General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Hawk Named Hillary [View all]TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Seriously, is your case that Clinton isn't a hawk or is your point that being a hawk is good or is this a baffle them with bullshit tactic or is your argument whatever Clinton does, says, or desires is great?
Do you read what you copy and paste?
Seems like a lot of expand NATO, put Putin in his place, support the Patriot Act, increase the size of the military, condoned exceptions on torture, thinks we abandoned Mubarak too soon, hugs hawkish line on terrorism, globalized with US prominence, send 70% of homeland security funding to cities & counties, keep Cuban embargo, naive to meet with leaders of Iran & North Korea, opposed to draft, but register women for draft, does US still have what it takes to lead? Yes!, political restraint against Iran's Ahmadinejad was a mistake, America is the "indispensable nation" which is hardly a compelling case that she isn't a hawk fluffed up by filler like "Dozens of Benghazi attackers had dozens of motives", "Some world leaders are still misogynistic", and "Ceremonial role abroad as First Lady, but no NSC meetings".
What in the world is the argument you are making here? That indeed Clinton is a hawk?
I'm pretty sure if similar stock was used to call Clinton out you'd be crying foul and huffing and puffing up and down the thread but yet this is your argument to the contrary?