HC: No, I don't. I feel like I have to do what I believe is right. I don't think we need to have an either/or debate about the use of military force — I think you can be both tough and smart. And we haven't had that for the last six-and-a-half years. We are desperately in need of the kind of smart diplomacy that has worked for America in the past. If you use force, it should be a last resort. And it needs to be used with full understanding of the consequences. I bring the experience that I had in eight years in the White House where Bill did intervene in places like Bosnia and Kosovo but did it in a smart, effective way. George Bush — the first George Bush — also [was effective] in putting together a real coalition, not a pretend coalition.
Oh this is priceless - she lived 8 years in the White House as the neglected WIFE of the President, now on the campaign trail she is attempting to parlay the experience into something else? Does this mean during the Clinton Administration she was making decisions reserved for those ELECTED by the populace? Hmmm...it is interesting that she highlights this part of her 'career' and not the actions she undertood as a Senator.
JC: If you were president, how would you deal with Darfur?
No-fly zones worked so well with Saddam's regime, it really stopped the violence occuring on the ground in Iraq. When President Bush mentioned Darfur in his 2007 State of the Union address, Democrats leapt to their feet, clapping wildly. When he spoke of victory in Iraq a few seconds earlier, however, most Democrats (Hilary included) sat in stony silence. Those on the Left keep telling us that we're not the world's police, yet at the same time are demanding US involvment in Darfur. As much as it appalling to witness the genocide occuring in the Sudan, the same liberals (Hilary and ilk) who demand US involvment to 'save Darfur' have damned the Sudanese by their fanatical criticism of the US having done the same in Iraq.