Excuse me?!? Who said that? Hillary Clinton? She is opposed to deferring our national security to the UN? Since when? What about the threats in Iraq? What did she have to say about that?
In her speech from the floor to authorize the use of force in Iraq:
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security….
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.…
Hillary has triangulated and tried to play the centrist on the Iraq issue. Now she is coming out looking like a Hawk on the Iran issue.
Iran is shifting its moneys out of European banks. They are preparing for a showdown. Even the UN is paying attention, calling an emergency meeting on Feb 2nd. Russia and China are tentatively in support of dealing with this rouge nation.
The Middle East is changing about as fast as Hillary’s positions on war. We cannot afford this woman as our next president.