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.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
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.
Or are more easily persuaded to go to war with arguments based on ending humanitarian suffering - a naive thought for sure - over Republicans who want to go to war to usher in the return of Jesus, or because they get erections at the sight of weapons being used, or because they enjoy the concept of war and domination of lesser peoples, etc.
Here is an example of McCain wanting to go to war against Russia. Later, it turned out Georgia started the shooting war with Russia when at the time Mccain was saying (as were many neocons and Republicans) that the Russians started it.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
over Republicans who want to go to war to usher in the return of Jesus, or because they get erections at the sight of weapons being used, or because they enjoy the concept of war and domination of lesser peoples, etc.
War to make Jesus return. That is stupid and no one does that. That is liberal fantasy bullshit.
Most people who support the wars support it because they believe it is in our best interest or that we are threatened.
