E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Sorry Democrats. Hillary Clinton is a warmonger.

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

A letter to the editor recently suggested what people angry with Hillary Clinton over the Benghazi massacre are hypocrites for not having the same level of outrage over the Iraq war. This argument ignores history and Clinton's record on matters of war and peace. If you're looking for a candidate committed to non-interventionism, that candidate is not Hillary Clinton.

First, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. She now claims her vote was a mistake based on false information. I also supported the Iraq war and, like Clinton, I realize I was wrong. In fact, even with the knowledge that I had in 2003, I would have opposed the war if I had it to do over again. But has Clinton really learned her lesson? No, she has not. She is to this day supporting the exact same policies that led us to war in Iraq in different parts of the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama used American military force to bring about "regime change" in Libya. Moammar Gadhafi presented no threat to our national security. Like in Iraq, Clinton was totally unprepared for the aftermath of "regime change" - a power vacuum that devolved into chaos. Had there been no "regime change" in 2011 there would have been no Benghazi massacre in 2012. Clinton and Obama have weakened and threatened Bashir Assad's regime in Syria, and weakening Assad has strongly contributed to the rise of the Islamic State.

Hillary Clinton is an interventionist to her core. She fully supports using American military force all over the world where there is no national security interest. One of these - the utterly foolish invasion of Somalia in 1992, fully supported by the last Clinton administration - led directly to the massacre of American troops in Mogadishu. There was, of course, no national security interest in Somalia. Sound familiar?

We should be engaged in the world economically and diplomatically, but the use of military force should always be a last resort, only when our vital national security interests are directly threatened. With Hillary Clinton, we can count on four more years of the same kind of military interventionism we have seen under both Republicans and Democrats for generations. This is not a path we should continue to travel.


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Comments: