Why do liberals ignore this simple question each time I ask it?

You are asking a question that requires thought-hence, only Conservatives are weighing in.

That was the opinion of a presidential candidate running against Obama. I do not know if she was right or wrong. I do think diplomacy should be used before force but if you are saying the President cannot be tough I think many people are in for a surprise.*

Yes, she was. Keep your enemies talking. It allows you time to gather allies and intelligence. It shows that you tried peace. So when the time finally comes for the hammer to come down, you're ready.

This, by the way, makes Clinton's selection as Secretary of State interesting. The world knows she's something of a hawk; so it colors how diplomatic relations are handled.

Hillary was/is often wrong, including this example. I am an isolationist, however, and believe that we are ALWAYS better served by diplomacy than by force.

"Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root... Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used."

— Ronald Reagan

Probably not, but she was campaigning against him in the primaries, trying to make a point, and she likely believed it. I like that he named her Secretary of State, because she probably is more aggressive, and they will balance each other out and work well together. Excellent team.

Even the Libs are afraid of Hillary I guess....