I'd say Russia being widely suspected of hacking her and all of her friends to help her opponent is a sufficient explanation for her to talk about.. them doing that..
Don't be gullible. They have no proof that Russia performed those hacks (I assume because you're on HN you understand that it is impossible to trace those attacks, and that identity is easily spoofed on the internet).
There's a circumstantial case, and more importantly, Hillary very likely believes it.
Even if she doesn't? The domestic political angle is a much better reason to bring it up in the debates than some 9-dimensional plan to invade Syria. It's an election.
The plan isn't 9-dimensional, and it's never "an election." The next leader of what is, at least for now, still one of the powerful nations in the world is about change. Only a fool wouldn't take advantage of having a rapt audience for three national debates to hammer "Russia bad" down our throughs if their hopeful foreign policy hopes to nail down our oil security for the next 50 to 100 years.
First off, it's ALWAYS "an election" when an election is on. The immediate goal of winning the election is probably 99% of her reasoning for hammering Russia about the hacking attempts. It's the best political answer to anything about the content of the leaked emails for like 5 different reasons.
She also laid out her parameters for any potential future intervention in Syria, in the same debate, and there was no talk of massive escalation, just the same secret ninja stuff we're presumably already doing. America doesn't have an appetite for another nation-building experiment, and we've got way less interest in Syria than Russia does.
I realize "just take her at her word" sounds a little naive, but you're not exactly on firmer ground when you say "no, trust me, I know her secret plan".
If there's no appetite, you can make one. See media coverage. See media coverage before the Iraq invasion. See any of the many examples from history.
Nobody knows, but I have a strong feeling that you're gonna look back at that comment in a years time and feel pretty foolish about it. Her stint as SoS showed you all the evidence you need of her hawkishness.
Someone needs to make a trustworthy escrow site for betting on situations like this.
I could take a blanket bet against "any conspiratorial theory about Hillary Clinton" and clear 80% of them.
Her stint as SoS featured a 20-something-day operation in Libya, laying groundwork for detente with Cuba and Iran, while getting the chemical weapons out of Syria without a shot fired.
I'll go on record that we just keep doing the same stuff we're doing in Syria. Unlikely that we even do a no-fly-zone, there's absolutely no reason to risk open combat against Russia. That's crazy.
EDIT: Maybe US advisors with the Kurds in Mosul wind up technically in Syria while helping get rid of ISIS. But it's likely that Assad will be shored up enough at that point to demand no US troops over the border and we go along with it.
