The two clowns both advanced the notion of an Imperial Presidency when the Israel question came up. Hillary would extend a NATO-like umbrella over the Middle East and strike back "massively" if the Motherland were attacked. Obama forwarded similar assurances, neither one bothering to mention the Constitutional requirement of a declaration of war. I suppose this is another core value the O'philes will slip under the rug and ignore.
I am all for changing the war powers of the presidency to give whomever inhabits the White House behaves in the proper checks and balances of power manner.
I assume the two talked in the context of the current war making paradigm when speaking hypothetically. But if either feel in the aftermath of Bush's abuses people should stand for the status quo concerning war making to stay the same, they would be foolish, to say the least.
We should not be fighting in Iraq, and the Presidential War Powers Act passed in the wake of the Vietnam misadventure of a war has not proved to be a wise thing to do. To say the least.
I suppose this is another core value the O'philes will slip under the rug and ignore.
This differs from the GOP how?
I guess this is the lack of core values the GOPers want to slip under the rug and ignore. There is nothing more stridently Israel-first than the Neo-Cons who control the GOP.
I guess maybe there is a difference. Clinton/Obama talk about a response to an attack. Cheney/McCain talk about wait, hell, bomb bomb bomb.
I believe what Obama actually said was that if Israel were attacked, the U.S. would make an "appropriate response," which could mean anything or nothing. Hillary promised a massive response.