Clinton's long history as a warhawk

[magical thyme]

32. here are 2 links from the article, and some additional ones from me

her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as “Mama Warbucks.”
http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-04-26/news/mama-warbucks/

Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/remarks-senator-hillary-rodham-clinton-transcript/p6600


http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Kosovo.htm
Yugoslav involvement good on both moral & strategic grounds
Hillary Clinton called for the US to reject isolationism and aggressively engage itself in world affairs in the tradition of President Truman at the end of WWII. She cited American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo as examples of foreign engagements she favored on moral and strategic ground, but also suggested that Americans needed to consider becoming involved in solving crises that are not only military in nature.
Source: Dean Murphy, NY Times Oct 20, 2000

Urged president to bomb Serbians
On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: “I urged him to bomb.” The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The President expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” The next day the President declared that force was necessary.
Source: Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p. 345 Dec 9, 1999


http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_Clinton_Homeland_Security.htm#44
Hillary hugs hawkish line on terrorism
On terrorism, Hillary hugs the hawkish line. She voted for the Iraq War, and though she criticizes the Bush administration for the way it is fighting the conflict, she constantly backs the war and votes for all the supplies, money, and troops Bush requests. In fact, she has called for the recruitment of 80,000 new soldiers.
In staking out new ground for herself on national defense issues, Hillary has found a big ally: former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Hillary actively uses Newt as a prop to demonstrate her newfound political centrism. Serving together on an advisory panel on defense priorities, Gingrich and Hillary have gone out of their way to indicate a shared commitment to a strong defense. According to the New York Times, “Gingrich says he has been struck by how pro-defense Hillary Clinton has turned out to be at a time when other Democrats have criticized President Bush’s decision to go to war. He chalked that up to her experience in the White House.”
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p.145 Oct 11, 2005

Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military
Recommends a bigger Army in 2004: “We have to face the fact we need a larger active-duty military. We cannot continue to stretch our troops, both active-duty, Guard and Reserve, to the breaking point, which is what we’re doing now... I’m supporting an effort to increase the end strength of the Army, increase the size of the military. This is a big decision for our country to make. It is expensive, but I don’t think we have any alternatives.”
Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 74 Sep 30, 2005

Muscle, not rhetoric, leads to strong homeland security
Muscle, not rhetoric, leads to strong homeland security: “We have relied on a myth of homeland security--a myth written in rhetoric, inadequate resources, and a new bureaucracy instead of relying on good, old-fashioned American ingenuity, might, and muscle.”
Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 76 Sep 30, 2005

Long-held pro-defense spending stance; not a move to center
As long as she has been in public life, Clinton has held many positions that are ordinarily associated with Republicans, supporting the death penalty, numerous free-trade agreements, and high defense spending, to name a few. She was also a strong and early supporter of the Iraq war (though she became a critic as the war dragged on). Yet these positions are not only not taken as evidence that she is in fact a centrist, they are used as evidence of insincere political calculation. She has often been characterized as MOVING to the center in preparation for a presidential run, even when her position on the issue in question has remained unchanged.
For Clinton, long-held positions, like a hawkish approach to military affairs, are taken as evidence of a shift. And the prevailing assumption is that when she breaks with some in her party (or even when she sticks with her party) it is for crass political purposes and not an outgrowth of genuine conviction.

Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.134-135 Mar 25, 2008

2001: Called for wrath on those who attacked America on 9/11
Within hours of two planes crashing into two New York towers on 9/11/2001, Hillary Clinton’s closest advisor, Bill, urged her to come out strong. It was he who encouraged her to show that she had the requisite boldness and guts to lead the nation and protect her people. The very next day, Hillary delivered a call to arms that hailed “wrath” on those who harbored terrorists. While others were modeling a different style of leadership by holding firm for global cooperation, criminal prosecution, and a reassertion, rather than a shedding of international jurisprudence, Clinton channeled Thatcher, Britain’s “Iron Lady,” and delivered a bombastic speech in which she described the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon as an “attack on America.” Clinton called for punishment for those responsible, the hijackers, and their ilk and vowed that any country that chose to harbor terrorists and “in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.”
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 18-19 Nov 11, 2007

FactCheck: Yes, in 2006 condoned exceptions on torture
Barack Obama accused Clinton of flip-flops on torture: Obama is right. In an interview with the New York Daily News in October 2006, Clinton condoned torture, saying, “In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President. That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law.“
But in a debate in New Hampshire last month, Sen. Clinton shifted her position, when offered a similar ticking time bomb case, responding, ”As a matter of policy, torture cannot be American policy, period.“ To our ears, that sounds like a reversal.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007


http://www.voltairenet.org/article187315.html
Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan.

This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview, said regarding this international crime: “We came, we saw, he died.” As Time magazine pointed out in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind.

In the summer of 2012, Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads.

Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one of the loudest proponents against her husband’s hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina Frank: “I urged him to bomb,” even if it was a unilateral action.

http://www.alainet.org/es/node/124156
According to Clinton, the Bush administration neglected "at our peril" the new political developments in Latin America. Without naming names, Clinton asserts, "We have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America." Rather than applauding the new willingness of an increasing number of elected governments to tackle the structural obstacles that have marginalized the poor and indigenous populations, Clinton evokes a picture of a region threatened by retrograde forces. Blaming the Bush administration for its negligence, Clinton implies that a more engaged U.S. policy could have obstructed the rise of democratically elected left-center governments, such as those in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. "We must return to a policy of vigorous engagement: this is too critical a region for the United States to stand idly by," asserts Clinton. But what kind of "vigorous engagement" is she talking about? Past forms have included intervention in national elections, financial and military support for illegal opposition movements, propaganda campaigns to carry the message of pro-U.S. forces and vilify others. Any "return" to policies like these is not likely to be regarded kindly in Latin America. With few positive examples to cite recently, U.S. engagement to protect "critical" U.S. geopolitical and economic interests has too often been synonymous with intervention. - See more at: http://www.alainet.org/es/node/124156#sthash.qhQq9Uri.dpuf