"Foreign policy amateur" Sanders spoke truth while "foreign policy expert" Clinton aped the Chimp

[Vattel]

Bernie Sanders on the floor of the House of Representatives in the Fall of 2002:

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.

One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first.

Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''

Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.

Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.

Meanwhile in the Senate Hillary Clinton had this to say:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.

I have posted this comparison before, but I want to add something. Much of the criticism of the invasion of Iraq focused on the lack of preparation for the aftermath. Clinton herself criticized Bush for that. How is it possible, then, that Clinton pushed hard for regime change in Libya but didn't devote herself to making sure that we were prepared for the aftermath there? President Obama recently said that not being prepared for the aftermath of that conflict was the biggest mistake of his presidency. How could that happen?

And how can she possibly think that the use of American force in Libya was "smart power at its best?" Describing it as "dumb power at its worst" would be more accurate. Add to that her support of the coup in Honduras, her failure to recognize that the bombing of Gaza was a disproportionate use of force, her support for Calderon's disastrous drug war in Mexico, her pushing for an increase of troops in Afghanistan, her admiration for Kissinger, her bellicose rhetoric on Iran, her approval of selling 29 billion dollars of weaponry to Saudi Arabia (did she do a background check?), etc., and what conclusions are to be drawn?

I can only conclude that her foreign policy record disqualifies her for the presidency.

[Vattel]

2. I think he could do better explaining why his foreign policy record is so much better than Clinton's

[uponit7771]

3. Nooooooooo, Sanders is lost...we can see that, he's unabashedly not interested in anything else...

... than hating Wall Street.

[Vattel]

4. It's amazing how much better he does with foreign policy than Clinton

even though he has no interest in it.