As I pointed out earlier this week, Hillary Clinton was actually one of the driving forces behind our military actions in Libya. She was the one who convinced the Arab League of Nations to support a no-fly zone - a no-fly zone that now none of them wish to help enforce. Hillary gets on the horn Obama and said, "Hey, Barack, ya gotta do this," and the next thing you know we are launching Tomahawk missiles in Libya. Congressional approval? Apparently that wasn't even on the discussion agenda. For a multitude of reasons, Hillary felt like we needed to act immediately.
Well ... that was now. What about then? Hillary's actions in the past week might well have not passed her own smell-test in 2007 when George W. Bush was considering action in Iran. Here's a convenient little clip from Hillary Clinton in 2007 (don't ya just love the Internet?) ..
"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority,"
"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization ..."
"We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action. This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress."
So Hillary Clinton just joins the ranks of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the ObamaMedia ..... yes, all of these people hammered the idea in 2007 of military action without congressional approval. But that was when it was politically expedient for them to do so. Now that their guy is in the White House, the media is largely mum, Hillary is making the calls for action, Biden isn't calling for impeachment, and Obama, as usual, gives every indication that he has no idea in the world what he is doing. He's a community organizer for crying out loud.
At least the Democrats pretend they don't like going to war. Republicans get off on it. That is the only difference I can see between the two parties. I know in the two parties produce the same results but the Republicans are pigs about it - revel in the war imagery - which makes them more odious than the Dems.
At least the Democrats pretend they don't like going to war. Republicans get off on it. That is the only difference I can see between the two parties. I know in the end they produce the same results but the Republicans are pigs about it - revel in the war imagery - which makes them more odious.
