Stop the planet I want to get off

I would like to rephrase the headline: CLINTON WOULD BE WILLING TO KILL MILLIONS OF INNOCENT MEN,WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN IRAN.

Too bad she won't get her chance to obliterate a 4000 year old country.

Cause, according to Adm. Fallon via Esquire on Iran: "Get serious. They're ants. WHEN the time comes, we'll crush them."

Notice he said WHEN, not if, the ant-crushing time comes. That's 75 million Iranian ants to crush and/or obliterate if you were wondering.

Of course, anyone who's ever tried to obliterate and/or crush ants knows the ants always win.

Um, has anyone told Ms Clinton that the Iranians do not have nuclear weapons?

I especially like the image of Pearl Harbor as a backdrop to the "3am phone call". FDR had been goading the Japanese into attacking the US for 12 months, and knew on Dec 6 that the attack would take place early morning on the 7th. Like it was some surprise.

George Bush took the same acting lessons in preparing for when he was informed about 9/11.

The Clintons never let the facts get in the way of a good story or slogan.

So why does the MSM keep telling us there's no policy differences between Clinton and Obama?

I think the slogan ought to read "Another Politician Brought to you by AIPAC"

Well, now we know for certain, with no reasonable doubt, that putting Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Whitehouse will result in continued wholesale slaughter of innocents in the Middle East.

She has ADMITTED that she will act, not in the interests of the US and it's citizens, in the interests of Israel and it's citizens.

She will act in accordance with her Washington Prayer Breakfast masters wishes to bring about their Armageddonist wet dreams and start WWIII.

Does anyone here REALLY believe she will be anything more than George W. Bush in drag?

I am woman, hear me roar.

Somehow, I don't think that this kind of bellicose rhetoric was what Helen Reddy had in mind when she sang those words. For all those old-line feminists who still support Hillary, is this what you had in mind, that a female presidential candidate could some day engage in the same kind of pointless saber rattling as men? Are you ready to switch sides yet?

People who see anything positive about this person are merely projecting a "wish list" onto her. She is as pathologically dangerous and disassociative as any other person who applies blinded militarism as a means toward desired ends. She is using her quest for public position (as many others do) to medicate her malnourished ego -- and is a member of the power club that defines politics as the vaneer of public service for the feeding the deep pocket of personal gain. Her political framing is "I am the one you have been waiting for!"

If only she could see, or admit to, how unnecessarily inflammatory her language is, even with Iran's language about Israel. Does she not believe in blowback? It's real, I swear.

All you people are PATHETIC

Yes, Obama is better for us progressives, but shut up about Clinton.

Correct, Iran does NOT have nukes, BUT the question was on if they had nukes and were to get them, and if they launched an attack. Hypothetical questions. Clinton gave a straight answer instead of beating around the bush. So yes, she has planned ahead.

Nukes scare the living hell out of me, but if Iran nuked Israel, killing millions, I would hope America would intervene with more than offering to hold hands and sing "Kum Bai Ya"

Remember before we get too paranoid, that remark was in answer to a question, IF Iran attacked Israel with a nuke, what would she do? What should her answer have been, I think Israel can just worry about themselves? I guess that is what the progressives here thought she should have said.

Do we know which answer Obama would have used? I believe Lieberman would have been right on him to take action in that case, and we do not know what Obama would say.

Its meaningless.
Iran wouldnt nuke Israel.

Israel is far more psychotic and willing to kill millions.

RiseAboveIt :
" ...but if Iran nuked Israel...".

When was the last time Iran attacked anybody?

Isn't it odd that
-the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons on another nation (300.000 civilians killed = 100 x 9/11),
-the nation presently occupying 2 nations (near Iran),
-the nation which snuffed out Iran's democracy with a coup in 1953 and imposed a quarter century of brutal dictatorship on its people,

should be lecturing and ranting and threatening about the threat of Iran?

Kelmer is right. It's in fact in their constitution, they only have the right to participate in a war when they are attacked. So this comment from Hillary has no bearing. It's posturing for no purpose. It's a safe threat, thereby getting the vote from Israel supporters, cause it won't happen. There's more chance that Israel would strike before Iran.

Just like McCain. When you get close to power of that magnitude, you start dreaming of bombs. A balance of power may be the reality, but it is a reality we should want to morph into something better. Reality follows dreams. We should be careful what we dream. For people who are about to shape reality, it is irresponsible to talk about bombs and obliteration, knowing as we must that just the smell of power is an intoxicant.

Notice this not-so-subtle planting of a questionable "fact":

"Both Democrats have vowed to defend Israel against any Iranian attack, but they differ on how to engage the Islamic republic over its nuclear ambitions."

I will point out that the most recent assessment by our our experts was that Iran had ceased its nuclear program a number of years ago. This has not been contradicted by any new facts. Nevertheless, the MSM by using such language plants the idea that such a project is currently underway. This is not a minor thing. If this were a ongoing trial in the United States, the word "alleged" would be used to qualify such a statement in order to avoid legal problems.

In this case, one wonders if someone in the MSM is working with the administration to create a false impression that an actual threat is a certainty. I would like the person who wrote this article to explain their choice of words.

This is the sort of hypothetical question that Clinton should have known better about answering. Firstly, if (way big if) Iran nuked Isreal, the usa wouldn't get the chance to launch against Iran; Isreal would be bombing them before you got the chance. Secondly, if MAD worked so well for us during the time of the cold war, would someone in the rabid right wing media care to explain why it's not going to work with Iran/Isreal? Explain also, if it's not going to work because of the religious origins of the two adversaries, why Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other yet...

Her answer should have been "Why would Iran attack Israel?"
They have never threatened to do so. All the hype about Iran's president wanting to wipe Israel off the map is just propaganda for U.S. consumption. Israel cannot survive because it is a racist state and racism has no place in the future of humanity. That does not mean Jews won't survive. It just means the racist entity called Israel will not survive.

We need a premptive peace attack.
As for Hecate - I doubt many Persians will vote for her.

Um, Israel possesses 200 nuclear warheads -- they don't need American help to "totally obliterate" Iran. And really, who says "totally" anymore?

Israel has Nukes.

Iran does not.

Israel ROUTINELY attacks it's neighbors.

Iran has not invaded anyone in decades.

Israel attacked a major US warship, the USS Liberty.

Iran has sent speedboats to investigate US violations of it's territorial waters.

AND IRAN IS THE AGGRESSOR?

Will you people who think Israel is the 'Holy Land' and Hillary is the 'Second Coming' PLEASE pull your heads out of your asses!

ISRAEL HAS BECOME THE VERY FASCIST TOTALITARIAN REGIME THAT TREID TO EXTERMINATE THEM 70 YEARS AGO!

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON IS A PSYCHOTIC PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND CORPORATE WHORE WARMONGER!

To add to wonder6789's post:

A truly wise candidate would totally reject the nature and premise of the question. They would admonish the reporter for such infantile thinking and insipid question.

Nature - because asking provocative "what if" questions is never intended elicit an answer that will enlighten anyone, but to prove how clever the reporter is in momentarily rattling the candidate (unless the reporter is a planted shill and the whole thing is a well-rehearsed skit designed to secure sound-bite time during the evening news [sic] programs).

Premise - that just because the country which we've been trying to undermine has nukes it will rush into using them. And that the ruling powers in Iran are so removed from reality (is this a case of psychological projection, perhaps?) that they would embark on such a suicidal course. It also willfully ignores the facts that the Iran, since the 1979 Islamic revolution, has not been an aggressor (as a state). Whereas Israel and US have an overabundant record of forcing their will on every country and peoples they can get away with.

Yikes! She's gone totally Republican. Sadly, I don't think the other candidates really differ on preemptively attacking Iran. They are all in the pocket of AIPAC, the Pentagon and big business.

Time to start a regular people's party, one different from the Party of the Rich which has been in charge for ,lo, these many years. Or maybe it's just too late...

All you people are PATHETIC

and you're a moron!! It was a stupid question. How about dealing with the mess America is already in, rather than trying to beat the drum for yet another war.

The people of Iran are innocent, they haven't started any wars and they do not deserve to be nuked, no one does. The casual easy at which the act of genocide rolls off the lips of American politicians and some American citizens is frightening, and you wonder why people hate America? You need to understand one simple fact YOU ARE THE EVIL EMPIRE!!!

In some countries unnecessarily threatening to murder tens of millions of people would actually be an impediment to public office. Ah USA! Where are you?

"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace." M. Franti

Instead of nuking Iran how about you teach them a lesson, send some troops, take over a hospital and bayonet all the babies you find, after the troops can entertain themselves by raping all the women they can find, and if you think that is extreme it's nothing compared to nuking an entire population just because they have the oil you want or they don't believe in the same god, or even just for the sake of political capital.

How can she keep the missiles in their silos when she can't keep her husband's dick in his pants?

Both the Clintons are skilled enough politicians to dodge a question if they want to. Plenty of examples abound. So, the first point to consider is that she wanted to answer the question and she wanted to answer it in exactly this way. Heck, for all we know she planted the question to make sure she had a chance to sound this bellicose. So, just forget all the nonsense about blaming this on the reporter for asking what-if questions.

And, among the candidates that our corporate parties will give to us to choose from, all would give exactly the same answer. They may choose for pr purposes to try to sound more or less bellicose, but they all hold the same position. You see it in this article where it says they've all 'pledged to defend Israel'.

And yes, the question and the answer automatically accept all the lies that have been told about Iran's nuclear program. I'm guessing the Clintons are so slick as to know this, thus the bit about 10 years in the answer. She knows Iran won't have a bomb within 10 years anyways according to the CIA. Just another indication that this is BS for the campaign.

If you want something different, don't vote Democrat or Republican.

By the way, if she was President and said this, it would be an impeachable offense in my mind. The UN Charter is a treaty the US has lawfully agreed to and thus its the highest law in the land. The UN charter forbids such threats. Not that any of the corporate parties or politicians in the US would care.

"n this case, one wonders if someone in the MSM is working with the administration to create a false impression that an actual threat is a certainty"
----------------------
to me, when you use the words "mainstream media" you are already missing the point. I tend to prefer 'corporate media'. When you say it that way and when you realize the nature of our political system, the answer becomes obvious.

The same corporations and big moneybags-type people own both the 'corporate media' and the major political parties. When you realize that, you are then not surprised to see them working together towards the same ends.

PS ... to the above. If you go back and study the lead-up to the Iraq war you'll find plenty of instances where people in the corporate media were indeed working with administration officials to help start that war. Judy Miller of the NYT is one obvious example that comes to mind. And Dan Rather at CBS with his post-9/11 statements that basically said the media would do whatever the administration told them to do is another.

God I hope this cretin doesn't screw-up the election. And I hope she's not the VP on any Obama ticket. I could never vote for her. What a witch.

What is often ignored is that Iran's nuclear ambitions were likely in response to the nuclear ambitions of its neighbours, which do not include Israel but *do* include Iraq and Pakistan. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to the fact that Pakistan has nukes (and probably Bin Laden. Clinton's comments would be laughable if they weren't so frightening.

There's not much more to add to the comments posted that are so accurate. If you don't know exactly who Mohammed Mossadeq was then you should do a search and find out. It might make things clearer for you.

Today, April 22, 2008, the House of Representatives will consider H.Con.Res 322 , a resolution recognizing the 60th Anniversary of the founding of Israel and reaffirming the friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.

Also today, A former U.S. Army mechanical engineer was arrested Tuesday on charges he passed classified documents about nuclear weapons to an employee of the Israeli Consulate who also received information from convicted Pentagon spy Jonathan Pollard. The Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, a dual Israeli-US citizen will likey dismiss the case for national security reasons. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, another dual Israeli citizen, will continue to defy national laws and build more detention centers and security walls.

Please inform Hillary that no US citizens will die for Israel. We should have taken Israel out after they attacked the USS Liberty. Went to Vietnam instead.

Midwich Cuckoos 2.0

OK, everybody, here's what happened. It's actually been in the news for over 50 years already, only we haven't paid attention. All those hooch-addled yokels who claimed they say space ships were accurate. Those ships released aliens, who probed the locals - intoxicated as they were - and created huge databanks on the indigenous. then, to assemble rpelicas, they raided the herds in the fields, stealing bits and pieces out of which they could build the shells or disguises into which they would fit. Because their cultural understanding of our civilization was limited and therefore flawed, they did not realize that they were useing the disgusting bits, such as bladders and anuses, of those herd animals to construct their disguise-shells.

Now these creatures have arrived in droves, have in error learned to spout some pseudo-Xian fundamentalist ideology, and have filled all the vital government offices and pulpits in North America, even parts of the Middle East - currently, they are working on the EU.

Until their Rapture comes, that will take them all back to their home planet, these alien a**hole creatures will be ripping the place apart, because they just don't grok what it really means to be human - and they don't care.

It's the only explanation that works for why all these drunken sociopaths are running the place.

Now you know the rest of the story.

This bitch is CRAZY and DANGEROUS..... I am a woman, feminist and I AM NOT VOTING FOR CLINTON
N O M A T T E R W H A T !!

Vote Peace, Vote Feminism, Vote ANTI-CORPORATE....

VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ IN '08 !!!!

If Iran and / or the Arab world is foolish enough to attempt to nuke Israel, then they are bigger idiots than their record of incompetent governance already makes them to be. Besides, Israel's existence serves as a useful sop to their populace to distract from their ruling classes' various peccadillo's. If they were to actually accomplish the rather doubtful aim of militarily wiping Israel from the map (0-3 so far), it would not be too soon that their misgoverned people then demand that their countries actually deliver services, education, and economic opportunity. If I was a self-absorbed ruling Middle Eastern elite with a Swiss bank account to grow and protect, I would prefer that Israel stay around to prevent awkward questions being asked of me. That Israel also distracts others outside of my realm is merely a bonus.

For all you can say about the Iranian Mullahs, they're not stupid. Far from it actually. They know damn well that *if* they attacked Israel in any way, it would be suicidal. Now the crazy republicans and the psychotic Israelis would like you to believe that the Iranian Mullahs ARE suicidal, which of course is a lie.

There has been no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and I seriously doubt that NIE that said they abandoned their program in 2003... Though, I wouldn't be surprised if they secretly were pursuing a weapons program, but I would suspect that this would be for deterrence purposes rather than offensive purposes like Israel's. What is the #1 lesson that developing countries have learned in the Bush years? If you have no nukes and you're weak, the US will attack you... If you have a strong military and even just one nuke, the US will "diplomatically engage you"...

NateW said: "then they are bigger idiots than their record of incompetent governance already makes them to be"

The Iranian government does not have a record of incompetence... where'd you get that idea? If any government is totally incompetent, it would be the US government.

Stop the presses! Here's what she actually said:

"In the next 10 years, during which they [Iran] might foolishly consider launching [a nuclear] attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

No doubt she could have chosen her words more carefully. Nevertheless, she is only reiterating the same "mutually assured destruction" policy that has kept the U.S. and U.S.S.R. (and now Russia) from a nuclear exchange for the past fifty years: it would be insane for any country to launch a nuclear attack because it would result in nuclear retaliation.

It's unfortunate that this story buries the fact that "both Democrats have vowed to defend Israel against any Iranian attack" in the ninth paragraph, and runs a sensationalist headline that falsely implies the opposite.

Here's the story we should be reading: Obama's Paksitan policy may spark larger war. While the candidates' policy toward Iran is the same, there is an important difference regarding Pakistan (which already has a nuclear arsenal). Obama pledges to expand the phony "war on terror" into Pakistan (which he calls the "right battlefield") whether Pakistan approves or not. Such a preemptive invasion is a violation of international law and would likely lead to a much larger war.

Zionists are constantly trying to maneuver the US into eliminating obstacles to Israeli expansion and apartheid. Obviously the best way for Israel to achieve that goal would be for Israel to attack Iran, and therefore those ABC presstitutes should have asked HRC what she will do when (when, not if) Israel attacks Iranian reactors. HRC's answer would probably not vary: obliterate Iran, regardless of whether and how Iran retaliates, because any Israeli offensive against Iran would be per se "self-defense," like everything else the apartheid state does. The MSM systematically frames all questions regarding the ME in an inverted, surreal context in order to conform to their Israel-first agenda.

MSM pundits consistently ignore the following inconvenient facts when promoting war with Iran:
1. Israel has a huge nuclear arsenal with delivery systems including nuclear submarines, is not a signatory to the NPT, and is bent on territorial expansion at any cost.
2. Israel constantly threatens to attack Iran.
3. Iran has no territorial ambitions and has never threatened Israel.
4. Iran has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons program, and has signed the NPT.
5. Even if all the above statements were false, and Iran had hundreds of nuclear warheads together with an effective delivery system, Iran still couldn't attack Israel without being obliterated by either Israeli or US nuclear weapons. In addition, any nuclear attack launched against Israel would kill millions of innocent Palestinians, Syrians and Jordanians as well. Iranians will never launch such an attack, because although they may have been radicalized by the US overthrow of their elected government in 1954 and twenty-five years of terror under our proxy sadist Shah Reza Pahlevi, they're not barking, raving mad like our Zionists and evangelicals, and their toadies HRC and McCain.

Clinton once said that campaigning was tougher on her because she takes longer to get ready. Ma'am, if that's what's worrying you so much -- make-up and outfit just perfect, if you get to the white house, woe to us.

What I'd like to know is if Hillary is willing to obliterate Iceland if they ever decide to nuke, um, England, or Canada. Suppose Iceland gets the nuclear weapons it obviously craves and may have been secretly developing for years. Is Hillary, or Obama, willing to state publicly that they'll destroy Iceland in the hypothetical event they start nuking whomever they feel like? As conscientious and peace-loving Americans, we have a right to know!

The whole scenario is ridiculous because Iran has no intention of attacking Israel and or course, doesn't have nuclear weapons. The question could however be turned around to the more likely scenario of an unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran. Not only does this put both candidates in the position of competitive "tough talk," it further alienates us as a nation to those in the Middle East and elsewhere.

According to "Jane's Intelligence Reports" Israel is the world's fourth largest nuclear power. They obviously acquired this position through control of the US congress - by virtue of hefty "campaign contributions" to congress through the "lobbyists" - those cockroaches of American Democracy.

Israel therefore doesn't need our protection, since they could obliterate Iran directly by themselves.

claudius' comment:

"I think the slogan ought to read "Another Politician Brought to you by AIPAC"

is quite appropriate since AIPAC stands for Newt Gingrich's "American-Israeli Political Action Committee" another of the well-heeled K-Street lobbying gang.

Clinton said the other night in Scranton Pennsylvania that "We must win the war in Iraq." She has the same neocon understanding of foreign policy as McCain and the wing nuts and yet despite her dangerous views she still has a following within the democratic party. Please wake up people!

Countess:
"She has the same neocon understanding of foreign policy as McCain and the wing nuts and yet despite her dangerous views she still has a following within the democratic party.
Please wake up people!"

I'll go even further:

Hillary is a Republican kamikaze whose purpose is to destroy the Democratic party.