The U.S. is a major part of the problem concering our Mid-East region policies ~WTF~. What ~BOB K~ wrote is not entirely incorrect, he was speaking of our government's attitudes and past and present policies I beleve.

Clinton-Lieberman a third party? ___Never!! ___What on Earth ever gave you that idea ~5280~? ___Explain it please

Amen.

Finally, I found Hillary Clinton out. She's a Republican! She's for bombing Iran for Israel. The last straw came when she attacked Move-On for being against the invasion of Afghanistan (they were not). The new Hillary Clinton has resurfaced as a born-again Republican. Ever since her days as a "Goldwater Girl" and the president of Wellesley College Republican club, Hillary was a known GPO'er. Then she did a blood bondage with Murdoch and the right-wing Scaife Foundation..

I say good riddance to her. Let her do shots with Lieberman, be in bed with AIPAC , slobber over big money goons, dance with Rahm Emmanuel and Charles Schumer and the rest of the DLC apparatchiks, I am through with her! I'm for a democratic party for the everyday person, the regular people who do the 9-5 thing or whatever. Call it the poor people's party of the party of just plain folks--let Hillary join the Party of the Rich--which we all know as the Republican party (and ,sadly, most of the Democratic Party).

Clinton says things that American voters love to hear. If she didn't say those things, Obama, Jr. would have said them. Otherwise, McCain will win in November.

Since Truman became president, every American president must follow the dictate of Israeli lobbies.

Israel wants to obliterate Iran by America.

Clinton must say things to support whatever Israelis want. Otherwise, Israeli lobbies will give money to her opponents.

Israeli lobbies flourish in America because of American voters' support for Israel.

American voters identify themselves with Israelis.

When Israelis spy on Americans, American voters love that too.

Israeli interest has long become the interest of American government since President Truman started the show 60 years ago. That's why, American government annually gives more than $10 billion aids to that country.

This sort of "bull-in-a-chinashop" way of going about things is exactly why we must not let Hillary get the nomination.

Yesterday Pennsylvanians could have destroyed Hillary's chances of becoming President. Instead, they gave her reason to continue her obnocious campaign.

It may not be for many years, but eventually people will understand that Hillary is a very bad choice.

Obama '08

Scheer does it again. On the mark! Though she gains votes -- she is NOT for the people. Her personal history has been a craving for power and recognition as she rubs elbows and deals policies for the ruling classes of society. Her "everyday folk" act is comical and only suckers buy it. Hillary is for Hillary.

This is one issue where the candidates are in agreement - Israel. Would be interesting to get Cynthia McKinley's take on this....

Obama-Clinton Debate April 16, 2009

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States. I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?

SENATOR CLINTON: Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.

We will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation. And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.

http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/4/18/3648927.html

This much should be clear to all who have eyes, ears and a brain:

Hillary Clinton is a neocon kamikaze sent out by Cheney, Rove, Murdoch and Mellon-Scaife with the purpose of destroying the Democratic party.

This, my friends, is the Republican strategy for stealing the 2008 election.

Hillary is following the commentary of Charles Krauthammer (a strong supporter of Israel) who has been writing that the threat of overwhelming retaliatory strike might work for decades in dissuading Iran and others from ever launching a nuke--even if they have them. He cites that this worked for the cold war, and nukes WERE NOT shot.

Alternative strategies include such difficult concepts as pre-emptive air strikes or mandated regime change in Iran. We have gone down those types of roads with Iraq, of course, and we're not exactly meeting an easy success.
Attempts at missle shields using advanced technology are maybe possible but are also escalting again tensions that we don't need with Russia and China.

Another option for Hillary and/or Barack is to say we'll take force "off the table"----resulting, without a single doubt in the election of John McCain and HIS foreign policy.

It's easy to criticize, but not so easy to thread the rhetorical needle to the satisfaction of peacelovers WHILE NOT HANDING THE ELECTION TO THE REPUBLICAN RIGHT.

Obama, Jr. also said similar things against Iran.

For example (in Obama, Jr.'s own words), "Keeping all options on the table [to strike Iran]..."

Obama, Jr. is no saint when it comes to manipulate American voters!

Only assurance Obama, Jr. can give out is being a Muslim himself (through his Kenyan father), he may be reluctant to strike another Islamic country.

Hillary Clinton turned from her Goldwater Girl Republicanism to oppose the Vietnam War and work for Gene McCarthy, but has she ever opposed the steady advance of US militarism that began under Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon, and which has led to mostly illegal US assaults on more than forty countries since the 1960s? She has not.

"It cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton ... would be less irrationally hawkish ... than John McCain" understates the problem. Her threat to nuke Iran eerily replays Goldwater's "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin", and it got less outrage from Dems than Goldwater got 45 years ago.

The Republican half of the country loves war. Hillary shows that her half of the Democrats loves war too.

With the country 3-1 for war, Barack soon has to get much better at campaigning if he is to beat these 3-1 odds.

If Hillary wins the election, the Republican Right has won, DD. Hillary can carry out their objectives just as efficiently as McCain. By your logic, the only way to prevent McCain being elected is for Hillary and Obama both to parrot exactly the same war-happy rhetoric he does, show a willinglness to obliterate Iran at least as eager as his. This, then, is how you rationalize that a Democratic administration will be infinitely better than a Republican one? We'll have nominal Democrats pushing us into WWIII and threatening the extinction of the species, instead of evil Republicans doing the same thing. What a relief!

Send Obama more money. Do what it takes to push the campaign to victory. Now more than ever.

Totally obliterate Hillary. That's what's needed.

Anybody who threatens to obliterate innocent men, women and children ...needs to have their head examined. How stupid could a presidential candidate be to say a thing like that? What a way to connect to rednecks: go for the lowest, most base instincts of hate and fear and tribalism!

Scheer sez: "It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq's nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran."

With all due respect, that juxtaposition hardly seems "bizarre." The word that comes to mind is "consistent."

A key question for Clinton, and for Obama too, is: How would you respond to a nuclear attack by Israel on Iran?
Four possible answers: 1) obliterate Israel, 2) stop or cut down on US military subsidies to Israel, 3) increase those subsidies, 4) obliterate Iran.
Their answers to this question would be extremely revealing of the general trend of the US international policy under their mandate. McCain should be asked the same question.

Scheer speaks of the "potential threat" of Iran getting nuclear weapons. What threat? Nuclear weapons are not a threat to anyone except aggressors. Nuclear weapons (in the hands of states) are defensive, not offensive weapons. There is nothing wrong with Iran, Israel, Jamaica or any other country in the world having nuclear weapons. In fact, we would all be better off if the all countries had nuclear weapons. No one would dare start a war. The world would be at peace.

I know, I know ... Usania nuked Japan, and that was not defensive. But that was an exception. That was an exceptional period in history, when only one country had nuclear weapons, so deterrence did not apply. In today's world, the aggressive use of nuclear weapons could never happen, because several countries have nuclear weapons, so they are all deterred from non-defensive first use. In today's world, a country will only use nuclear weapons if it has nothing to lose. If you don't put a country into the position in which it has nothing to lose, it will not use nuclear weapons. The nuclear danger in today's world is not from Iran or Israel or the USA or any other state. All states can be deterred. The nuclear danger in today's world is acquisition of nuclear weapons by a terrorist group. Terrorist groups by definition cannot be deterred. As long as no terrorist group gets nuclear weapons, we'll be all right.

Mark Marshall
Toronto

unknown_unknowable said: "Israeli lobbies flourish in America because of American voters' support for Israel."

Does the American voter REALLY support Israel? Or is that just something we've been told over and over again by the MSM?

MarkMarshall: Two points:

You said: "As long as no terrorist group gets nuclear weapons, we'll be all right."

Well the world's biggest terrorist group (NATO) does have nukes... as does the 2nd (Israel)...

You also said: "In today's world, a country will only use nuclear weapons if it has nothing to lose."

OR a country that has SDI (missile defense) would use them... THAT'S why Russia is so upset about the US missile defense project. Missile defense is being billed as a "defensive" measure, but really it's a first strike weapon. Why you ask? Well, if you have a functioning missile defense system, you can attack with impunity and not worry about retaliation.

And who will Hecete 'obliterate' should Israel obtain nuclear weapons? Tel Aviv?

A MESSAGE TO VOTERS IN INDIANA AND NORTH CAROLINA - VOTE FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN - NOT WHAT YOU'RE AFRAID OF.

emysterio wrote: "Well the world's biggest terrorist group (NATO) does have nukes… as does the 2nd (Israel)…"

OK, I should have been more specific: I meant to say: "as long as no non-state terrorist organization gets nukes, we'll be all right (at least as far as nuclear weapons is concerned)".

As for SDI, I understand the logic you are referring to. But I'm not worried. SDI will never work. It's more of an economic program, to give money to people who own high-tech companies, than a serious program to enable a nuclear first strike. Our leaders may be crazy, but I just can't believe they're crazy enough to believe that SDI could ever work.

The long and the short of it is: I'm not worried about nuclear armageddon. Non-state terrorist organizations may manage to get two or three, or even ten nuclear bombs, and they may be able to destroy a few cities. But they will never have enough nukes to destroy the world, along the lines of the scenario that terrorized us all during the Cold War. No, if humanity is going to destroy itself, it will not be with nuclear weapons. More likely it will be through global warming or other forms of environmental destruction.

Mark Marshall
Toronto

I wonder how many of the huge amount of people that changed to Democrats to vote in the Pennsylvania primary were Republicans who want Hillary to win. Also, they were having problems with the voting machines first thing. I read an article that said they were already losing votes and didn't know who they were for. All of the balloting was digital and the Judicial dept. of the US govnt. was overseeing the election. When everyone was so sick and tired of Hillary's degrading attacks on Barack Obama and Barack had such huge excited crowds every where he went, how does Hillary always win in these big states? Barack actually won in Texas but the media played that so low not many realize it.

It is not a joke that the wing nuts on talk radio are promoting her daily. She is a neocon chickenhawk ready to expand the war in Iraq contrary to what she says publicly. She hasn't yet sang out loud bomb bomb bomb Iran but she has every intention of doing so. She is so far to the right she will make McCain look like a moderate.

It cannot be repeated enough: Adm. Fallon on Iran:

"Get serious. They're ants. WHEN the time comes, we'll crush them."

WHEN, people - he said WHEN, not if. HRC just wants to prove she's a "serious" person, because "serious" people are prepared to begin the crushing of 75 million "ants" in a country over 4,000 years old as soon as they receive the illegal order.

Wonder what "our" response would be if Russia declared that if the USA puts "missile" defenses in Georgia, they would obliterate America. Or if China declared the USA the world's most dangerous country and warned they would obliterate America if we dared to defend Taiwan...?

According to the, cough, Bush doctrine, Iran now has no choice but to launch a pre-emptive war against the USA in order to defend their "homeland" against overt threats by a ruthless nation that has already killed and maimed millions of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis without blinking.

If you were Iran, what would be your next move, aware the current "leaders" of the USA do not bluff. Ever. ?

Yes, American voters support Israel, although Israelis spy on America.

Just do your own research, and you will figure out things as they are.

Nuclear weapons are not easy to make. It requires very deliberate State involvement.

America, Israel, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea possess them.

Holland, Germany, and Japan can assemble weapons out of stored "materials" very quickly (within 6 months) if necessary.

Terrorists cannot survive on their own. They need State sponsorship.

Al-Qaeda attacked Russians with helps from America.

Al-Qaeda attacked America with helps from many countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others (detailed information is classified; but, you probably know who they are anyway).

Cuban terrorists can reside in Florida due to helps from American government they receive directly and indirectly.

When terrorists serve American imperial interests, they are considered freedom-fighters.

Israelis want America to attack Iran before President Bush II leaves office to maintain Israeli nuclear weapons monopoly in Middle East.

Cost of attacking Iran for Israel will be suicidal, at least in financial terms.

America will not attack Iran unless American government can make sure Iran does not have nuclear weapons and can bribe the Iranian military for not fighting.

Clinton can rival the evil of any other neo-con. She's one of them. This 'woman' does not have one democratic cell in her body.

The way I see it, the people don't have a candidate YET AGAIN. Obama comes the closest but watching the way he's voted in the past, he's also not what the people need. He's definitely the lesser of 3 evils, though, at this point. I'm just so tired of picking the one whose the least repulsive to humanity.

Hillary is evidently doing pretty good if the biggest thing Scheer can find to smear her with is a dumb answer to a stupid question. I recall Obama admitting he also made a poor answer to a question a week ago and I guess Scheer missed that one.
Obama had it wrong, it is not the working people in Pennsylvania that are bitter, it is his own supporters that have totally lost it.

Hillary has nuclear halitosis. Better not to get too close to her. You could be wiped out instantly.

Obama, Jr. did not vote long enough to reveal his true nature; because, he hasn't been in the Senate long enough!

"The Republican half of the country loves war. Hillary shows that her half of the Democrats loves war too."

"With the country 3-1 for war, Barack soon has to get much better at campaigning if he is to beat these 3-1 odds."

No, people are generally against war, they can be MADE to support war if both political parties and the corporate press (beholden to the same entrenched interests) create a fierce, 24/7 campaign to scare them to hell, and the American people are not off the charts historically in this regard. What's off the charts is the size and influence in the for profit war industry, which has horrific effects on democracy. If you remember, more people supported not attacking Iraq and waiting for the weapons inspectors (looking for weapons the right wing Reaganites sold them in the previous years) to do their job before the bombing and pillage of Iraq started, and that was after that organized campaign that we now know for a fact included paid propagandists of the military industrial complex here.

Our foreign policy doesn't need fine tuning, it needs a radical change and that includes relying less economically on war. If we don't change the fact that our economy is being held afloat in large part by us militarizing the rest of the world (Chalmers Johnson claims we now spend over a TRILLION dollars directly and indirectly on war) then nothing will change…that and radical media reform. We have a more polished form of Pravda in this country.

Anyone who votes for McCain or Clinton is not a liberal, a lefitst or anything other than a war mongering thug who doesn't morally object to our violent, reactionary and ideologically rigid foreign policy over the last century or so. It's obvious that Clinton is still in the race, and the rise in Democratic registration, as a result of Limbaugh's tactic. If they succeed this country will crumble by the end of either candidates presidency. Fundamental change is needed to survive and both a 100% against that change.

I miss Jimmy Carter.

We have become a rogue nation that supports another rogue nation.

Hillary's blood lust and nuclear brinkmanship is a demonstration of her subservience to right wing Israeli interests. That's Neocon diplomacy and we've seen how well that works.

Check today's Washington Post story on how our "ally" is stealing our nuclear and defense secrets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202590.html?hpid=topnews

Ephraim says:

"If Hillary wins the election, the Republican Right has won, DD. Hillary can carry out their objectives just as efficiently as McCain. By your logic, the only way to prevent McCain being elected is for Hillary and Obama both to parrot exactly the same war-happy rhetoric he does, show a willinglness to obliterate Iran at least as eager as his. This, then, is how you rationalize that a Democratic administration will be infinitely better than a Republican one?"

Where, Ephraim, oh wise one, is YOUR solution to maintaining peace while convincing voters not to give the Supreme Court, the agencies, law enforcement, fiscal policy, health care and even your future civil liberties to Republicans? WHERE IS YOUR SOLUTION? (You don't have one.)

HRC threatens to kill 70m humans, and there are folks on this thread ready to defend her? Amazing! I guess for them fratricide at this scale is just another video game. True loss of humanity indeed.

All I have to say is that I am a voter from a small town and I am sick and tired, and I am absolutely BITTER of politics as usual. I am sick and tired and bitter of candidates like HILLARY CLINTON who offer nothing but platitudes and generalized promises. I don't care what you've done Hillary, you've lost your way a long time ago. I am so sick and bitter over your campaign, I have no choice to but go to church and pray for you and all politicians because you are all in a big puddle of mud together haggling over power. We have so much in this country we should be grateful for. Stop bickering Hillary. You make me so bitter.

The really sad part about this article, and american politics ingeneral, is that the entire american government seems to have their noses deep in the ass crack of "aipac and israel". For such a small population jews seem to run america, the UN, and europe! For an american friend israel has had more "spys" arrested for stealing or attempting to steal american nuclear secrets than all other countries combined. Hillary is a "stealth fifth columnist" for the right. Any sane person knows that there are no winners when it comes to nuclear weapons because the oceans, winds, and rains will spread the toxic fallout around the world killing everything it comes into contact with!

We really need to do some remodeling to the Statue of Liberty. The torch needs to be removed and replaced with a sword. The tablet needs to be replaced with a shield with the date January 20, 2001 emblazoned across it. The entire saying at the bottom should be removed and replaced with "Give us your gas, your oil, your pooled resources as we force you to be free."
That would be much more realistic.

"...used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese ...? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable"

I couldn't disagree with this more completely.
The Japanese were not innocent.
They kept sending their sons, brothers & husbands to fight to the death, not in defense of their nation, but as aggressors. Even after they realized they had lost, they were still determined to fight to the last one standing.

Had they stood up to their government then, and told them they would not pick up arms for imperialist gains, their government would not have had the means to be the aggressors they were.
What they showed in their conduct of that war was that they had every bit of Hiroshima & Nagasaki coming to them, and their families as payback for their unwillingness to endure the hardships of standing up to their government.

Take heed Amerika (of today, not the one my predecessors fought for) if you won't stand up against the corruption of our present representative (of corporate interests) government now, we'll have this kind of thing visited upon us soon enough.

The Democrats have always just campaigned on the notion that they could better manage the Evil Empire than the Republicans. Hillary just confirmed it. All she did was to confirm that she can be the ultimate evil and murder 60,000,000 people.

Remember, to the Democrats, the only thing that matters is personal power. They litterally don't give a damn about anything else. Any issue, any moral position is expendable if it leads to them obtaining more personal power.

After all, this is the party that has already killed thousands of Americans because they thought it was a good campaign tactic.

-- In the 2002 vote on authorizing the Iraq war and occupation, the Democrats were saying that they were voting yes to 'take the issue off the table' because they thought that would be the correct tactic for the mid-term elections that followed a few weeks later. That campaign tactic has so far cost the lives of 4000 Americans. More dead Americans than from 9-11 just because the Dims thought it would help them in an election.
-- Since taking the majority in Congress, the Dims have refused to end the war, again largely because they didn't want to lose the issue for the upcoming elections. They think its a better campaign tactic to have the Republicans tied to an unpopular war. Over 1000 Americans have died during this time.

So, while being willing to kill 60,000,000 to 70,000,000 people to gain favor in an election is an increase in the scale of the monstrosity that is today's Democrats, its not really anything new for them.

Hillary Clinton is trying to act like a tough commander-in-chief, reassure certain groups of her positions about the Middle East and also comfort the defense industry which has reportedly contributed generously to her campaign.

Her position on invading Iraq and her apparent positions on Iran could have serious consequences for Americans at home, our troops and military families, and potential military draftees ... today's high school and college students.

Would Hillary activate the military draft to confirm her "war hawk" credentials? Maybe someone should ask her.

Food for thought in the article:

"Military Draft Needed for War With Iran and Syria?"

Truthout.org
20 September 2006

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22754

Author's blog site:

http://jointreconstudygroup.blogspot.com

Note to Don ... the Japaneese government had been asking for peace for at least six months prior to the nuclear attacks. The American government had been turning them down. The main sticking issue was that the Japaneese wanted to keep their emperor as at least a token figurehead, and McArthur gave them that after the war anyways.

Also, the American government knew the Russians would enter the war against Japan in early August, which would effectively end the war whether we dropped the nuclear bombs or not.

The actions of the Japaneese people had little or nothing to do with the Americans dropping the nuclear weapons on civilian cities and murdering over 100,000 people. The Japaneese were asking for peace. The Americans were already thinking about the cold war and wanted to intimidate the Russians with their new toy of mass destruction.

PS ... that was the Democrats too. The only people ever to order mass murder with nuclear weapons were the Democrats. Hillary is just proving that some things never change.

As a reinforcement that the Democrats just want personal power, just read Daniel David ... to him, if its the Democrats dropping nuclear bombs on another nation and murdering 70,000,000 people, that's much preferable to the Republicans dropping nuclear bombs on another nation and murdering 70,000,000 people. Only a Democrat could see the difference.

Don the Engineer talks like a naive fool whose never lived in a non-democratic state.

As if it was given, or even possible, for most men women (and children!!), often exploited, illiterate, to challenge deeply embedded propaganda and established ideas of nationalism.

Then, according to your self-righteous values, the American people more than deserved 9/11 for all the bloodshed and dictatorships its successive governments brought on throughout the world.
It would be a fraction of the punishment coming, by your Hiroshima standards, and those of the freedom of expression and information Americans enjoy.

According to your high moral standards, you should be very afraid, Don.
Very afraid.

"The way I see it, the people don't have a candidate YET AGAIN"

Sure they do. You just need to remove the blinders and look beyond the Democrats and Republicans.

Robert Scheer is nothing but a shameless liar. What a jackass!

He doesn't tell his readers what Hillary actually said, so here it is:

"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."

She talks about DETERRENCE, not threats!

It's longstanding United States policy, and it has successfully kept anyone from launching a nuclear attack for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory

The only honest thing Scheer has to say is that Obama is Hillary's "centrist-to a fault-opponent." That's right! She's the Clinton in the race. He's the Reagan in the race.

Lorax, "We really need to do some remodeling to the Statue of Liberty. The torch needs to be removed and replaced with a sword. The tablet needs to be replaced with a shield with the date January 20, 2001 emblazoned across it. The entire saying at the bottom should be removed and replaced with 'Give us your gas, your oil, your pooled resources as we force you to be free.'

"That would be much more realistic."

Sadly enough, Lorax, I fear you hit the nail on the head. This is not the nation I once knew, and I fear it never will be again. We were never perfect, but at least we tried, many years ago. Now, we have degenerated into a rogue state which should be a global pariah.

I agree with Mark Marshall. The USA shouldn't get to decide who has nuclear weapons and who doesn't. Anyone who thinks that the US has that right is an elitist and an imperialist. Of all countries, the US has the least right, since we're the only ones who have ever used nuclear weapons. And we used them against civilians. And then did it again 3 days later.

Vote for Cynthia McKinney!