You're basically saying disregard what she said and the policy she campaigned on and hey, I voted for Clinton but she did say she wanted a no-fly zone in Syria. You're allowed to interpret that however you want but to me that says she wants a no-fly zone. She did not even give it the level of nuance you did until she was pressed on it later. Also in one of the leaked Goldman speeches she said “To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk— you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.” So she was well aware of the consequences and was clearly still considering it at the very least. Even if it doesn't start a war with Russia, killing "a lot of Syrians" might be considered "war mongering" by some. You might disagree with that but once again, is it worse to maybe misuse or over-use a particular word because of some theoretical slippery slope or advocate for policies with much more severe and real potential slippery slopes? Even if the policy is the right thing to do, to dismiss any suggestion that it can inflame violence or cause more suffering (see Clinton's quote above) is almost, dare I say, war-mongering. Remember, this is based on the way the article was written and the specific examples he gives and what he decided to conveniently omit.