Such an interventionist hawk who opposed Bush' surge.  Why didn't Hillary put boots on the ground in Libya if such an interventionist, and why does she oppose it in Syria? You've got the hawks in the Republican party who want to make the desert glow - presumably nuclear attack - has she ever espoused that?

Did she pour fire on the revolt in Egypt, or help arrange a peaceful transition? [we can argue about more-or-less supporting the status quo, though that's now gone, but then we'd have to debate the threat about the Muslim Brotherhood seriously - probably something neither of us is qualified for in depth]

Here's The Nation giving Bernie Sanders shit in Feb/Mar 2003 for railing against Bush's invasion - and then voting for it. Bet you won't see that mild contradiction pop out of the rabbit hole. He voted against pushing Iraq out of Kuwait, but then supported the war against Kosovo. Frankly I was for both actions, but I'm also not going to define Sanders based on 1 or 2 votes for the rest of his life. [please note I think The Nation was way over-impressed with the amount that Hussein was complying with inspections, and it was only when the US started sending troops and materiel in November that their urgency picked up. (also note that the November 2002 election was a disaster for Democrats - there's something to say for Americans getting the government they deserve).

During the 2008 debates Hillary was given such grief over her hawk-like comments about Iran, but unlike Joe Lieberman's continued pressing for invasion of Iran, hers were specifically to ward off Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and attacking Israel, drawing a line in the sand - hardly encouraging regime overthrow (see below).

I'm much more critical of Hillary on foreign policy than anything domestic, but most of her left-wing critics pull stuff out of context and have no appreciation for how diplomacy plays out. (and frankly, her more nuanced approach to foreign policy was rejected by the Democrats in 2008, so either she played Obama's way or would stay part of the opposition - she chose the former. I'm sure she would have gotten much more criticism if she had played a Senate critic these last 8 years).

BTW - I'm still waiting for that WWIII in Ukraine over Crimea and Donbas - from what I see, our little bit if intervention prevented a much larger spreading of a problem and preserved Ukraine's sovereignty even if it's still dealing with corruption and not quite ready for the EU.

Hillary on Iran, 2008:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

 

"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.

The United Nations on Iraq, Nov 2002 (a month after the AUMF vote in Congress):

08 November 2002
The UN Security Council adopted a revised US draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament. Security Council Resolution 1441 contains no hidden triggers and no automaticity with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions. The Bush administration claimed a major diplomatic victory the unanimous Security Council resolution to send UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq. But the process required nearly eight weeks of painstaking negotiations and entailed some concessions by Washington.
The resolution adopted by the Security Council on 08 November 2002 gave Iraq seven days, until 15 November, to accept the resolution. The resolution called on Iraq to declare its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles within 30 days, giving Iraq until 09 December 2002 to declare what weapons of mass destruction and related materials it has in its possession. The resolution gave UN inspectors 45 days to resume their work in Iraq, or until 24 December 2002. The chief UN inspector Hans Blix said he intended to go to Baghdad within little more than a week, about 19 November, to begin the task of restoring the inspections mission, with some inspectors expected to arrive a week thereafter. The inspectors have 60 days to report on their progress to the Security Council, though it was not immediately clear from the draft resolution when this period started. However, at any point the inspectors can decide that their work is being obstructed. Assuming that the inspectors would report 60 days after the the 45 day inspection deadline, the inspectors could report back to the Security Council as late as about 22 February 2003. Assuming that initial inspections began on 25 November, soon after the arrival of some inspectors, the inspectors might report back to the Security Council by 24 January 2003. Although the US would consult the Council if inspectors reported Iraq had failed to cooperate to discuss the consequences Baghdad whould face, the US would not have to wait for UN approval before taking military action.