Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Antiwar Groups Fear Barack Obama May Create Hawkish Cabinet
Activists note that most of the candidates for top security posts voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq or otherwise supported launching the war.
WASHINGTON - Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.
Reading the signs. Anti-war activists and organizers are trying to bridge the gap between cynicism and optimism. They want to capitalize on the enthusiasm and energy that the Obama victory has stirred, while maintaining a level of pressure that isn't overly critical at the outset. Although resisting discouragement at this early stage, it's imperative that they 'express concern' over certain directions the President-Elect seems to be taking in cabinet choices and advisers. The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be
in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other
short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go
to war.
"Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning," said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.
The activists -- key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House -- fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.
The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it.
Aside from Clinton and Gates, the roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, though Lugar has since said he regretted it.
"It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.
Clinton, who was Obama's chief opponent during the Democratic presidential primaries, appears to be the top candidate for secretary of State in his administration. Speculation about Clinton has dismayed some liberal activists but has cheered some conservatives such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and editor William Kristol of the Weekly Standard.
Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution, and despite pressure, she never said during the primary campaign that she regretted that vote. She also favored legislation last year to support the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, another decision that pleased conservatives.
In a move to advance her candidacy, Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, has agreed to take steps to avoid conflicts of interest posed by his far-flung financial dealings, Democrats close to the discussions said Wednesday.
Bill Clinton has agreed to check with the Obama administration before giving a paid speech. He also has agreed to disclose the sources of new contributions to his charitable enterprise, the William J. Clinton Foundation, those close to the matter said on condition of anonymity.
He also is trying to devise a way to share the identity of past donors, a touchy matter because some contributors do not want their identities divulged, said one Democrat.
Knowledgeable Democrats say that Gates is under consideration to remain in his post for at least several months even though he frequently has said he wants to return to private life when the Bush administration leaves office.
Activists note that Vice President-elect Joe Biden, also expected to be a leading voice in the new administration's foreign policy, voted for the 2002 war resolution.
Another possible contender for the diplomatic post, former U.S. diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke, also backed the Iraq invasion.
Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, said that although Obama had campaigned as an agent of change, the president-elect is "a fairly centrist guy" who appears to be choosing from the Democratic foreign policy establishment -- "and nobody from outside it."
"So, in the short term, we're going to be disappointed," he said. "They may turn out to be all pro-war, or at least people who were pro-war in the beginning."
Martin said that his group was concerned about Gates and Clinton as well as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's choice for White House chief of staff. He also said his group was trying to mobilize its grass-roots supporters with e-mail alerts, but recognized that it must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory.
"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."
Peace Action urged in a letter for its members to speak up because "we can be sure that the Obama team is under pressure to dial back plans to withdraw from Iraq."
Despite concerns, some groups are trying to remain conciliatory.
Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said that although he finds Sen. Clinton's views "very troubling," Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.
"I take him at his word that he is committed to ending the occupation of Iraq in 16 months and that he's going to assemble a team that's committed to that goal," Andrews said.
Obama campaigned on a promise to remove all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, or roughly one brigade a month.
Since winning the White House, Obama has affirmed his pledge to remove the troops but has left himself some flexibility on the withdrawal timetable.
In an appearance on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Obama promised a troop pullback but described it in broad terms.
"I've said during the campaign, and I've stuck to this commitment, that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops," the president-elect said.
Richter is a writer in our Washington bureau.
- Posted in



124 Comments so far
Show AllI don't know. I reckon its pretty much what we expected isn't it?
It is astounding how much deception the mind is capable of. Now the truth is becoming clear but the hopefuls stand, mouths open, muttering, but, but, but.
Totally agree. No surprise to me.
"The president-elect has told some Democrats that he expects to take heat from parts of his political base but will not be deterred by it."
Yeah, don't let what the people think or want bother you. We're nothing. We're just the staircase you take to get the office you want.
Would it be better if we had peace activists knowing nothing about war, except that it's wrong, or people like those Obama has picked who do know? There isn't any reason to believe they're going to do as the bushites have done.
I'm adamently against war, period. But I personally believe, and will feel safer with those Obama has chosen, because of the face we've shown the world for the past eight years. This administration will show our strength - even though not used, and will send a certain kind of message to those who might seek revenge.
>>This administration will show our strength - even though not used<<
Don't bank on that. He's going to use it. Use it fast and hard to prove himself at least once. You think this is going to be better and you know what it is the same as the last bunch except Obama kissed you before he turned you over. The end result is the same.
Camelot my butt...
Moral bankruptcy aligned with financial bankruptcy is no strength.
the face may have a shit eating new smile, the message is still the same, Amerika uber Alles......
wilmoor, is right.
Over the past 8 years, the peace activists have accomplished nothing. We need to end this war and roll back the abuses of the Bush years. Obama is stacking his cabinet with battle-hardened politicos who know how to get the job done. When the Rublicans attack machine starts going after Obama, who would you rather have protecting him, a wimp like Dennis Kucinich or a tough guy like Rahm Emanuel?
.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Dennis Kucinich - the man who speaks the truth is a wimp?
Joe - are you sure your last name isn't "the Plumber" ?
What, exactly, makes Kucinich a wimP??? I've seen nothing from Kucinich but courage that the entire rest of the Dems have left buried deep. It's the media that are wimps and refuse to give him any air time.
Joe Dope sez: "When the Rublicans attack machine starts going after Obama, who would you rather have protecting him, a wimp like Dennis Kucinich or a tough guy like Rahm Emanuel?"
***
So Obama is hiring Gates, Clinton, Emanuel, et al to go into the trenches and do battle with ... Hannity?
>Would it be better if we had peace activists knowing nothing about war, except that it's wrong, or people like those Obama has picked who do know? There isn't any reason to believe they're going to do as the bushites have done.
Ah yes. Peace thru militarism. Reminds me of the logic demonstrated by the lyrics to 'John Barleycorn Must Die'.
Here, in case you don't know...
http://lyrics.ivory.org/johnbarl.html
"So, in the short term, we're going to be disappointed..."
Get used to it, folks. Short and long term.
---
The difficulty we have in disengaging from Iraq is not the post-Iraq war, UN-mandated friendly occupation and support of the Iraqi government. America has pretty much accepted that it has to leave. The current agreement (not totally ratified and accepted yet) sets time limits for the US to leave and thankfully does not allow the US to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.
The difficulty lies in the war against al-Qaeda and terrorism, which is being fought here, there and everywhere (it's a Global war, remember!). The US military will be loathe to retreat anywhere from this ongoing conflict as long as victory has not been achieved. In fact, this conflict is expanding, as the recent cross-border attack into Syria and more attacks into Pakistan show.
IMHO, there will not be complete withdrawal from Iraq, from Afghanistan, from anywhere until this unconstitutional, insane and unwinnable 'war on terror' is relegated to the rest of Bush's crap pile of failures.
I'm happy to see you admit that the "War on Terror" needs to be retired.
Although I'm not so sure you view it as I do, as a totally fabricated mission. I still believe the real terrorists were domestic and worked at the White House and Pentagon. The real “War on Terror” should not be fought by our military in foreign countries, but by our law enforcement and judicial systems right here at home. We should investigate 9/11 and try to determine who within our own country took part in the planning and deployment of the 9/11 disaster. This should include not only the neo-cons who dreamed up the plan, but all participants in its deployment. That means CAI and FBI agents. No one should be excused for following orders in this mass murder whose only purpose was to secure congressional authorization for the invasion of Iraq.
And we also need to identify the king pins at the top. My first suspect is Vice President Cheney.
OF COURSE 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
The evidence is overwhelming. The military was alerted instantly that all four planes were off course and out of communication. That is standard procedure, and verified by air traffic controllers. It is also standard procedure to scramble jet fighters when EITHER of those two alerts occur. Yet no jets were scrambled even after the first strike in New York, even after 2 hours had elapsed before the Pentagon strike.
And then there is the fall of building number 7, which was not hit by an airplane but which fell straight down at near free fall speed. After the owner of that building said, we might as well "pull it." (Technical term for blow it up) Burning steel frame buildings do not collapse by themselves.
For information, try: http://www.ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth)
http://www.911truth.org/ (Top left: "Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11th"
or google: "911 truth" 422,000 sites or 911,truth - 995,000 sites
Enjoy the research. But how do we organize to break through the media induced trance. That I don't know.
Laurenceofberk,
Well, you have no argument from me. You’re perfectly correct. The evidence is overwhelming. I was convinced of this even before we invaded Iraq. I knew then that 9/11 was the false flag operation that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. And I’m not even very smart. I was so depressed. I couldn’t figure out why no one was realizing this. Everyone, including my own family, took strong offense to me talking about such things.
It is my belief that Building 7 had to be destroyed because it contained evidence that the CIA or FBI or both used it as a command center for blowing up the towers. There was a command center, I believe on the 28th floor, that was built supposedly for the Mayor of New York to use in such situations. But Juliani gave no thought to using it when he arrived at the scene, most probably because he was told that it was being used at the time for some military operation, the nature of which he most probably did not understand. If he had understood he would never have set up his command center in the lobby of one of the towers, which was soon to be completely destroyed. I believe a bunch of computers were set up on the 28th floor of Building 7 to transmit the signals to the explosives that were previously planted in the twin towers. It is my understanding that this is a standard way in which the hundreds of explosives are synchronized when buildings are pulled by controlled demolition. Destroying Building 7 guaranteed that the evidence of those computers would never be found.
Of course they had hoped that the aircraft would take the buildings down. They even synchronized large explosives in the basement of the towers with the exact instant that the aircraft hit in the hope of amplifying their destructive effect. Had that worked, the buildings would have toppled over. It would be much more difficult today to realize that the destruction of the towers was really a military/CIA/FBI operation conducted by our own government. I believe the explosives were planted in the upper floors as a contingency in the event that the planes and synchronized basement explosives were not enough to bring the buildings down on their own.
Of course all of this tells you something about our government’s respect for the lives of its own citizens. They were willing to see the buildings completely topple over without warning, killing everyone inside. The survivors need to thank their luck stars that the primary plan did not work and that in the end the previously planted upper floor explosives had to be used, thus giving them time to get out.
The sad part of all this is that the so-called “War on Terror” should be conducted right here at home.
And, what makes you think that Obama's administration isn't capable and willing to perform the same kind of deed the next time a "Pearl Harbor Event" is needed to justify some future war of agression. They wouldn't hesitate for a second.
It is only by voting outside the two-party system, which is controlled by the Military Industrial Complex, that you can save America from the same kind of domestic, government sponsored terrorism in the future.
Sioux Rose
OREZ ENO: Are you familiar with the Shakespearian drama, Hamlet? In order to be sure that the ghost's intimation that his Uncle Claudius truly murdered his father, Hamlet sets up the famous "play within a play." Producing a dramatic scene that was a likeness to the way he was told his father was killed, he and his pal Horatio were to observe his uncle's behavior upon viewing said scene. It was his Mother (into the plot) who reacted, hence the famous expression, "The lady doth protest too much." I raise this analogy because it would be quite powerful if a film production company devised a fictitious drama that used EXACTLY the tactics/techniques you've illustrated. I wonder if any heads would roll as a result?
And as for our government not respecting citizens' lives, all we have to do is note the filth at Walter Reed Hospital, how VETS with post traumatic stress disorder and/or exposure to DU or other lethal chemicals are put through lengths of red tape or told it's psychological; or consider the fact that the EPA has essentially been hand cuffed and few provisions that protect public health are enforced. Then, too, there is the dragging of heals by our "leaders" when it comes to climate change, and of course, Katrina. Or as Madeleine Albright once infamously put it, "We think the price has been worth it." And damned if the dame ain't invited back to the big table ALL over again!
You are all insane. Popular Mechanics debunked your conspiracy theories years ago. Now you're pulling Obama in on it?!?
How does it feel that everyone from Limbaugh to Chomsky thinks you're insane?
.While I myself am mot a subscriber to such theories I fail to see why you, Joe, need to vent so stupidly on those with whom you disagree.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Pot. Kettle. Black.
.Very good, my child. Next week we will work on three more words, perhaps 'evolutionary throwback' might be two of them you will need to understand yourself better.
Gee, having a stalker seems so ego fulfilling somehow!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
You are kidding, of course. PM's "debunking" has been debunked many times over. Go google it.
Yeah, Popular Mechanics didn't "debunk" a bloody thing except, perhaps, their own credibility.
Sioux Rose
OREZ ENO: I totally agree with your comments, and only would add that there were more than one reason(s) for the 911 necessary triggering event, the faux Pearl Harbor II. Fixing the media to thwart dissent, consolidating power into a "unitary executive," stacking the court to be yet more friendly towards "business interests," and if Naomi Klein is right, undermining the nation's economy through a variety of insidious tactics, some evident in trade polices/tariffs, others more covert. At least there are minds aware of what's at stake, and legal scholars who have put together viable cases for impeachment. These no doubt could be used by the World Court, for as Alex Lawyer related in a post yesterday, THAT statute of limitations will not run out, and the world has a longer memory than short attention span Americans, fed literally and figuratively on a diet of shit so long, too few realize what's up, down or going around.
We're in Iraq for geopolitical positioning (check its borders) ...and oil. Our military was supposed to secure the territory so that US oil companies (banned basically by Sadam) could work safely and profit.
We're in Afghanistan for geopolitical positioning (check its borders) and ... oil, to secure the territory for pipelines to bring oil and gas from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan, India, etc.
It's not just that totally fictitious, ludicrous 'war on terror' that has to be retired. It's US imperialism. Our military is occupying those countries because of our imperial over-reach.
"The US military will be loathe to retreat anywhere from this ongoing conflict as long as victory has not been achieved." The military knows better than anyone that they're not bogged down in the Middle East and in Central Asia because they're fighting terrorists! They understand how ludicrous it is to fight a tactic from 35,000 ft in the air... or with any kind of military approach. They're there to secure territory and they know deeply how impossible that task has become.
The military will do what they're told. They fight; they don't decide where and when.
Four more years...
...don't blame me I voted for Nader.
Yeah, we don't sound quite so fringe now, do we?
Me too, though I would have preferred Kucinich.
Blame me, I voted for Obama knowing he would fall short.
Frankly, I don't care who you blame - it makes no difference to anything in this universe. Only the best you do with what's at hand makes a difference...then, what you do after that.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
.Sounds right to me Ted, I blame you.
Seriously, perhaps you might expand upon how you think voting for the wrong person can bring us progress.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Before the election there was a youtube piece that showed a person's name at various locations (billboard, t-shirt, etc.). The gist was that it was all this person's fault that we wound up with McCain/Palin because s/he didn't vote for Obama. Cute, but rather sophomoric. It was sent to me with my name in it and I decided not to pass it along.
My vote was not for the wrong person. It was for the person I believe has the most chance to effect change. Not perfect change, not everything I want, maybe not even huge progress, but change in the direction I want to see this country go in. I have to wonder what change we would have gotten with McCain, and God forbid, Palin.
I've let go of the illusion that huge changes will come from the political world. Unless we have a cataclysmic event, the same personalities will always walk the halls of power. Power attracts these people, and expecting a nascent third party to just walk in and do anything progressive when the whole system is wired against quick change is foolish, and potentially dangerous.
From what I've seen, the time to change this whole dynamic isn't on Election Day, but every other day. It is done in millions of ways. I do it by being a part of a movement to strengthen self-sufficiency and community. I also write letters to papers and representatives of government and think tanks. Yeah, I know, small change, but it is my change, and change in the direction I want to see things go in.
As your tag implies, ardee, I see things as I am. I no longer try to ram my agenda through in one fell swoop. I respect your approach - it's all necessary - I just no longer see it as a viable method for enacting real change. At least, not for me.
My biggest hope is not in Obama, but in the rest of us. I sincerely hope that we can do the things only we can do to bring about change in our lives and in the lives of others. There is a huge social movement afoot, and that is bringing big change. It's hard to discern, but it is happening. Hopefully, we can all let go of the shore and join in.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Very Good comment Ted.
.You are a good man, Mr. Markow, if a bit staid for my taste...;-)
I enjoyed and thank you for the expansion of your belief set. As you are no doubt aware I cannot agree with much of it, well some of it anyway. When you limit your choices you limit your possibilities. You believe that Barack Obama represented the better choice, you know that I believe that he, as much as John McCain, represents a continuation of the status quo.
To say that the political arena will not provide change until there is an evolutionary change in the voting public ( OK not stated but intimated) seems to me to be defeatist. If we refuse to participate in the process we fail in our duty to the state. If we continue to accept the charade that one party is different from
the other then we perpetuate that charade. I believe that only by using the power of ones vote to break the monopoly that corporate money exerts upon the system can we hope to make changes. Waiting to evolve is not an option I can deal with.
Voting and working to build third party structures and insert third party people into our legislative processes , people refusing
the influence of corporate funding, is the right way to bring about much needed change. I reject those who say that to vote Nader or McKinney was to waste your vote, it was actually the best way to show the powers that be how we really feel about their governance, the only way to scare them left in fact.
We both understand that change is gradual here in America, armed insurrection is obviously off the table. We now must find the proper way to make this gradual change that is so desperately needed.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
klakin, I blame you for eight years of Bush and now I blame you for trying to sabotage Obama's presidency.
This article states:
Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate
That's certainly true. So, if America is a democracy, and if Obama was elected partly on that platform, why is he now legitimizing war?
Oh, excuse me. I forgot. It's not really a democracy, is it? Our government is really the public arm of the Milirary Industrial Complex. Our government is only there to give the appearance of democracy for those peons amongst us who cannot accept that we are really a criminal, fascist, imperial state that murders to better the interests of corporations. They placed Obama out there to yell slogans like, "Enough" and "Change" just to get suckers like you who have grown tired of Bush to keep your vote within the two-party system.
So, if you don't like it, why the heck did you vote for Obama?
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him. I voted for Nader and I'm proud of it.
Obama could nominate people who reduce funding for the M/I/I complex and go against the Zionist money-power at his own peril.
Change may only happen if he rules by popular referendum, not by the advise of Washington insiders.
I hope all the people who voted for Obama as an agent of "change" are happy.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
I always pay careful attention to writer and source of an article. This article is pretty fair. I'd also read it in conjunction with Jeremy Scahill's below, then read the transcript of today's DemocracyNow with Scahill and David Corn of the "Nation" for their counterpoint on the abovementioned concerns,names and others. Then I'd read Frances Fox Piven's article on "Obama Needs a Movement" far down on CommonDreams main page. It's not enough to just be an observer. Scahill made a great point on DemocracyNow, (paraphrase) Now is the time to fight against some of these names because once they are in positions in the new administration, it's harder to get them out. True. www.democracynow.org
abdosoliman46
I agree with you, but add we have to continue to fight no matter who is in the new cabinet. We want to end the open wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; we want an end of the hidden and proxy wars in Somalia and other places in Africa. We want an end to ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and enforcements of UN resolutions that give the palestinian their national rights. In brief, we want a US leader ship based on the American constitution and the Charter of the UN. It is the progressive people's fight; with or without Obama, our hope He will meet us half way.
The honeymoon is over
What honeymoon? There was no honeymoon.
Eyes wide open. This is still America, where the rich vacation in Bali and the poor stand in line for food and get evicted when they can't pay the mortgage.
Health care? Forgetaboutit!!
Good article.
Be prepared for Irony.
Everything is on the economy now... War is expensive... War needs a bailout too while Republicans are losing money as fast as anyone.
Since the Republicans are looking for a direction now and since they are the most opposed to all of the coming bailouts, they may become more against War than the top Dems....
Now that the top Dems will be in charge of the Wars, the opposition can gain popular votes by demanding "Where is the peace"?
Wouldn't that be Ironic?
It would be great and certainly a great irony but don't expect that to happen. Beginning with Reagan, the Republicans have firmly and viciously believed that "deficits don't matter". Cheesedick Cheney told this to George Wanker Bush repeatedly. Obviously, the Republicans run into the problem of eventual destitution but when did they ever give a damn? They'll just keep doing the same ol' same ol'.
OK, but Why Not?
How about if a dedicated large group of third party activists...took over the Republican party.
The Green Republicans..... It sure would change the landscape and take the the media by surprise.
Just a thought... and I don't think I could call myself a Republican that easily. It would sure change things though.
I think Dennis Kucinich would be a great choice for Secretary of State.
But, short of that, Hillary Clinton is the most dovish of the more prominent names that have been mentioned. She is more dovish than Obama himself, so her selection represents a move to the Left from his Centrist-Right voting record in the Senate . . . and that's a good thing.
Yes, Clinton infamously voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002 (as did 77 of 100 Senators), but she has since switched sides.
She voted (with just 27 other Senators) for the Feingold-Reid Amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, requiring redeployment of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. (Obama didn't cast a vote.)
She also voted (again, with just 27 other Senators) against FISA, the noxious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (Obama voted for it.)
She also co-sponsored Senator Bernard Sanders' very dovish bill (S. 2398) banning use of U.S. mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Obama opposed it.)
While Clinton is no Dennis Kucinich, her recent voting record shows she is closer to his positions than is Obama.
Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked...
'Nuff said.
So does Obama, and almost every Senator.
WASHINGTON (Reuters), April 22, 2008 - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a NUCLEAR strike against Israel.
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we WOULD BE ABLE TO totally obliterate them," she said. "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will DETER them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
From Wikipedia:
"Deterrence theory is a military strategy developed during the Cold War. It is especially relevant with regard to the use of nuclear weapons . . .
Deterrence is a strategy by which governments threaten an immense retaliation if attacked, such that aggressors are deterred if they do not wish to suffer great damage as a result of an aggressive action . . .
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a form of this strategy, which came to prominence during the Cold War when it was used by the US to characterize relations between the United States and Soviet Union . . ."
In April, Obama attacked Clinton (cynically, for political purposes) for simply stating long-standing U.S. policy. He himself takes the same position. Now, the proof is in the pudding: he picks her to be his Secretary of State.
There's no need to get snippy--Clinton has already voted in favor of war with Iran. She voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which was a vote for war.
Oh, that Hill! What a dove she is!