Low bar. Who isn't, really? I don't think any o
Post# of 65629
I don't think any of the candidates are 'for' that. But I do think some, on the GOP side, are simply unable to think through the consequences of their belligerent talk.
Joint Chiefs will bring them 'up to date' on their 'options', which will include exactly none of what Trump or Cruz want to do.
I'll repeat what I said about the likely reaction of antagonistic foreign leaders to Hillary, sexist though it might be. But hey, Russia, Iran, N. Korea for starters, DON'T have sexist leadership?
They will think that Hillary would be compelled to act militarily, if not with crippling economic sanctions, precisely because Hillary would need to dispel the notion that a U.S woman president might be easily intimidated and reluctant to fight.
The smart call would be to remember what her Hubby did when there was an assassination attempt on GHW Bush, what he did in the Balkans, what he did to keep Saddam in his 'box' and the shot he DID take at bin laden.
Quote:
on Aug. 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles rained down on the training camps. An additional 13 missiles were fired at a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that the Clinton administration believed was a chemical weapons factory associated with bin Laden.”
It's doubtful, IMO, that Hillary argued against any of those actions.
Lastly, all adversarial foreign leaders should remember General Patton's words:
"Americans LOVE to fight. They LOVE the sting of battle!"
LOL!