How does Hillary support calling the Iranian Guard terrorists YET oppose military action against them?

Question

How can she have it both ways?

Jeff M (below) Doubtful. If I consider someone an imminent threat I do not hesitate to strike. If they are not an imminent threat, I do not accuse them.

Dart (below) Accusing someone of being a terrorist is a BIG DEAL these days. They freeze assets, disappear people, and invade countries now for it now. To say it was needed to negotiate is utterly ridiculous on Hillary's part (not yours).

Answer 1

I don't understand the woman at all...this is what really pisses me off about her: she is willing to alienate her base becase she thinks that by voting with Republicans on certain issues, it will make her look tougher and capture conservative voters. Those people will NEVER EVER EVER like her or support her, even if she agreed with them on every issue in principle. She will never get those voters, and all she is doing is pushing people over towards Obama.

Answer 2

There are 'terrorists' all over the world; it would be reckless to try and take military action against all of them. We choose our battles based on the 'best interests of our nation' [interpret that as OIL].
We don't take military action against the 'terrorists' in Dafur, for example, because what little oil is there is not easily-accessible and is mostly sold to the Chinese.
Hillary is a Clinton. George W. is a Bush. They're both politicians, from political dynasties that are interested only in their own families' power and international prestige. If it behooves the Bush dynasty or the Clinton family to attack Iran [and it will, sooner rather than later], it will happen. There is no concern at all about the American people, or - for that matter - the opinions of the rest of the world.
As Adolph Hitler once said: "How fortunate for governments that they people they administer don't think."
-RKO- 12/07/07

Answer 3

I remember a few months ago they were talking about this on one of those news shows, I forget which one, but Pat Buchanan was on, and he said at the time, that he believed that Bush would order strikes against the Revolutionary Guard, and initially at least, the majoirity of the public would support it, and Hillary, again, had to be seen as standing with the President on this.

But her opponents successfully made an issue of this, and it allowed Obama to rise in the polls. She now sees that the majority of Democratic primary voters, anyway, are strongly against military action in Iran, and now, with the new NIE report, likely more of the general public is less concerned about Iran and opposes military action as well. So this will hurt Hillary, the only sitting Senator in the Democratic race who voted for it, particularly in the primary, and across the board. It gives Obama and potentially Edwards an opening, and you see Obama is ahead of Clinton in Iowa. This could also potentially hurt Republicans in the general election if the Democrats use the issue effectively against them.

Answer 4

Her vote to call the Iranian Republican guard terrorists was wrong just as wrong as her vote for Joint Resolution 114 giving Bush the authority to wage war on Iraq.
Her later vote says Bush needs congress approval in case he wants to attack Iran is a clumsy attempt to correct her mistake.
I believe there's a subtle difference from how you represent it though it does defy logic and is contradictory.

I don't think she can defend this at all. Someone and best not some corporate journalist without a clue should ask her this and not back down from logic and reason

Come to think about it a little longer the move is probably meant to keep her pro Israeli donors happy.

Answer 5

Simple: terrorism is a tactic. People who use that tactic are terrorists.

But that is ALL it is--and if you look at the tactics used by the US in World War 2--that too was terrorism.

Any "justification" for attacking another country --any REAL justification--has to rest on one of two points:

a) That the opposing country has first attacked us. Iran has not.
b) that the opposing country has attacked a third party we have an obligation under treaty to defend. Iran has not done that (supplying arms to insurgents DOES NOT constitute such an attack--if it did, the old Soviet UNion would have been correct in regarding our support of the Afghan resistance as an act of war against the USSR).

Sticking a label on someone--even an accurate one, as in this case--is not a sufficient cause for military action.

Answer 6

If one listens CAREFULLY to what Hillary said was that she supported voting the Iranian Guard terrorists so IF they did have evidence of nukes then we can take proper military actions if DIPLOMACY failed. The difference here is that she is not FABRICATING evidence . If you want a leader to lead, cover your @ss -be strong, be prepared and have a plan - not make up bullsh@t just to go to war.

Answer 7

whats up! I in basic terms be conscious the perfect contributor component, congrats. besides, the main celebration setup helps the two of them to have any subject the two strategies with out effects. In that way, definite, you're incorrect in this, on condition that standards, morals, and distinctive function, besides as rule of regulation, do no longer prepare.

Answer 8

You can call anyone anything for political or personal reasons. It does not mean however that you necessarily have to take any action per se against them. Its called covering all your bases just in case.

Answer 9

As a famous Evangelist once said as he was starting out in making money and a name for himself,after being told where he was wrong,he said "I know which side of my bread is buttered". This applies to Hilliary. She knows but the hunger for power is more.

Answer 10

Hmm, I wonder how long it will be until Canada is declared a terrorist organization and is invaded for its water...