How soon will Pres Hillary Clinton Bomb Iran

[Bull Moose Base]

In all seriousness, the entire GOP field just about has vowed to scrap the Iran deal on Day 1 and is more likely to get us into war with Iran. And even in an alternate reality where Paul could win the nomination, Netanyahu would be more likely to act on his own. So as far as maintaining stability in the Middle East, Hillary is a better choice than any Republican

[Bull Moose Base]

In all seriousness, the entire GOP field just about has vowed to scrap the Iran deal on Day 1 and is more likely to get us into war with Iran. And even in an alternate reality where Paul could win the nomination, Netanyahu would be more likely to act on his own. So as far as maintaining stability in the Middle East, Hillary is a better choice than any Republican

She voted fir Iraq ur argument is invalid!!!!!

I know you're kidding but that was actually a terrible vote. But even with it, extremely doubtful Hillary would have ordered the Iraq invasion had she been president.

[Bull Moose Base]

In all seriousness, the entire GOP field just about has vowed to scrap the Iran deal on Day 1 and is more likely to get us into war with Iran. And even in an alternate reality where Paul could win the nomination, Netanyahu would be more likely to act on his own. So as far as maintaining stability in the Middle East, Hillary is a better choice than any Republican

She voted fir Iraq ur argument is invalid!!!!!

I know you're kidding but that was actually a terrible vote. But even with it, extremely doubtful Hillary would have ordered the Iraq invasion had she been president.

Yeah, you are lying to yourself now LOL

Lying to yourself is when you think Rand Paul has any chance of being the nominee. Or when you think Hillary as president is more likely to lead to a war in the region than any Republican.

[Bull Moose Base]

In the Senate, HRC tried to have Iran's National Guard declared a "terrorist group," placing the country within the scope of the "Global War on Terror." It's really not that inconceivable that she'd work with the GOP to start the conflict with Iran that they and Netanyahu are dreaming about.

She also supports (and sent Jake Sullivan to lay the groundwork for in 2012) the nuclear deal signed with Iran. Even many of those opposed to the deal wouldn't start a war with Iran. So it's even more absurd to think that someone who supports it would.

I mean, even the Bush administration, certainly no nest of doves, held back on attacking Iran in 2006-2008.

She's running for President and trying to win the support of the Obama coalition, so from here on out I'll be separating her rhetoric from her actions. All a Clinton admin would have to do with the framework agreement in place would be to distort intelligence to say Iran was violating the terms, which isn't outside the realm of possibility given her going along with W's lies and her and her allies in the State Dept lying about Bashar Assad.

You're right to interpret any statements as serving a political agenda but you should also do that for all her senate votes, unless you're under the illusion that Hillary has not been eyeing a presidential run since 2000. The Iraq War was driven by Bush and the GOP and some true Democratic hawks like Lieberman, with a large amount of Democrats probably just going along out of fear of opposing a then-popular war. We have no idea of course but it's a good bet as to Hillary's motives were merely political, given that (a) she presumably was worried about the reluctance of the country to elect a woman post 9/11 and (b) there has not been to my knowledge a single report that she was lobbying her husband to oust Saddam from power when he was opting for limited military action to contain or deter Saddam. I'm not excusing the vote but if you consider her statements now as calculated, you should do the same for what her behavior in the senate. And there's also no particular reason to think she's gung-ho to start a war with Iran.

I would say all Republicans vowing to scrap the deal with Iran should be considered political posturing to that some possibly won't follow through with. But the fact that the GOP nominee will have promised to scrap the deal will hurt him in the general.

[Bull Moose Base]

She changed her stance on the Iraq War in 2014, the majority of Americans have opposed the war since at least 2006.

Not exactly. She claimed during the 2008 campaign that she opposed the war but didn't apologize for her vote which was meant to pressure Saddam Hussein. She more recently said the vote itself was a mistake. We can't really know what Hillary would have done if president when Saddam was in power but I believe it'd be similar to what her husband did: limited military action but no major invasion.

[Bull Moose Base]

Sounds like the same kind of paranoid thinking that has Rand Paul warning against the secret and sinister NAFTA Superhighway.

Obviously, whatever you think of our intervention in Libya and proposed in Syria, there were already civil wars raging. Those cases are different than Iraq in 2003 (again, no real basis to think President Hillary would have invaded Iraq). And also different in that despite the GOP obsession with Benghazi and apparent indifference to Iraq, there about a thousand times as many dead in the latter. As for a war with Iran, Hillary as far as we know did not advocate US military intervention in 2009 when Iranian and Hezbollah forces were slaughtering Iranian  protestors. Nor is she advocating military force now but instead, as Obama's chief diplomat in his first term, played a role in negotiations that led us down the path to this deal that, as far as I can tell, Rand Paul is too scared to comment on. Even if he did, he flips so easily and quickly on questions of intervention what would it matter?

Hypothetically, Rand Paul strikes me as more dangerous for the Mideast because Hillary would have a greater ability to prevent a reckless air campaign by Netanyahu. But it's all academic because Paul has almost zero chance to be nominated.

[Bull Moose Base]

In Libya and Syria, the existing government was trying to put down an uprising and Hillary favored the US arming and training rebels, and (at least in Libya) air strikes to support them. Smart or not as a policy (for the record, I think it was not) the reason that's not particularly relevant for Iran is that, much as there is a widespread desire among many Iranians to rid themselves of the Ayatollah, there is no uprising happening so Hillary isn't going to try to change the regime out of the blue. Nor is there a particular reason to think she'd be more likely than Obama or Bush to order strikes to impede their nuclear program when she herself has played a role in using diplomacy to impede a nuclear weapons program there. So yes, while it's possible if the inspections program broke down, she would consider military action, she hardly seems eager to be in that position. And anyone who thinks it's likely (as opposed to unlikely but possible) is fairly clueless. Whereas any Republican nominee besides Paul will have vowed to scrap the Iran deal and thus make war more likely. Which is yet another thing that will hurt the GOP in the general.

Edit: I actually am curious to hear the Paul vs the rest foreign policy debate in the GOP. But I am expecting it will cause him problems in the primary.