Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran
How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton’s eminently sensible and centrist-to a fault-opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn’t the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.
Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran’s developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?
If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. 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.
The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region’s key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.
To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States — which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and “usable” nuclear weapons) — as both their enemy and an example to emulate.
What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear “deterrent” than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2008 TruthDig.com
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.
I can honestly say that I loathe the Clintons even more than I loathe the Bush family. It’s an incredible statement to make — but in a very real sense, the Bushes are more honest & principled.
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!
Correction to Unknown_Unknownable
Regarding
..”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.”
Iran does NOT have Nuclear Weapons. This has been verified by the IAEA, and Israeli intelligence. They are not even that close. Earliest estimates are 3-10 years. They are under intense scrutiny by everyone.
If they had them it would be a completely different scenario now.
Pace
Don’t pretend this is just Hillary. Obama would say the same, if pressed to it. This is an American attitude. Why else would the US (which is the only country to use WMDs without shame or remorse) threaten a country that does not have nukes and ignore the illegal nukes of illegitmate, bellicose Israel, with which this state threatens its neighbours? Because Americans as a whole, along with all the other self professed Judeo Christian natiolns, automatically assume they are righteous and nobody else is. And this is what threatens the world: Judeo Christian greed, aggression and arrogance.
Clinton never explained why Israel, with its likely hundreds of nuclear weapons, needs the United States to help it deter Iran by threatening nuclear retaliation, nor which other Mideast nations she had in mind that would join a US-led alliance with Israel against Iran. You don’t have to be a Washington policy wonk to have recognized that what she said was completely idiotic, pure nonsense. If that was supposed to prove that she was the more mature and serious statesperson, it proved the exact opposite. A reasonably competent interviewer or debate moderator would have torn into that pile of piffle and left her candidacy in tatters.
A person who talks so easily about obliterating a country should not be a President with a finger on the button.
This woman is scary - she may use nuclear weapons against some small nation just to show what a man she is.
If Iran attacks Israel, Hillary will obliterate them… Obama will invite them both round for tea and ask them to kiss and make up…
I doubt Iran would attack Israel if Hillary is in the White House.
COMarc and others don’t “get it” that the purpose of a credible threat of a retaliatory nuke strike on any nation launching nukes is precisely so they WILL NOT be used at all by anyone. Has worked for a long time now. It is not so that Democrats instead of Rupublicans can pull the trigger to kill millions–as only liars would have you believe. Liars? Yes, liars.
This is set in cement because the only alternative dodo-bird “plans” advanced by COMarc and others is FOR YOU to wish for a third party while YOUR government, YOUR economy and YOUR civil liberties are handed back again and again to Bushites, Rovians and McManiacs. Pretty darn pitiful, or perhaps nefarious is a better word.
DD. Democrats are not better than Republicans. Period
Mark Marshall Said: “Our leaders may be crazy, but I just can’t believe they’re crazy enough to believe that SDI could ever work.”
Hmmm… I disagree with that statement. If they honestly thought that SDI is just for funneling money to their buddies, then WHY would they risk pissing off the Russians so bad by stationing SDI radar and interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic?
Don the Engineer said: “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.”
Well Don, following that logic, EACH and EVERY American citizen is not innocent either then. Perhaps the rest of the world has the right to Nuke the United States because you’re all guilty… following your logic anyways.
Rebel Conservative said: “If Iran attacks Israel, Hillary will obliterate them… Obama will invite them both round for tea and ask them to kiss and make up…
I doubt Iran would attack Israel if Hillary is in the White House.”
Huh? When did he ever say he’d invite them in for tea??? That’s stupid. There’s actually 2 points wrong with your assertion.
1) Iran isn’t going to attack Israel. That’s just silly. The Iranian Mullahs aren’t stupid, contrary to what your wonderful government tells you. So really, the whole point of the question asked is moot.
2) You seem to perceive Obama as weak for saying that he would talk to the ‘enemies’ of the US… That’s actually WAY more brave than refusing to talk and being all aggressive in your posture. It takes a way braver person to work for peace than it does to be a warmonger. What’s wrong with trying to find peaceful solutions to problems instead of just starting more wars and killing more people?
“I am ready on day one” she says. Uh huh, ready to continue the way of the oil-empowered elites of America, where all the money comes from that political candidates need to get elected.
Sadly, I don’t have much higher hopes for Obama, who has also mentioned nukes, on Pakistan, which is the actual terrorist recruitment center. The only difference is that Iran and Iraq are where the oil is, so Obama may be one step removed from the oil-empowered elites of America
Don The Engineer (2:13 pm) writes “…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….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 … 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…”
- This is a fabulous example of the “thinking” of the utterly brainwashed American. He holds the ordinary citizens of Japan responsible for not standing up to their government. He also feels they “should have known” that their government was fighting for imperialist gains.
The truth about WWII (on both Atlantic & Pacific fronts) however is that it was an imperialist struggle on BOTH sides — between dominant imperialist powers, and a would-be rising imperialist power. It wasn’t nearly so black & white as most Americans imagine. Japan objected to the dominance of US & British imperialism in SE Asia. Unsurprisingly, the Anglo powers didn’t want to yield any of their advantage. By 1941, the US was already an accomplished imperialist power, having spread its control through the Caribbean & Latin America, & across the Pacific to encompass Hawaii, the Phillipines, Guam, etc; while the UK controlled vital trading outposts like Singapore & Hong Kong. // Naturally, Anglo influence in China would not be construed as “imperialism” in the US — but that hardly changes the facts of the situation. It’s entirely standard for imperialists who have the upper hand to perceive the status quo as “fair & reasonable,” while perceiving challenges to the status quo as “outrageous aggression.”
The basic story is that the Anglo powers had very dominant trade advantages in Japan’s neck of the woods, and Japan (very understandably) chafed under this arrangement. They wanted more for themselves, & the Anglo powers simply didn’t want to give it to them. (WWI started the exact same way: the UK was the dominant power in Europe, but Germany was a rising economy that wanted more for itself. The UK didn’t want to surrender any of its advantages. Is it really so strange that Germany would be dissatisfied with the UK’s superior position? Did Brits have some God-given right to live better than Germans?)
In any case, it’s absurd to assume that ordinary Japanese citizens would understand the real motivations of their government any better than Americans of today understand the motivations of their government; or any better than Americans of 1945 understood the motives of their government. In fact, history is unambiguous about what happened after 1945: the US proceeded immediately to re-organize the world economic system for the US’s own maximum benefit. There has never been a more blatant or mammoth exhibition of global imperialist ambition than what the US did, starting in the waning years of WWII. That’s big-time imperialism — such as the world has never seen. (Odd that Americans have never heard of US imperialism, isn’t it?)
Don says that the Japanese civilians “had every bit of Hiroshima & Nagasaki coming to them” because they wouldn’t stand up to their government’s imperialist aims. By this standard, the US has deserved to be nuked ever since it stole half of Mexico in 1846 (or at the very least, ever since nukes came into being, 99 years later).
elmysterio asks: “If they honestly thought that SDI is just for funneling money to their buddies, then WHY would they risk pissing off the Russians so bad by stationing SDI radar and interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic?”
Money! It’s all about money. The rich get more money by pissing off the Russians. The pissed-off Russians respond to the SDI stations in Poland and the Czech Republic by arming themselves more and adopting a more belligerent policy towards the West. The alarm is raised: Russia is on the march again! Stalin is back! We must defend ourselves! An arms race ensues. Good for our ruling class, who rake in the cash. This new cold war, like the original one (though it’s not entirely clear that the old one ever ended), is just a scam to to give money to the rich. In 1945 Harry Truman had a problem. World War II was over and the masses had expectations. They had sacrificed and now they wanted the good life. They wanted their fair share of the nation’s wealth. How to frustrate those expectations? That’s why he implemented the policy of permanent overseas war: to protect the oligarchy and to prevent society from becoming too democratic and egalitarian. Since the country was “at war”, Truman anticipated that the patriotic masses would go along with it. And they did.
Hillary is just another serpent slithering after the Zionist vote.
Why would Israel, with the world’s fourth largest nuclear and sixth largest army, need our help, especially with our military stretched beyond the breaking point? If anything, they’re the ones in a position to come to our defense of others, not the other way around. But don’t hold your breath — consider Netanyahu’s recent remarks how 9/11 was the best thing to happen for Israel in years …
Bob K,
If you want to honest about your logic and apply it to every country (which is a necessity, American exceptionalism doesn’t work logically or anywhere outside the US) would Iran not be justified in bombing the US, and possibly Israel? The US HAS invaded two neighboring countries (which everyone knows is for oil), Iran sits on huge oil reserves, the US did include Iran in the “axis of evil” and its current oil industry government has been open on wanting to attack Iran. Would Iran not be justified, because of DETERENCE, in bombing the US and Israel as a result? Obviously it would be suicidal, but using your logic, justified. I mean, Israelis support war with Iran more than any other country. According to polls, US Jews favor war with Iran far more than the general public, the Israeli lobby has been open about wanting war with Iran (obviously the fact that it would be immoral, economically destroy the US, kill millions of innocent people and probably break the US army) and is hugely powerful. If the US was in a similar situation, and had a vital resource that the country threatening it wanted, would it not be a good idea to seek nuclear weapons to protect themselves? I’m not saying this as a defense of the Iranian government (although the previous relatively moderate government offered the US a pretty good deal, Cheney responded by verbally attacking the person who delivered the message), just trying to follow your logic.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/963061.html
“Only three countries showed an increase in support for military strikes or sanctions — Israel (where support for tough action rose to 71 percent from 62), South Korea (53 percent compared with 47) and Turkey (33 percent compared with 21).”
This country’s foreign policy, its military base empire, its spending over a TRILLION dollars directly and indirectly, on its military is not sustainable, especially if you want things like universal healthcare or an actually well funded educational system. It’s also horribly immoral, murderous and leads the rest of the world to despise this country. Clinton, and Obama, is no different than McCain in this regard in that she, & the other two, aren’t willing to challenge what isn’t sustainable. It takes guts, and someone who actually believes in something enough that they’re willing to challenge dominant opinion in DC, for someone to take this issue on. Clinton hasn’t shown that on a single issue, if you disagree let me know which one. This means they’re for, at best, a lesser than worse case scenario, violent, immoral & non-sustainable foreign policy. At least Obama gives a passing mention of the plight of the Palestinians. Clinton, when she talks about the Israeli/US & Palestinian conflict sounds no different than Bush Jr. Bush’s father seemed to be more moderate on the issue than Clinton is for Christ sake.
I also think the “deterrence theory” is horribly wrongheaded, and only works if you are the country with the nukes. Are you, and the people who believe in the idea, claiming that the US and the former USSR made the world safer by this type of policy while they built up thousands of nuclear warheads and caused countries like Korea to develop them out of deterrence? When they attempted, and are attempting, to militarize space? Since when is creating policies that lead to the world, multiple times, to the brink of nuclear war a deterrent against nuclear war? At least two times, I’ll find and link them if you’d like, the only thing that stopped nuclear attacks against the US was Russian soldiers either defying orders to attack or ignoring protocol. This idea also justified the US arming and supporting the most anti-democratic killers the world over. Reagan said that Nicaragua was a few days march from the US (no lie, he claimed that tiny Nicaragua could attack the freaking US) and used it as part of a justification to arm a group, the Contras, that were not only one of the worse human rights offenders in the hemisphere at the time but also lacked any popular support. What if China had done the same here? Would it be justified because of some elite chess game the “leaders” here play with lesser (in their eyes) people’s lives? Is this what allows the US to support the current Colombian government (whom the Clintons appear to be very fond of), despite the fact that they have, by a mile, the worse human rights record in the entire hemisphere and despite the fact that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others claim are responsible for the majority of violence in Colombia? The same groups Clinton is aligned with are the ones doing the majority of the killing, is this a deterrence against something as well? Maybe it’s a deterrence from a moral and logical foreign policy, or a foreign policy that isn’t in the interest of the war industry here. No thank you on a Clinton presidency. Obama, who I think is horribly flawed and not tons different, is the best of the three, that isn’t saying much though.
Iran has a large, young democracy movement. Why doesn’t Clinton show some courage for once, buck the orthodoxy and say that instead of violence the US will attempt to work with democratic groups in Iran, not “democratic” groups who are willing puppets of US big business?
From one crazy person to another (translated):
If that crazy dude over there with no weapons ever gets weapons (dirty bombs most likely) and uses them, then I will obliterate his entire nation of 70 million.
I can imagine the Middle Eastern media quoting the Bible with Hillary and mushroom clouds in the background on Al Jazeera?
CAUSE: EFFECT:
Peace Corps Budget 250,000,000
NY Yankees Budget 270,000,000
Pentagon’s Budget 700,000,000,000
CIA 50,000,000,000
I’ve been ABH (Anybody But Hillary) since before 2006, but consider what she has done. She has explicitly taken Israel under the U.S. nuclear umbrella while implicitly conceding the possibility that Iran might ACQUIRE nuclear weapons without being obliterated. So as menacing as her remark sounds, it might actually be an opening to better relations.
damn! It didn’t come out right!
CAUSE——–and——–EFFECT
annual budget———–USD$
Peace Corps’———250,000,000
NY Yankees’———-270,000,000
CIA—————50,000,000,000
Pentagon———700,000,000,000
world military-1,400,000,000,000
So long as war is championed, anyone who runs for high office has to pass the “Mars rules” test by showing their capacity for brute force.
EL MYSTERIOSO has it right: The true leader recognizes the benefits of diplomacy and what is saved in NOT going to war to spend blood and treasure so that a very small elite can sip martinis and watch the stock numbers go up.
andrew.herman — You just need to learn how to do TEXT TYPE ( tt= font )
___CAUSE___and___EFFECT______
_ [ annual budget_____ USD$ ] _
Peace Corps ____________250,000,000
NY Yankees’_____________270,000,000
CIA____________________50,000,000,000
Pentagon____________700,000,000,000
world military__1,400,000,000,000
Hillary Clinton disqualified herself to be our president with her “obliterative”
remark– maybe she had a secret death wish. It amazes me that she then won
Pennsylvania except for Philadelphia. Why
didn’t her supporters immediately abandon her? I didn’t think Pennsylvania was THAT stupid. Doesn’t it know that we can’t have another loose cannon for president?
As many people have pointed out at Common Dreams in the past two days, Iran has not
attacked or occupied another country in modern history. Why hasn’t Hillary or Barack or anyone talked to Bruce Laingen
(head of the seized American embassy during the Carter administration) for his views on Iran? Why haven’t they ADOPTED his views on Iran? Barack at least wants to negotiate.
All the piddly stuff Clintonistas have tried to pin on Obama and then this: Something really big. The lady is simply not qualified to be president. She thinks she’s tough, but she’s incendiary, that’s all, just like Bush.
Okay– now the personal part of my statement. A friend of mine is in Iran
right now sharing children’s drawings she gathered in Winston-Salem– sharing them
with Iranian children and no doubt hoping to bring some Iranian children’s drawings back with her.
Remember when Hillary was known for her kindness to children? Her pugnacity toward
Iran, guaranteed to do one thing and one
thing only– get Iranian backs up– is kind neither to Iranian or American children. If we have another war, this one with Iran, all indications are that it will be far worse than the Iraq war– bad enough– and once again everyone will suffer from all kinds of unforeseen occurrence.
I would fear a bit for my friend and any other American in Iran right now, too, thanks to such an irresponsible assertion, if I hadn’t known some Iranians. The people I know would never harm somebody like my friend even if all American politicians turned warmonger.
Once, perhaps, Hillary was a promising person, working with children, and before that giving a good speech at Wellesley College. You would think she would appreciate good speech-making ability.
But why hasn’t she made a good one herself recently?
Probably no one knows, but we can surmise.
She has in the meantime become nouveau-riche. She, Bush, and McCain, along with easily identifiable others can and should be classified as “the moronic rich.”
Isn’t it amazing that people try to call
Barack Obama rich, too, to try and smudge
another clear distinction? His one million income hardly compares with McCain’s wife’s fortune, with the Bush
fortune, or with Billary’s intake last year which was 109 times as much.
Also, he’s not a moron.
___CAUSE___and___EFFECT______
_ [ annual budget_____ USD$ ] _
Peace Corps ______________250,000,000
NY Yankees’_______________270,000,000
CIA____________________50,000,000,000
Pentagon______________700,000,000,000
world military______1,400,000,000,000
Israel cant use nukes. If it did, it would have radioactive fall out isking its citizens. it would guarantee that one day, it would be obliterated by a revenge attack. It would erase the holocaust sympathy they have milked for 60 years(and I am sure in another 60 years they will be claiming the grandchildren of nazis are responsible).
Iran wont nuke Israel–the country is in their backyard. The “wiped off the map” quote was mistranslated. He said ” the Zionist regime will vanish from the pages of time.”
Best long term scenario is Israel will die by small attacks over time as arabs get more sophisticated weapons. Or it will have to end zionist policies.
The media just likes nuke talk-unless its meant to prepare people for a limited nuclear attack on Iran.
When the first Nation starts “Nuking”, a second, or even a third “Nukes”……….the world, as we know it is destroyed.
There will be NO TV EVENING NEWS ANALYSIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!
As OldBadgertoo and someone else said, can we please not act as if Obama would not say, and in fact has not said, basically the same thing as Hillary pertaining to Iran potentially threatening Israel. This is Imperial America, left, right, middle…I’m voting Obama but I’m also pretty damn skeptical of that guy. I know we all kinda hate Hillary, but I’m kinda thinking its a bit more personal than political. Nothing is changing ok! Unless we all want to see our dining habits, our material hoarding, and our super speed internet porn disappear than we really cant change foreign policy course. Lets be honest about that at least, we live way beyond our (collective productive) means, at the expense of foreign populations. All this BS about Hillary said she would nuke Iran… F%^$ing DUH! Power corrupts absolutely huh, well lets do some math: U.S. is most powerful nation ever + U.S. president is most powerful single person in the world = An uncorrupted good guy (Obama) in office, somethings not adding up.
“Give us your gas, your oil, your pooled resources as we force you to be free.” Nice Lorax,
*note for legal purposes: the statue of Liberty is now enshirned with the new government approved definition of Liberty (see Webster’s).
Just the sort of American President that will get elected. BOMB IRAN ! I don’t think so. Spare me, I am not saying the USA will not bomb Iran if they could but they can’t because circumstances are such that you just can’t.
Let us forget about Iran’s nuclear bomb, they do not exist ! Let us just say that Iran has sufficient resources to block off the Straits of Hormuz; too easy for them to do and for that purpose they can do it. That alone will push the price of oil to US$300 per barrel. Can you then do it USA ? I don’t think you can. All this bullshit about bomb ! bomb! Bomb! Iran is all American bullshit; but you americans are rambo and you will believe clinton ! Go Bomb Iran !
Hillary Clinton is the classic example of why the Democrats as a party have outlived their usefulness. “Repulican Lite”, and then some.
Hillary Clinton is also a previous Bilderberg Conference attendee, was invited a decade ago, and also, it is rumored, she attended the 2006 conference (at least Bill admits he was there, ‘91).
The fact that it isn’t common knowledge that the Bilderberg Convention even exists is just bizarre (except that the media owners are also attendees).
THEY RUN THE WORLD.
Finding out if she really attended in 2006 or not should be big news, as should the existence of this group.
When one first learns about this Bilderberg Group, and just how influential the attendees are, and that it has been around for a while, but somehow misses the limelight every year when its time for the conference… well, it’s one of those “Twilight Zone” moments to realize just how sheltered from the truth are the masses. Some might argue that they don’t hide the fact they exist- but they sure don’t get the coverage such an influential group would normally have, and must be for the fact that the media is so involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
suspicious vote counting……..
last nite on cnn.com their county results showed all countys at 100% reporting except 2… one philadelphia which showed 97% counted which was going for obama by 30 points and the very next one also showing 97% counted and which was going for obama by 10%…
the philly county had about 450,000 voting so 3 percent left would make around 13 or 14 thousand votes left to count…
now at this time all the sites was showing that 99% of the total vote has been counted and this with all the other counties showing 100% counted.. this should mean more votes than obama over clinton coming….
now i have checked the vote totals and they show 100% counted and not the 99% as last nite… now one would think obama would gain a few thousand votes since the 2 counties that had only 97% of their votes counted the biggest went 30 points for obama… so low and behold when i checked tonight it shows hillay gaining 2 thousand votes and get this Obams LOSING 1000 votes… how could he lose votes when 13 or 14 thousand votes were still uncounted and they are from where he was winning by 30 points…
very suspicious stuff… the clintons and their people all have been PROVEN already as corrupt as any politician ever.. so one would logic look in that direction ..
now the big deal ..thing is did hillary win by double digits or single digits….
its extremely important for hillary to look like she won by double digits not single digits…so this would be suspicious stuff on them or their supporters..
now even tho the totals now show 100% counted still the philadelphia county shows 99% counted which could mean still 4 or 5 thousand votes not counted yet this county is where obama won by 30%..all other countys show 100% counted.
now even with obama LOSING 1000 votes from when the totals said 99% counted and today 100% counted even with this.. the margin for hillary over obama is 9.2 or 9.3 % and with this one has to say hillary won by 9% and not 10% a single digit win not a double digit win…
some people are really corrupt and the history of the clintons and their supporters are really scary for america…. hitlers can be easily elected with how their voters seem to care nothing for truth and real value…their voters really are voting for their very worst enemy in the clintons.. but they have been so brainwashed that they don’t care…. This is what elects hitlers and brings destruction for the whole country…
those debates are nonsense and just trying to help the corporate candidate to help keep slavery on americans…. saying there was no significant differences in the candidates…. really….
how bout one voting yes to this war and the other saying NO.. the biggest difference in the world for 90% of americans cause this war for the robber barons for oil has hurt 90% of americans.. and then the other that has hurt 90% of americans nafta and gatt.. which the clintons brought to this country to help the robber barons rob from the people….
the moderators had 2 big big issues to ask about it was THESE 2 issues.. and they did not…
in fact rhe vote for the war was also a vote to tell the world we are a fraud on democracy when we went against world democracy the UN when they voted NO…. so this issue was very very important to talk about in the debate.. cause world hate on america harms these 90% in a million different ways..
america is in very very serious trouble…. just watching the response to hillary shows this… shows how a hitler could be elected very easily and destruction coming for the whole country.
nice freefood,
now were getting somewhere,
yap.chongyee
you really believe we would not bomb Iran based on the price of oil?
thats crazy! a barrel of oil was $30 five years ago, its $120 now. So who is to say it won’t eventually be $300 a barrel one day anyways, I mean it is finite. And F%^K rambo by the way, F%^K war in general, and warmongers especially. But this is not average everyday people saying Bomb Bomb Bomb, this is our leadership saying this, and we don’t freely elect them by the way, they are hand picked by monied interests, if not they will always lose..
Hillary should pack up and go home.
What in the hell did she do when Bill destroyed Kosovo, other than cheered him on? She is one who signed off on Bush’s attacking Afghanistan. The Afghan people didn’t knock down the twin towers and hit the pentagon. She is one who signed off on Bush’s attacking Iraq. Neither the Iraqi gov’t, nor the people had attacked the USA. Now, she wants to obliterate Iran if it attacks the second worse terrorist state (the USA being the worst).
Iran is 3 to 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon. Guess what? So is everybody else. It takes 3-10 years to get a nuclear weapon from scratch. That is where that figure comes from. Of course, you need money and a desire to get one.
The Lorax wants to remodel the statue of liberty. My favorite is putting a black hood on it.
“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.)”–The inimitable Daniel David, who else?
Why does it require a “solution” to say that a vote for Hillary is not qualitatively different from a vote for McCain? Just how high is your horse, DD, that you think you can berate others for pointing out the OBVIOUS over and over–that the Dims don’t show an iota of difference from the Repugs, especially if Hillary is the Dimocrat in question.
So, only if I have the magical solution to maintaining peace and simultaneously pulling off all the other miracles you list, do I or anyone else have an ounce of credibility where criticism of these pathetic Democrats is concerned? Yes, you’ve been beating everyone over the head with that endlessly. Hillary isn’t going to get you out of the messes BushCo. has created, oh wise one, but I guess all you have to do is keep repeating your inane mantras: Vote Democrat vote Democrat vote Democrat, no matter who it is and no matter who they say they’ll obliterate. If it’s a Democrat hurling nuclear weapons at defenseless countries, it must be a GOOD thing! A World War 3 started by a Democrat should turn out simply marvelous!
The Ayatollahs have spoken, and there’s nothing Hillary Clinton or any other two-bit, corporate-whore politician can do or say that will make them change their mind:
‘Iran sticks by belief that nuclear arms unIslamic’
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - ?2004 IranMania.com
LONDON, Nov 24 (IranMania) - Iranian deputy Foreign Minister Gholamali Khoshrou denied Tuesday that his country’s top leaders were at odds over whether nuclear weapons were un-Islamic, insisting that it will “never” make the bomb.
Addressing the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, Khoshrou also said that the Islamic republic was wholly committed to a suspension of its uranium enrichment drive despite US “propaganda” to the contrary.
Asked by lawmakers to clarify whether former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani believed that Islam permitted Iran to make atomic weapons as a deterrent to Israel, the Minister said there was no basis to this.
“Those quotes are out of context. This is not the position of Iran,” Khoshrou said.
“The highest authority in Iran, Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei, has reiterated on several occasions his religious verdict on the prohibition of producing, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons,” he said.
“We have never been after the atomic bomb. We don’t believe in that, in accordance with our religious belief. It has never been an option for Iran and never will it be.”
Iran said Monday it was implementing a hard-fought deal with the European Union to suspend uranium enrichment in return for the promise of enhanced trade and political ties.
Washington accuses Tehran of using a civilian atomic energy programme to secretly develop nuclear arms, a charge vehemently denied by Tehran.
At the weekend during a visit to Israel, US Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated accusations that Iran is seeking to adapt its missiles to carry nuclear weapons.
“We are not terrified by American propaganda that Iran is doing this or that,” Khoshrou said.
“But everyone knows that Israel has nuclear capability. Israel’s missiles would hurt anybody in the region. No concern is raised about that,” he added.
I am glad that she made that statement. Iran needs to know in no uncertain terms that if they continue on their path and step over the line, we will hammer them.
the clinton yrs in power was about SETTING us UP for all this.. with their nafta and gatt bringing to america … THAT set this up for all of 90% of americans to be harmed…… and then hillary did it again with voting for this war for the robber barons again to hurt the 90% of americans…
the clintons work for the robber barons to make sure americans are in slavery!!
americans life span was 13th best in the world in 1960…in 2000 down to 26th best and now 42nd best…its time to flee.. americas govt is killing its people !!
best for 90% of americans to flee to canada…especially families and go to a conservative province… the voters who voted for hillary proves too many people in america has been dumded down so much that there will be always the corp robber barons making slaves out of we the people
..
seeing that hillary got that many votes speaks volumns.. there is no HOPE in this corporate controlled system of brainwashing to make slaves out of americans…and america is a magnet to draw the worlds most corrupt and greedy to come here and make the slaves in more misery so they can also get rich… america is fast becoming a third world country..
the clinton yrs in power was about SETTING us UP for all this.. with their nafta and gatt bringing to america … THAT set this up for all of 90% of americans to be harmed…… and then hillary did it again with voting for this war for the robber barons again to hurt the 90% of americans…
the clintons work for the robber barons to make sure americans are in slavery!! and their voters are the types that would elect hitler even after knowing what hitler has done.. they are brainwashed so strongly by the corp evil.. that there is no hope here … destruction will be the ONLY way that solves this problem.. so best to get away and maybe come back AFTER the destruction..
Apparently the statute of liberty has run out.
If The Straits of Hormuz were blocked, tankers sunk, who would benefit with $300.00 a barrel oil?
Exxon. Halliburton. And Cheney/Israel. The US response to an Iranian Sinking of a tanker would be to invade and declare all Iranian land inward/east for fifty miles a New US Security Zone.
The Tanker Gets “Attacked” in August by Iran (Mossad/Cia).
And with $10.00 a gallon gas blamed on Iran, Joe America will WANT To BURN ALIVE Seventy Million People.
Because Joe Rascist American’s “Standard of Living is not negotiable”
But your life is.
Robert: Yes, but…
If Iran has nuclear weapons ambitions that it’s people fully support, and if leaders know that and also know that, barring American insanity, Iran will eventually have nuclear weapons, then How is it productive to pretend with those leaders that reality is not reality.
I don’t like nuclear anything.
In the meantime, and as far as I can tell, it’s hypocritical for others to tell Iran that it can’t have it’s nationalistic nuclear weapons program when so many others, all around them, can have it. We (understand me here) don’t brand Israel a renegade and worthy of a miltary pre-emptive attack just for having nuclear weapons. As for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his expressed desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, Is that Iran’s official policy stance? Or is there any doubt about the actual statement by Ahmadinejad and it’s meaning?, such as suggested by one writer whose article on the subject can be found at Global Research’s website? And if Ahmadinejad meant what most say he meant, Is it enough justification for that other lunatic, George W. Bush, to attack Iran?
You clearly don’t think that Clinton has any business carelessly threatening Iran with destruction in the middle of her campaign to become president of the U.S.A.. And your stated reasons, I think, are good. And I’m sure you don’t agree with the kind of pre-emptive attack she refers to, period. Still…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527
She’s a MAN baby, yeah!
And for your nightly desert:
http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html
The Final Solution?
“The United Nations says that it is being forced to suspend its humanitarian work in Gaza because of the Israeli fuel blockade.
A UN official says food aid to 650,000 refugees and the collection of sewage will have to stop on Thursday if Israel does not allow in more vehicle fuel.
The UN Security Council met to discuss the crisis, but Western representatives walked out over comments from Libya.
They objected to the Libyan delegate likening Gaza to a Nazi death camp.”
Is Libya besmerching the good name of the Nazis? Working people to death or starving a whole people to death, one by one, first the sick and elderly then the children and then the women and finally the strongest men still firing their rage at their ZioNazi tormenters. The eternal assassinations and bombing of civilians just for sport. The Zionist know better, the Nazis didn’t. Go figure.
Hillary represents the status quo in a pant suit. Might as well just let bush stay in office as elect Hillary
She is lock step with the WH. Also the Israeli run media has been slamming her a bit so she has got back into line.
I wonder when Americans and going to take back America?
Anyone who takes glee in asserting wiping out hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children via nuclear weapons is insane. And anyone who votes for her is culpable of same praxis and Bush and Cheney. I can think of no better reason to abandon the Democratic Party and Clinton without looking back. If Clinton gets the nomination via the super delegates you people are getting more of the same and directly from her own mouth.
Grant,
Deterrence (or “mutual assured destruction”) refers to deterring a NUCLEAR attack. Every country (including the U.S.) is “deterred” from using nuclear weapons, because they understand they would suffer a nuclear retaliation which would destroy their own country. It’s like owning a gun that you can’t fire without killing yourself.
This is what has kept the U.S., Russia and other nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons for the past sixty years.
The fear is that nuclear weapons will be acquired by some country or group that is so maniacal as to be suicidal. In that case deterrence would not work. Iran is dominated by religious fundamentalist extremists, and other countries in the region fear they might be capable of an irrational and suicidal act.
Hence, Hillary’s restatement of U.S. deterrence policy. It’s not her policy, it’s longstanding U.S. policy. It’s the policy of every U.S. president for the past sixty years.
Unfortunately, some media jackals (like the one at the top of this thread) are deliberately misreporting her statement and trying to mislead voters.
You should also understand Hillary’s statement in the context of the presidential campaign. U.S corporate media want a Republican president, and Hillary is very aware of that. When they ask her what she would do in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack, it’s a trap. Any “soft” answer she might give (such as “Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons and the threat is minimal”) would be thrown back in her face during the general election as “evidence” that only John McCain understands the dire consequences of nuclear war and that’s why he should be president. Hillary didn’t fall for their trick. She gave the “worst case scenario” answer which can’t be attacked by the Republican corporate media.
For anyone interested in the TURTH about Hillary and her fundamentalists leaning, read the following.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/20/7798/
Of course, you can follow the lead of the blowhard above instead and find ourselves mired in war for the rest of our lifetimes.
I think it’s sad that some Hillary supporters are actually trying to defend their candidate’s comment. Scheer is right. Hillary is talking about an act of state terrorism that cannot be defended. One lame commenter tried to suggest that her comments are part of a long-standing tradition of deterrence. The point is that words matter. The word “obliterate” is dangerous, warmongerish and utterly indefensible in the context of any discussion about Iran. There is an established cliche one can fall back on. One can say, “all options will remain on the table” and sound the dogwhistle loud and clear to all AIPAC supporting warmongers that you are willing to commit genocide in the name of Israel.
If this were one troubling comment, one “gaffe” taken out of context that would be one thing but this is something that has been a constant throughout Hillary’s career: her overcompensating desire to present herself as a tough-talking macho hawk. It was why she voted to authorize the war in Iraq and it is exactly why she cannot be trusted as President of the US.
If McCain or Obama had made this comment I do not doubt that these Hillary-at-all-costers would have denounced it but their entire politics are devoted to feeling the hate of the Clinton campaign where any and every perceived attack against their exalted leader is seen in the context of misogyny.
This is not to say–to those of you binary minded Clintonistas–that I am in any way endorsing Obama. As commenters have pointed out upstream, all the major candidates are on exactly the same page as Clinton when it comes to unwavering support for Israel and all seem to be towing the consensus view towards inevitable war with Iran.
This is why I am seriously thinking about voting for Cynthia McKinney.
Bob K
Hillary could have given a perfectly “firm” and “tough” response to the question without using the word “obliterate” and you know it.
War and genocide are US government policy. They have been for at least 60 years.
This policy will continue until the American Empire collapses. It will, in the next 20 years or sooner.
I must be “out of the loop” but when did we sign a mutual defence pact with Israel?
It’s out of weakness, not strength, that Hillary threatens to obliterate Iran. She would kill seventy-one million small brown people because their leader shits on Israel. BIG DEAL. If she had balls she would threaten Russia. Just watch when she has to face off against John McCain in the coming debates. McCain will threaten to obliterate goddamn China - 1.3 BILLION dead Chinese.
Obliterate means Kill Them All. Yet at a time when the whole world hates us, Hillary promises to kill a piddling seventy-one million. For a commander in control of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, this is weakness of a traitorous proportion.
Consider, people, that the number of people that Hillary has murdered can be counted on the fingers of a single hand. Mass murder takes a man - and I would rely on a white man, not a woman or a half-breed Obama, to fight like a man. A president of color might hesitate at 3:00 AM when the phone rings and it’s time to kill billions of brown people. McCain has been tortured, he has killed thousands of communists in Vietnam from his airplane. McCain knows the meaning of obliterate, and he is not afraid of goddamn China.
People, Hillary, try as she might, just doesn’t have what it takes - a dick. And balls. Democrats are going to lose WH again. They will be facing a proven killer in the coming election, a man who has been tortured and who wants to dish out some pay-back.
Having shit on Iraq, it is time now to wipe our ass on goddamn China - and it’s going to take a proven warrior to get the job done. I believe that John McCain will be our next president and our greatest president ever.
The Clintons will say or do anything to win elections. They are the purest example I can think of of Nietsche’s will-to-power character structure. Who knows what Hillary will do if elected? Probably much of the same as Bill did, although a lot has changed in the last eight years, because of the rottenest administration ever. Her avid use of incendiary rhetoric makes me hesitant to believe that she will steer the ship of state away from hazardous seas. I am hoping that Obama is more prudent, and can beat the right-wing’s gaming of the electoral system.
Sorry DD: This off the cuff statement makes it pretty clear. It’s in these moments of unprepared comments that a candidate shows his/her true colors. Hillary is, has been and will always be a true believer in war - a racist, and ruling class wannabe.
Obama, based on his more nuanced comments about Iran, would most likely do the same thing.
Taking human life in so cavalier a manner is not a Republican ideal - it is also a Democrat ideal.
Your party DD, SUCKS!
To vote for any of the mainstream candidates is simply providing more food to end up as shit on the heads of anyone who is not a member of the wealthy syndicate of “ruling class” thugs.
I’ll quote once again a sage comment by whatfools yesterday, “If this government will not be brought to its senses, it must be brought to its knees.
Vote Cynthia McKinney and let the chips fall where they may. If she is able to command 5% of the vote,it will earn the Green Party public funding and ballot status and begin to build a “second party” to rival the “single” party system. Supporting either of the major party candidates in this election is just throwing away your vote on more of the same.
As the immortal Jesse Ventura would say, “Think it ain’t”
Would you prefer she had said, “bomb them into the stone age”, or “utterly destroy them”, or “wipe them out”, or “nuke em” ~TROLLWITHTHEPUNCHES~?
The point is, these articles concerning what she actually said are misleading and many don’t wish to know the truth or the facts and just spout off in agreement with a lie.
Clinton/Lieberman ‘08 (a third party?)
Unknown_Unknowable: There once was a word for the things you said. It is ZOG, Zionist Occupied Government. It was used in the 60s in a derogatory sense, always associated with weirdos and kooks, right wing gun nuts etc. Now one doesn’t hear it. Is this an Orwellian silence?
Bob K. wrote: The fear is that nuclear weapons will be acquired by some country or group that is so maniacal as to be suicidal. In that case deterrence would not work. Iran is dominated by religious fundamentalist extremists, and other countries in the region fear they might be capable of an irrational and suicidal act.
Thank you for reporting exactly what the right-wing media have told you to think.
Are you friggin’ nuts?
The US is a theocracy. It is helmed by religious fundamentalist extremists who believe in, and strive for Rapture. It has a national policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike. Now our leaders are openly discussing widespread genocide as some kind of “final solution”. The US is the problem, not Iran.
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
Don the engineer - you are responsible for letting your government attack Iraq, and thus responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of people.
Iran has never threatened or attacked any country in recent history (and don’t misquote the Ahmadinejad speech, because he just wants to see the end of Zionism, like many of us).
Why do we never see news about Israel’s illegal nuclear arsenal, or the fact that they are able to defy UN resolutions?
Why does the US hate Iran so much?
Why does the US hate Cuba so much?
Why does the US hate Venezuela so much?
Why are US citizens so ready to vote for Hilary Clinton because:
She is a woman?
Her husband was president?
She is tough?
I personally think that she looks demented in some interviews, and that she will stop at nothing to gain the popular vote.
I am certain that most of those commenting didnt hear the question or the response from Senator Clinton. So most of you do not understand that Robert Scheer is distorting the statement, taking it way out of context and doing so intentionally to spark exactly the knee jerk and dumb reactions he got.
Some day you might consider making it harder to be led by the nose.
whatfools April 24th, 2008 2:29 am
Isn’t the Egyptian side open?
As for some of you others, do you think you might be able to make a point without using foul language please.
An excerpt from the followi