It Takes A Village to Start World War III

Everything in the article is true, but it doesn't go far enough in condemning Clinton(s). She is not condemned as a war monger, a captive of almost all of the powerful special interests, a heartless person who regurgitates the same answers to no matter what the question, sometimes with what William Pfaff calls an inhuman laugh . Only fools would believe that she would leave Iraq or roll back the unconstitutional powers Bush has grabbed. Articles such as this display her as a misguided person rather than what she actually is: A power hungry, authoritarian, cold-blooded person.

So, Hillary votes in favor of a resolution sponsored by two Senate hawks which further empowers the most hawkish president and vice-president in US history, and she can't understand how her motives and intentions could be so widely misinterpreted.

Caratacus et al., re: who else is there?

Yes, Ron Paul strongly opposes the war in Iraq and also opposes action against Iran. But he also wants to abolish the income tax & replace it with a consumption tax. Since rich people spend only a tiny fraction of their income (and invest the rest to gain more income that won't be taxed unless spent) and the poor and middle classes must spend most of theirs each year, it is obvious that the poor & middle classes will pay a huge percentage of their incomes while the rich pay almost no percent. The retail industry would become the nation's tax collector. If he's following the plan as described in the last congress's S-25, only new goods would be taxed. Therefore, if a billionaire bought something like the VanderBilt mansion for $200,000,000, s/he would pay no tax on it. If you/I bought a new $250,000 condo or $350,000 house, we would pay the 23-25 percent consumption tax. His views on other national problems (health care, education, etc.) are also exceedingly idiosyncratic and potentially harmful. I fear that young anti-war voters will vote without being aware of his extremely radical libertarianism.

Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, Dodd (and perhaps any of the other Dem candidates): These are the others who could help lead us back out of the fascist jungle in which we find ourselves.

The US is the problem (in Iraq)----duh...

The American mainstream-media & press have been distorting the Iraq-facts for years, compliments of government moles/plants. The Wall Street Greed-Gestapos have now had their way with the American Armed Forces with the blessings of Congress and the Bushies. Like the tyrant Joseph Stalin, human life means nothing to these investor-predators. Loyal Americans are sucked into the patriotic-whirlpool-delusion, like so many pliable, blind-sheep, or lemmings, thanks to our sham/media's skillful, yet subtle strangulation of ideas, eg. its tactic of lying by omission (censorship).

We are running out of volunteers to prop up a diminished military. Many deep injustices are being perpetrated, domestically and abroad, in the once respected name of America. Our own government has sacrificed its modern, legitimate role as an agent for peace and security. Meanwhile, our demagogues hypocritically claim that they believe in some lofty mandate of peace. (Excuse me while I barf).

The whole thing now stinks to high heaven, and the rest of the world can smell the stench. Is America morphing into a corrupt, corporatized, royal tyranny? True Americans hate tyrannies. Good Luck GOP in 2008!

Enough said.

Well America will have two major neocon candidates in '08. Hillary and either Giulani or Romney at this rate. Why do Americans allow such idiocy like that to happen? For the Ron Paul critics: the man is opposed to the US war of genocide against Iran as well as Iraq. He believes that America should mind it's own damn business. He is also opposed to the war on drugs. Why can't people just agree to disagree with the man if he says something that certain "progressives" disagree with. I think it's a great to have a Republican that tells fascists like Giulani and Romney where to get off. Some of these "progressives" are behaving like the Khmer Rouge with their ideological purity litmus test and will bully anyone on these boards who utter positive words about Ron Paul. If the progressives on these boards are going to behave like Pol Pot, then Peace Out!!!!

Hillary/Lieberman in 08!

There's another ugly twist lurking in the passage of Kyl-Lieberman that needs to be addressed.

Since when did the US Senate, or the US President for that matter, get the right to declare that some of the soldiers in another sovereign nation's armed forces are not really soldiers, but rather are terrorists?

Sure enough, the knee jerk reaction of the Iranian Parliament to Kyl-Lieberman was to pass its own mirror image, equally adolescent resolution, declaring that the US Army is a terrorist organization.

All this posturing jingoism would be largely farce, but for the dirty background fact that George Bush and Antonio Gonzales gutted the historic protections of the Geneva Conventions by coining the term "enemy combatants". That neither-fish-nor-fowl label was then applied to suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured and held by American troops, specifically to deny those detainees Geneva POW status rights under international law.

Heaven forbid that the lame duck Bush/Cheney junta proves reckless and blood thirsty enough to launch a bombing attack on Iran before surrendering the keys to the White House in January, 2009, committing a new war crime that many knowledgeable people within the DC beltway inner circle warn is now in its final planning stages.

Worse yet, what happens next, when Iran retaliates against the vulnerable US ground forces hunkered down with their supply lines exposed inside Iraq?

Again, heaven forbid.

But if we're ever subjected to the spectacle of a captured American GI being beheaded in the snuff video of some Shiite militia, Senator Kyl, Senator Lieberman, and yes, Senator Clinton, should be held politically accountable for fomenting that demented, predictable act of reprisal.

Like chickens, chicken hawks too can come home to roost.

Bill from Saginaw
Member, Veterans for Peace

Hillary may be allowed to have a more centrist domestic policy, but foreign policy must remain on course with a neocon/hawkish/hard-right (and anachronistically failed) policy of empire. At least, this seems to be a pre-requisite for being allowed to get elected.

It's sad, really, and totally indicative of the fact that D.C. politicians are not serving We The People. They're clearly serving someone else.

Isn't Hillary in some ways a greater danger to the future of the world and to progressive values than any Republican because she might be a competent fascist and warmonger, as opposed to a completely incompetent and transparent one like any Republican is likely to be? And there is also the problem that a Hillary presidency would to some extent redefine the American left to be somewhere to the right of Mussolini.

Ron Paul is the only candidate democrats can look at without feeling betrayed.
Hillary lost her voice as a reformer.
The re-occupancy of the White House points at a personal obsession rather than political vision. To use of the law for illegal purposes dejavu, Hillary. We all want change.
Next please.

#
Nanoo October 12th, 2007 7:54 am

"It Takes A Village Idiot to Start WW3."

A village in Maine has lost it's idiot, and for 15 years we have been begging them to come and get him and take him home.

Lobo Gris

Jacob Freeze October 12th, 2007 6:08 am

"It's silly to blame Hillary for going along with the panicky mob of voters who were giving Bush approval ratings around 90% after 9/11."

The article isn't about Hillary's vote to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. It's about her vote to authorize Bush to take military action against Iran.

"On September 26, 2007, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted yes on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that effectively labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist organization.""

"Clinton was the lone Democratic presidential candidate to support this legislation that many view as giving President Bush authority to launch an air war against Iran."

Lobo Gris

It Takes A Village Idiot to Start WW3.

It's silly to blame Hillary for going along with the panicky mob of voters who were giving Bush approval ratings around 90% after 9/11.

The vast majority of the American public is too abjectly stupid and uninformed to understand anything about national or international politics, and yet the relatively well-informed and intelligent posters on sites like CommonDreams aren't quite intelligent and well-informed enough to understand that the relatively well-informed and intelligent 5% of the public can't elect anybody to anything.

Personally, I favor a modified voting system, with a little pop quiz for prospective voters. Of these 50 dots on a map of Iraq, which one is Fallujah? The three or four people in each Congressional district who answer correctly can decide the election, and the rest of the morons get a good beating.

But as long as anybody can vote, the only way to get elected is by pandering to the dummies, and it's pointless to blame Hillary for playing the only game in town.

So why is being anti-Chavez reason enough to vote for Hillary? BTW, in my book it isn't but I'm curious about your take on it.

Lobo Gris

Hillary is anti-Chavez. Reason enough never to vote for her.

It is high time that some truth-telling, independent terrorist-designating authority put the names of the real internationally known terrorists on their list: the US military, the CIA, Bush, Cheney, and the wife of "I-never-had-sex-with-that-woman—-Monica Lewinsky."

What a tragedy that she seems to be the Democratic candidate for your next federal election. I don't think she will be quite as blatantly brainless as the current administration - she will have access to more moderately minded advisors - but her militaristic stance and her allegiance to her corporate funders mean that little will actually change in America over the next nine years.

jxh261 October 11th, 2007 12:54 pm
I'll support Hillary when conservatives start hating her again.

She seems to be more appealing to the far right than she is to the Democratic base.

J,

You say wise things. I agree with you.
But never underestimate the right. If and when Hillary is nominated they will slime and smear and
attack her with all the Rovian fury they can summon. You see, anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is simply
unacceptable to this crowd (See Kennedys J. & B.).

Unfortunately Hillary is far more politician now than person, and she knows the country--if not the population--has moved
far far right. That means the Government and the corporations that finance it, and the corporations we finance with our tax dollars. And worst of all--the media are worse than they've ever been. Save the blogs, thank god for the blogs and CD.

No, Hillary could Bomb Iran tomorrow herself and to the right she would still be soft on terrorism (meaningless) and still have cleavage and still be a Clinton. Which means a very popular MODERATE REPUBLICAN. No, nothing doing for the hard right that has a stranglehold on your country.

Sorry to be pessimistic, but that's the way it is.

Looks like Hillary and "trader Joe" Liebermann just love that right wing grape Kool Aid.

"Deadlines for re-registration are approaching quickly if you hope to vote Ron Paul in the primaries."

Oh, yeah, sure - I'll vote for a economic Darwinist at a time when the disparity between the haves and have-nots is the largest it's been since right before the Depression - when we desparately need to remove health care from the heartlessness of a for-profit system - when we need roads, bridges, and most importantly, investment in alternative energy---

Sure, I'll vote for the kick-em-in-the-teeth-when-they're-down Ron Paul and every vile and despicable so-called "libertarian" thing he stands for. Yeah, right. I'm marching right out to change parties now.

Do your homework.

A thought occured to me while I was reading how six different groups in Iraq have united to drive out the Americans. What if things got so bad that all of the Iraqi people united to expel the Americans? They would abolish the Parliament, reject the Constitution, and create their own form of government (it certainly would not be a democracy). Would it be considered treason for anti-occupation protestors to support the unity of the Iraqi people in expelling the Americans? This bullshit spewing out of the mouths of McCain & Co. saying leaving would lead to a catastrophe. Maybe to the pocketbooks of ExxonMobil because they cannot get their greedy hands on the oil, but the country actually might unite and STRENGTHEN the Middle East. Israel certainly would oppose that idea. Just a thought.

Lieberman is the most appalling example of BIG BROTHER telling the proles who there represenitive will be that I know of.

Hillery?.Someone please wake me from this continual nightmare.

Ron Paul is the only hope that I can see to salvage this sinking vessel.If it wasn't for my kids I think I'd just get tanked every night and watch her go under.

democracy is still the best path towards the freedoms of anarchy.

Bush left

atheo October 11th, 2007 9:32 pm

'If the United Nations cannot be reformed to give determined democracies real authority to intervene in countries in crisis, they argue, then an alternative world body should be established that would. At some point, according to the writers, such a confederation might include a military arm "to confront their mutual security challenges."'

Isn't this what Bush called the Coalition of the Willing?

Is it merely paranoia on my part or does our government seem determined to commit national suicide?

They have quadrupled our future indebtedness and in fact committed more future American tax dollars than ALL of the previous administrations COMBINED over the past 230 years...
they have gone out of their way to offend most of our allies in the world and in fact given the world the impression that Americans in fact FAVOR torturing people to get whatever information we want out of them, real or made up... we have insulted people who we expect to help us... including Turkey...

Can anyone explain why after 90 years our Congress suddenly HAS to proclaim that the Turks committed genocide during World War 1?

Our government has gone absolutely bat-shit insane, and frankly, I don't see anyone I'm very interested in voting for in 2008... at least none of them that actually has a chance of winning!

Great article.

Best thing about is the title. The myopia of the mainstream media is breathtaking. From watching TV, or even drinking coffee with pundits in Washington, you'd think the only thing brewing is a healthy little skirmish.

You Ron Paul supporters don't belong here at Common Dreams. Go back to FreeRepublic.com

There is NOTHING progressive about Ron Paul.

War Whisperers

...In Hillary's camp, Jim Steinberg, former Clinton deputy national security adviser and Brookings Institute fellow, joins Martin Indyk, who served as a special assistant for Middle East affairs on the Clinton National Security Council after eight years at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy and several years at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Indyk heads Brookings' Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which is funded by Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban. The center also employs Kenneth Pollack, another booster of the 2003 invasion who has been linked to Sen. Clinton, and analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who confirms that he supports her. Center fellow and former Clinton official Bruce Riedel has reportedly been advising the Obama camp.

Lee Feinstein, a Council on Foreign Relations director and former Clintonite, fits right in with Hillary's campaign. In April 2003, he told CNN that he was confident "U.S. forces over time will find weapons of mass destruction and also find evidence of programs to build weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, even though it was becoming increasingly clear they would not.

More recently, Feinstein has been aligned with a bustling coterie of what one writer called "hot policy wonks for the Democrats," expounding on the virtues of democracy building and intervention, particularly to stop genocide in places like Darfur. To this end, Feinstein teamed up in 2004 with Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University and another oft-mentioned future White House official, to write "A Duty to Prevent" for Foreign Affairs, the lede of which extols, "The international community has a duty to prevent security disasters as well as humanitarian ones—even at the price of violating sovereignty."

Slaughter is ambitious, though it isn't yet clear which camp she supports. Her résumé is long and prestigious; her work a year ago with G. John Ikenberry on the Princeton Project on National Security generated buzz that continues today. Their final report, "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law," outlines a "liberal international order" for ultimate peace and security worldwide.

If the United Nations cannot be reformed to give determined democracies real authority to intervene in countries in crisis, they argue, then an alternative world body should be established that would. At some point, according to the writers, such a confederation might include a military arm "to confront their mutual security challenges."

Peter Beinart, who insists he is not advising anyone, has reportedly inspired the top-tier candidates with his recipe for a liberal return to muscular global democracy in The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. At what The Hotline called a "smashingly well-attended book party at the home of Nancy Jacobson and Hillary for President pollster Mark Penn," both Clintons were on hand to praise him.

Hillary also spoke at the August launch of a new think tank of centrist Democrats and a smattering of Republicans called the Center for a New American Security founded by former Clinton defense officials Michele Flournoy and Kurt Campbell. (The ironic similarity in name to the neoconservative Project for the New American Century has not been lost.)

full article:

http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_08/article.html

Caratacus,

Who else is there, you ask? There is America's mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, that's who. And everybody in the country with upper-quarter assets wants him and will contribute money for TV ads to get him. That is so we will continue fighting numerous wars with the Social Security Trust Fund paying for them.

This is one reason why Hillary makes not only a little sense, but a lot of sense for the other three quarters of the people. The other reason is The Supreme Court.

Deadlines for re-registration are approaching quickly if you hope to vote Ron Paul in the primaries. Unlike Kucinich, Paul may be a contender. Many states re precluding crossover voting for the first time ever. The fear of Ron Paul's momentum is palpable.

I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who sees through this woman. I've been suspicious of her for years. Only problem is, who else is there? Unless Ron Paul or Al Gore or Bloomberg or someone runs as an independent, who else is there?
Notice Gore's refusal to endorse Hilary on the talk shows.

I wonder how Hillary will react when Turkey sends troops into northern Iraq to fight Kurdish terrorirsts/insurgents/freedom fighters funded, equipped and supplied by the US?

I'm so glad that I'm not the only one that sees through this woman. I've been suspicious of her for years. Only problem is, who else is there? Unless Ron Paul or Al Gore or Bloomberg or someone runs as an independent, who else is there?
Notice Gore's refusal to endores Hilary on the talk shows.

provoice,
They did it to the Brittish the Dutch and the Spanish also. It's the transnational financiers that are pulling the strings. The US will be left as a busted out shell. Wellcome to debt bondage, hopefully you aren't young.

Don't forget that during Clinton years there were tons of people vocalizing that Bill Clinton was the best Republican President Repubs had ever had. The People loved him but he whored the American People out to corporatists and greater profits for the few.

I would love to believe that Senator Clinton is a trojan horse. But I can't imagine how she could maintain her liberal roots having crawled that far up and stayed this long in the ass of the elephant.

It's like that old question, "Do I try to change the system from within or out?" I use to think it could be done from within but I know now that it has to be from the outside. Senator Clinton has been inside the system too long to even be able to visualualize the radical direction change this country needs.

"How come most of us in the reality based blogosphere knew Saddam had no WMD in 2002 and Hillary didn't? How is it that most people on the entire planet know Iran is not developing a Nuke(IAEA in particular)but Hillary still thinks they are? She must be dumb or willingly ignorant either way she is not fit to be President." - jxh261

Oh No, the stupidity theory is just not plausible. Not with Hillary, not with Rumsfield, not with Bush. Have a look at my home page and see. If Hillary is ignorant, then it is WILLFUL ignorance, which is not true ignorance.

This willfull ignorance (feigned stupidity) on the part of so many is THE BIG ENABLER of genocide. Look up the definition of evil, and see if the hat fits.

There will be no Draft, unfortunately (when required, the 'ranks will be filled' with the poor of Mexico, bribed with Citizenship -- and possibly C.America).
I can't imagine the next-President not being Hilly (also, unfortunately).
And, I'd be surprised to see Iran attacked before she's in-office (but if I were Syrian, I'd worry now). Iran is both contained and a fine red-herring, and simply 'too useful' -- with at least three-friends the US is unwilling/unable to 'draw-in', just yet. Syria is more the "low-hanging fruit", in near-future -- and Lebanon, south of the Litani, may become tied-in with Syria.

Hillary is worse than Lieberman, because she plays a much more important role in the structure of the party. The press alowed an anti-lieberman upsurge to some degree to distract from ust how extremist Clinton has become.

The warmongers have covered all the bases:

Surge Protectors

The mixed motives behind the Freedom's Watch ad campaign

by Philip Weiss

Late this summer, just as American political armies were squaring off over the next, and likely last, act of President Bush's Iraq War policy, a new pro-war group called Freedom's Watch announced a $15-million ad buy over several months in key states. The first ads featured soldiers who had been maimed in Iraq but stood by the cause of a global war on terror. Political observers said they were targeted at the districts of Republican congressmen who were going wobbly on the war.

The rollout was not auspicious. Ari Fleischer, a board member of Freedom's Watch and the former White House spokesman, stumbled on MSNBC's "Hardball" when Mike Barnicle screened one of the ads and asked, "What's that soldier's name?" "I don't have that soldier's name in front of me," Fleischer said. (His name is John Kriesel, and he lost both legs in Fallujah last year). The fact that Fleischer and another member of the group's board had worked in the Bush White House seemed to support the view that that the group was an administration front. Says Moira Mack of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (which has its own smaller ad campaign): "This is a desperate attempt to counter the strong and growing movement to end the war. We have the public backing of millions of members. They have money and ads, but they don't have public support."

The Jewish press offered a different take. "Pro-Surge Group Is Almost All Jewish," reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the lead wire service for Jewish news. Four out of five members of the Freedom's Watch board are Jews, and half of its donors are Jewish. The JTA quoted one of its directors, Matthew Brooks, saying this was strictly a "coincidence."

As a progressive Jew, I don't think it is that simple. Right-wing Jewish support has always been a crucial prop for the Iraq War. The neoconservatives, who pushed for the war for years and then got their way after 9/11, originated as a largely Jewish movement that formed in the 1970s in good part out of concern for Israel's security. Many of the neocons cited Saddam's attacks on Israel as a reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and similar pro-war arguments spread to liberal Jews. The New York Times's Thomas Friedman pointed at Saddam's payments to suicide bombers in Tel Aviv as justification for the invasion, and I remember being shocked when my own brother said he didn't know what to think about the Iraq War. He had demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but his Jewish newspaper said this one would be "good for Israel."

full article:

http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_08/article1.html

Great article, Nancy, my partner in dogging Hillary to expose her as the warmongering, testosterone-charged weapon of destruction that she is. Pity the world if she makes it back to the White House.

The real issue is the forces of power in New York. Any representative to New York, must toe the line of the Israel Lobby or he/she would be history.

"In response to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, Iran's Foreign Ministry and parliament have designated the U.S. Army and CIA as terrorist organizations."

Good, that is accurate. There is no difference between "terrorist organizations" and "nationalist armies," except that the latter is actually capable of doing a great deal more harm because they have more money, more members, and more destructive equipment; the latter is worse.

As a life long Democrat I find Hillary's words and actions both criminal & treasonous.
She should be tried for malfeasance and misfeasance in office. Nonfeasance is , sadly, not crminal; but the other 2 are.

The old Democratic machine did its best in the 1960s to oppose antiwar candidates: it was Democratic Mayor Daly who set loose the police on the demonstrators & even onto the floor of the convention. In 1972, the same machine did everything they could to prevent McGovern from getting the nomination, including a last-minute vilificaiton campaign by none other than Hubert Humphrey, who used the nastiest Cold War rhetoric to portray McGovern as one who would leave the US subject to the USSR.

For two decades, those who decided they could work within the Democratic Party were either slowly pushed rightward or eliminated altogether, until the DLC aka Democrats for Nixon, got W.J.B. Clinton, Bonesman, into office, to succeeded G.H.B. Bush, Bonseman, into office.

Hillary goes to the Dominionist christists prayer group in Congress.

Hillary won't be Bush, she'll be Blair -- which is even worse.

I find it absolutely appalling that anyone would call Hillary "Bush in drag." Hillary is clearly nothing like that. Hillary is instead Lieberman in drag.

The real conservative powerful have never hated Hillary. This charade (the Hillary hating by wingnuts) serves two purposes. It gets the right wing dupes riled up and it fools the "liberal" dupes into thinking Hillary is on their side. The natural response to an unfair attack is to defend the victim. Just like Bill - he committed many serious crimes but they were never discussed because the Rs made such a big deal out of nothing.

She is raising huge amounts of money from Republican sources. I have seen several articles about her becoming the candidate of choice of institutional conservatives.

Her husband managed to put through conservative initiatives the Republicans couldn't. He also discredited the Democratic party with working people since he and it consistently worked against their interests. Bush II never could have taken power without Bill Clinton.

Hillary is the can't-lose candidate for the right. The rightist dupes hate her because they've been told to. Intelligent leftists won't vote for her because she is Bush in drag. So it's unlikely she will win, thus letting another R win. And if she does win, she will serve a twofold purpose. One, she will implement right wing policies. Two, she will further discredit the Democratic party with its real base. After a Hillary presidency, people will be so disgusted and cynical that we'll probably get another Bush. Whee!

It was obvious by early 2003 that the 'intel' on Iraq's WMD's as the very least highly questionable. The UN had weapon inspectors on the ground that could go anywhere and investigate anything. So when they consistently didn't find anything, the accusations about Iraq could at best only be regarded as questionable.

You know this point is important because the Bush White House tries to obscure it. They would routinely refer back to the mid-nineties when the inspectors didn't have full access, and without giving the dates they'd infer that this was still the case. But it wasn't. If you have any doubts, you can go to the UN web site and read the reports the inspectors were sending back to the Security Council where they clearly stated they had unrestricted access.

Why call it an 'uncanny echo' of comments about her Iraq war vote. She obviously feels that she pulled off this lie once before, so why not try it again. Democrat voters are such suckers that they'll surely fall for it again.

Hillary is America's Margaret Thatcher. Anyone who votes for anything promoted by Joe Lieberman is, by definition, a fascist and a tool of AIPAC.

Well more curiously, lo and behold, here's an article about the political duplicity of Mr. Clinton and what we would get from him were we to get her.

By AL GIORDANO

http://www.counterpunch.org/giordano10112007.html

"Global distrust and resentment toward the United States did not begin with George W. Bush; Clinton, as president, fueled it, too. The true legacy of the first Clinton White House around the world precludes the former president's illusory claim" - should Hillary be elected - "that he can somehow be the magician that would "restore America's standing." While Bill Clinton remains popular inside the United States, and perhaps among white elites in Europe, he would be an albatross, not a talisman, around the neck of future US policy in the Middle East and Africa. But that's not all. His Latin America policies are remembered particularly bitterly in this hemisphere.

"Outside of the Caribbean island nation of Haiti, to where Clinton sent troops to back the democratically elected government Jean-Bertrand Aristide (and to where the Bush administration later sent troops to back a coup d'etat against it), I can't think of a single other populace in Latin America that would like to see Bill Clinton representing the United States in the region again."

All politicians are political whores who pimp their influence and power to corporations and special interest groups. In return they get a war chest and a "base". The politicians and the corporations get what they want. And the American people are forced to pay for it, both with their lives and their dollars. What a country.
Hoa binh

Hillary Clinton like Joe Lieberman is not only drinking the kool-Aid she has never stopped making it. She is the worst of all possibilities for those who want peace.

How I detest her.

Who cares how she votes on any issues; whether or not she leads us further down the path of destruction - we'll FINALLY have a woman president!!! Won't that be neat?

VAGreen,

It's far out stuff. The reality seems to be that we face a problem that transcends the parties.

Hillary has a 'tin ear' politically compared to her husband — and this has caused her to make a major (and highly dangerous) mistake that will more than surpass her mistake in voting for the Bush/Cheney/neocon resolution to bomb Iraq in 2003, namely, her disastrous vote for the Kyl/Lieberman/neocon resolution to expand the war to Iran (including the expansion to a preemptive AND nuclear war-crime).

Yes, the well studied Hillary is not as smart politically as many think — and she really flunked War Avoidance 101 this time!!

It is well known that the Kyl/Lieberman resolution was drafted by AIPAC (the pro-Iran-war, American Imperialist-style Political Action Committee, which likes to pretend that it represents the distinctly majority anti-war Jewish 'communities' of both the US and Israel).

While hubby Bill might well take AIPAC money, since he never met a donor he didn't like, Bill Clinton would have clearly understood the reality that this inappropriately named group is really a radically right, pro-war group whose ideology is imperialism, not Israel — and who are not so different than the rest of the pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-imperialists who variously call themselves neocons, patriots, neoliberals, or whatever else they can to disguise their distinct dreams of EMPIRE.

Bill Clinton did not have a political 'tin ear', and thus he would have viewed AIPAC for what it is; as an American Imperialist-style Political Action Committee, just as he views the American Petroleum Political Action Committee as an American Imperialist-style oil lobby. One pro-war imperialist group claims (falsely) to be speaking for American citizens' energy security, the other claims to be speaking for Israeli citizens' security —- while neither a majority of US nor Israeli citizens agree with the positions of either of these imperialist lobbies regarding the launch of aggressive and preemptive wars.

While Bill Clinton certainly accepted campaign money from powerful lobbies, because as Willie Sutton said about the banks he robbed, "that's where the money is", Bill showed much more political intelligence and selectivity in taking only the campaign funds from powerful, hierarchical, imperialist organizations —- but not taking on their ideology of imperialist 'will to power'. Such selectivity and nuance allowed Bill Clinton to compartmentalize the issues of dirty money vs. pro-war, imperialist ideology, while Hillary has taken the money along with their anti-majoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-populist ideology of Empire —- which is so transparently corrupting in Hillary.

This political 'tin ear' in Hillary is at the heart of both her high negatives among principled anti-war activists and the general population alike, and what makes it so easy for a columnist like Mo Dowd in "Bomb, Bomb Iran" to prick the balloon of Hillary's phony stance on the seminal issue of our time, the anti-war issue.

Whatever could be said of Bill Clinton — that he would take money from powerful and imperialist oriented PACS —- Bill was never at heart a pro-war imperialist. While the wife has allowed her acceptance of funds from powerful and imperialist PACS to influence and corrupt her political judgment in this key area of ideology and her political actions (such as voting to 'enable' a war-launching president ---— twice!!). Whether this political 'tin ear' and money driven judgment regarding ideology and war is rationalized by Hillary as merely essential real-politik or smart campaign triangulation, it would require an unconscionable and dangerous suspension of disbelief for American voters to accept it as a necessary illusion to achieve a Democratic win in '08.

— Posted by Alan MacDonald

The title of the article alone illuminates the doublespeak that the Clintons are skilled at. Clinton and her husband continue to make a mockery of the american population with what they say and how they act, both in their books as well as their public life. In the same fashion, Hillary openly derides those who question her actual motives either with feigned hilarity or outright condescension.

Anyone who repeatedly does the opposite of what they say is untrustworthy in my book. It's really difficult to buy your soul back, although I'm sure it can be done, once you've gone and sold it. No one of the political mainstream is going to give up the occupied territory of Iraq because of the trillions of dollars that have been invested there.

What a laugh; so few really get it. Hilary is Bush in drag. Same coin, two different sides. I'll bet you one. Within the first 4 years of her presidency, she'll reinstate some version of the draft! What in the world will the socialists do then?

Clinton Steps Away From Pro-Israel Lobby on Measure to Rein in President

by Nathan Guttman

Washington - Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has built a reputation for strictly adhering to the pro-Israel line, but she now appears, for the first time, to be supporting legislation that is opposed by pro-Israel lobbyists.

Clinton announced last week that she would co-sponsor an amendment, proposed by Virginia Democrat Jim Webb, that would require the president to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Iran.

"Congressional oversight and debate can help avoid the mistakes and blunders that have afflicted U.S. policy in Iraq," Senator Clinton said in a statement explaining her decision to co-sponsor the amendment. "We cannot allow recent history to repeat itself."

When similar legislation was presented in the House of Representatives earlier this year as part of the Defense Authorization Bill, the Washington press reported that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was calling on House members to vote against the amendment.

When it came time to vote, two separate proposals on this issue were shot down by a majority of members, with Republicans voting overwhelmingly against it and Democrats split.

Clinton is known for her strong record on issues relating to Israel and for her close ties with Jewish and pro-Israel activists. She has appeared several times at Aipac events and has established a reputation for leading the Democratic Party's hawkish wing on Iran...

http://www.forward.com/articles/11795/

How come most of us in the reality based blogosphere knew Saddam had no WMD in 2002 and Hillary didn't?

How is it that most people on the entire planet know Iran is not developing a Nuke(IAEA in particular)but Hillary still thinks they are?

She must be dumb or willingly ignorant either way she is not fit to be President.

I'll support Hillary when conservatives start hating her again.

She seems to be more appealing to the far right than she is to the Democratic base.

I'll support Hillary when conservatives start hating her again.

She seems to be more appealing to the far right than she is to the Democratic base.

The White House's propaganda campaign laying the groundwork for military action against Iran dates back almost six years—to Bush's 2002 State of the Union address in which he designated Iran as a founding member of the "axis of evil." Since then, this drumbeat has waxed and waned as other concerns—primarily the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq—have often commanded center stage. Now, with the Bush administration approaching its final year in office, a renewed push and a shorter fuse are increasingly evident. My 3-minute YouTube video entitled "Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush On Iran" is available HERE. It offers a very brief but deeply troubling chronicle of the president's public warmongering and demonization of Iran. As has been said before, "the hour is getting late."

Clinton is more of the same. She's so daft that she blames the puppet Iraqi government for the problems in Iraq.

Dennis Kucinich is the miracle that this nation needs.

------------------------------

Here's an excellent oath that everyone (with a functioning heart and mind) should take:

"I swear by the God of my parents, I swear by my nation,
I swear by my honor that I will not allow my soul to rest,
nor my arm to relax until I have broken the chains
that oppress my people through the will of the powerful.
Free elections, free land and free men, horror to the oligarchy."

Oath used by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - the Great,
(when he was 28) and some of his revolutionary friends.
-copied from Page 80, !HUGO! by Bart Jones

==========

The revolutionary path is bathed in light. Take the oath and do what you can!

—————————

"Almost anything you do [to help humanity] will seem insignificant, but it's very important that you do it."
Mahatma Gandi

=========

no justice
no peace

know justice
know peace