No, just because she's a warmongering Fredocon. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.
She and others sees it one way he and others sees it another. That is politics, that’s a representative republic, that’s debate. Their policy is a forward pushing policy while his is one at home. That doesn’t make him a pacifist and it doesn’t make her “warmongering”. I guess I’m not an all or nothing kind of person and value debate on both sides of this issue and see value in both. If we draw them all back we get complacent allowing enemies to reform, lack intelligence apparatus on the ground, allow the enemy to reform and get another 9/11, if we keep them all there we get unhappiness at home, more troop deaths, chants of warmongering, certain segments getting rich and spending. It’s a no win on either side of the argument