eom

political repercussions to influence her decisions to an undesirable degree.

Obama gets high marks from me. He was wiling to take some hits politically while doing the right thing.

and we all know a president's decisions are only as good as the intelligence provided to base them on.

I would much prefer a president who is averse to war. The BS detector on doctored intelligence might function a little better.

I think she'd jump at any opportunity to prove how 'tough" she is.

I think she would happily not think to hard if someone were to lie about the need for war, too.

I do not trust Clinton on foreign policy. At all. if she ends up president, how she conducts herself in this area will be the primary feature as to whether I give her a second term.

that the USA has been in since WWII.

but at the same time, her decision to vote for IWR is sickening and indefensible

She seems at times to project the role Iron Lady to overcome it. That role doesn't always come off as natural as in "We came, We saw, He died."

But I'm sure she'd use diplomacy first, and I certainly don't think she'd pull a W and lie to get us into a war.

She's a war hawk type, and all politicians mislead to some extent. But I think Bush came into office WANTING to invade Iraq. I have no particular notion that Clinton wants to invade any particular country. But she certainly might be open to getting us stuck in another war or two.

The U.S. it seems, has no problem creating "conflicts", no win situations, spreading good tidings and winning hearts and minds.

Anything goes. Everything is on the table. Big G contractors need to be fed and all.

At least that's how I feel these days.

When it comes to global foreign policy, there is no real difference between Hillary Clinton and the GOP. I'm not really a fan of Obama's foreign policy either, but the issues I agree with him on are almost ALL issues that Hillary and the GOP disagreed with.

Note that I'm NOT saying that Hillary Clinton is just like the GOP. There are plenty of domestic and social issues where she differs with them. But when it comes to foreign policy, it's a challenge to find many substantive differences.

From Clinton's claims that Qaddafi was planning genocide against his internal enemies (now definitively proven false), to the funneling of weapons to Al Qaeda linked Libyan rebels supported by NATO, Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated her willingness to beat the war drums when it is politically advantageous.

War is murder. I don't support murder.

and as an instrament of policy.

She'd have someone else do it for her. She's a terrible liar and completely unconvincing when she lies.

But I wish she would quit trying to convince us how "tough" she is. We had eight years of "tough" before Obama took office and look how well that worked out. Besides, people who are really "tough" don't feel the need to run around continually talking about how "tough" they are.