USA presidential candidate Hillary Clinton calls for more aggressive action in

Clinton was also not shy in doling out tough love to USA friends and acid to enemies in another possible preview of her possible administration.

However, she opposed deploying large numbers of USA troops, saying “local people and nations have to secure their own communities”. “What we have done with the president saying there would be special forces sent is right in line with what I think-but they need to get there and we need to take stock of whether we need more“.

Hillary Clinton has revealed how she would fight ISIS in the wake of the attacks on Paris.

She’s like Obama, but a little more hawkish.

“This is a time for American leadership”, Clinton concluded.

“A more effective air campaign is necessary, but not sufficient”, Clinton explained.

“I’m going to campaign in Tennessee to try and turn it blue in November 2016”, she said.

Her comments set the tone for future debates with Republicans, who have accused the former secretary of state in the first Obama administration of being at the helm when IS first reared its head in Iraq and Syria.

On Wednesday, GOP presidential candidate Sen.

“We need to exert pressure on Baghdad to allow the creation of a Sunni force”, Pregent said in an email. She then continued: “What we have done with airstrikes has made a difference but now it needs to make a greater difference and we need more of a coalition flying those missions with us”.

Without naming it, Clinton praised President Bush’s 2007 Iraq surge, but charged that afterwards the Iraqis “were betrayed and forgotten”. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has taken responsibility for the attacks.

“Our highest priority, of course, must always be protecting the American people”.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll gets to the heart of the problem: while 60% of Americans think that the USA should do more to fight the Islamic State, only a small majority would support the use of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. “It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country”, she said. “We are better than that”, she said. “The obsession in a few quarters with a clash of civilization or repeating the specific words, “radical Islamic terrorism” isn’t just a distraction”. She doubled down on that decision in her remarks.

“We are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win”, she said. Let’s be clear, though. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people”. “It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side”.

Though the President seemed to have Clinton’s support on the issue, that wasn’t the case for the rest of his party.

While Clinton and Obama have scolded Republicans for their objection to accepting Syrian refugees into the USA, the issue isn’t a partisan one in Congress at the moment. Rivals Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley lack Clinton’s resources and are exceptionally dependent on public debates to make their cases. “That can only happen to the political process, so our efforts should be focused on ISIS, and yes, there are other terrorist groups, al-Nusra, whom you mentioned, is that particularly lethal fighter”.

Even so, despite trailing her by such a wide margin overall, Sanders leads Clinton among two constituencies, independents and those unaffiliated with any religion.

“It cannot be contained; it must be defeated”, she recently said. Therefore, we must choose resolve.

“The entire world must be part of this fight, but we must lead it”, Clinton said.

On Thursday, Ms Clinton refused to take the bait when she was asked whether Mr Obama had underestimated IS. I was very proud to serve as President Obama’s secretary of state.

The president also said: “They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism”. But, you know, this is an evolving and fast-moving situation.