need to be working now, full-speed ahead, with other countries, to destroy ISIS. That should be our No. 1 priority," she said in a wide-ranging interview promoting her latest book, A Fighting Chance.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/216559-warren-destroying-isis-should-be-our-no-1-priority

[candelista]

127. Well, isn't that interesting? Liz wants to "destroy" ISIS, too.

And do it "full speed ahead," whatever that means. All Liz supporters should see this. When it comes to bloodlust, she is no different from Hilary.

[Beacool]

130. What, the Patron Saint of the Left is in agreement with Hillary???

My heart be still. Someone please bring the smelling salts. People will be fainting around here.

[DeadEyeDyck]

126. I think she is positioning herself for 2016 run

She is anticipating a more war hungry demographic by then. If America is struck by another 911 type attack, she will be right. If we lose another 2000 troops, over there, she will have been wrong.

As SOS, she had access to information few others are privy too. Methinks she is doing some inside trading, so to speak.

[True Blue Door]

129. Whether she agrees with current policy or not, her views are not credible or relevant.

She's an unrepentant Bush regime collaborator.