Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Battle of the Hawks
In the increasingly unlikely event of a McCain-Clinton election, folks who care about the peace issue would have serious reason to worry. Both of these candidates are inveterate hawks, and what we would be up against is a choice between the neoconservatives and the neoliberals as to who could be more adventurous in getting us into unjustifiable foreign wars.
Both not only voted to authorize President Bush's irrational invasion of Iraq but also have failed to apply those lessons to the real challenges we face, particularly concerning Iran. On the one hand, we have Sen. John McCain's wildly inane "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" singing refrain, and on the other, Sen. Hillary Clinton's commitment to "totally obliterate" Iran in response to any nuclear attack by Tehran on Israel.
Clinton has stood by her implicitly genocidal threat against the 70 million innocent Iranians, who have no effective control over their government's policy, a threat made in response to a question raised in the heat of primary day in Pennsylvania. She later extended the threat to include retaliation on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab countries if they were attacked by Iran.
Her statement extending the U.S. "nuclear umbrella" far beyond the threat to retaliate against a Soviet nuclear attack during the Cold War was greeted with a yawn by the media, which interpreted it as an election-day ploy to appear tough and pro-Israel. The Washington Post referred to "Clinton's apparent effort to distinguish herself from her rival for the Democratic nomination ... by offering a more hawkish approach to world affairs." That rival, Barack Obama, has called for negotiations with Iran's leaders and condemned Clinton's proposal as saber rattling.
But the Washington Post story provided evidence that Hillary's hawkishness is not merely a campaign posture, as evidenced by her two key foreign policy advisers, who the Post reports helped come up with the "obliterate Iran" idea. One of them is Martin S. Indyk, the former Clinton administration ambassador to Israel, who was as strong as any of the neoconservatives in advocating the invasion of Iraq. In an article he co-wrote with Kenneth M. Pollack for the Los Angeles Times three months before the Iraq invasion, which cited their insider status as former government officials who "had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq," the two claimed that Iraq had "thousands of tons of precursor chemicals for chemical warfare agents, thousands of liters of biological warfare agents. ..." That "insider" information was false.
The Clinton campaign's national security director, Lee Feinstein, is another leading Democratic hawk and Clinton administration alum who promoted the threat to obliterate Iran. Feinstein, like Indyk, had strongly disparaged the work of the U.N. inspectors before the invasion. And even a month after the U.S. occupation began, as U.S. troops scoured all of the suggested weapons locations, Feinstein argued, "I believe they will find weapons of mass destruction."
The dark irony here is that the unjustifiable invasion of Iraq has elevated Iran to a position of enormous power over events in the region, beginning with its influence over the puppet government in Iraq's Green Zone, many of whose key members, including the prime minister, spent many years in exile in Tehran, where they were trained. The ability of Iran to make life miserable for the American occupation is the main counterweight to a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program, and that is the direct consequence of a war for which Clinton and McCain both voted.
Clinton seems to be far more hawkish than her husband, and her increasingly bellicose remarks support that perception. If she is chosen as the Democratic Party's standard-bearer, she can be expected to tack further in that direction, once the primaries are over and the peace vote has been counted out.
I do not think this a matter of a female candidate having to prove that she is capable of being a macho commander in chief, although there is a whiff of Margaret Thatcher here, so proud of taking her nation to unneeded war. With Clinton, as with Thatcher, quite apart from gender, there seems to be a more basic philosophical commitment to using military force before other options have been seriously explored.
That the force cited by Clinton portends the "total obliteration" of another people raises the prospect of the United States, the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons, doing so again. It suggests that such weapons of mass destruction are not heinous inventions but rather instruments of rational policy when in the hands of the virtuous. That is a message that we dare not deliver to the world.
Robert Scheer's new book is "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America."
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C
77 Comments so far
Show AllI wonder how far away I can get from this crazed Nation IF HRC becomes President.
I wonder how far away I can get -when- John 'Bomb Bomb' McCain is appointed president.
Oh. That's right. I forgot.
No 'Star Trek' technology....
Hey, at least Maggie Thatcher's war with Argentina didn't violate international law; the Argentines started it by invading the Falklands Islands. And so far as I know she didn't add torture to it.
I think Scheer has it wrong on this issue. While remarks like Clinton's are a source of real embarassment internationally, I don't think there's any tooth to them.
Questions like these (I am convinced) are almost purely rhetorical occasions, opportunities for the candidates to do their best Dirty Harry impressions while also showing themselves to be measured and cool (an admittedly difficult balancing act).
They are, therefore, almost entirely worthless as windows into a candidate's likely policy approach should the proposed hypothetical come to pass.
I think HC's Iran comments (both the first remarks and recent ones) ought to be placed in a broader rhetorical landscape. The "we would be able to obliterate Iran" remark is, in my opinion, of a piece with her recent claim that she wasn't going to base her campaign on the advice of a bunch of economists (said in response to a question about the almost uniform disapproval among economists for her proposed gas tax holiday).
That is, both comments reveal her rhetorical efforts to speak the language of American populism, which appreciates a kind of "plain speaking" even when it is calculated for political gain as it is here. John McCain's "plain talk express" is just another manifestation of this.
None of these people is really speaking plainly or transparently, and so there is no reasons to take these words as anything other than calculated political rhetoric.
War against Iran will probably consist of some recreational bombing of suspected nuclear sites. Even Insane or Clinton must understand that "boots on the ground" in Iran is not feasible. Not to worry.
i agree with you "pundit' we don't have the man power to sustain a ground campaign in iran...THAT'S WHY THERE ARE 2 or 3 CARRIER GROUPS on the coast of iran......
Follow their advisors! Neocons and neolibs for McCain/Clinton, so called "realists" (Brzezinski, he of the school that goaded the USSR to invade Afghanistan!) for Obama.
All empir-ists.
Eric J-D -- I hope you're right but I think you're wrong. HRC is a horror. If she feels she needs to out-McCain McCain to get elected, she won't be able to pull back once elected. But I don't think her "rhetoric" is a ploy. She is hard as granite, and lives mean nothing to her, provided they aren't American lives. Even American lives mean nothing as long as the American people will sit still for a relatively few number of deaths. I'm sure those in Washington now point out that we've "only lost fewer than 5,000" American soldiers in Iraq, whereas we lost over 58,000 in VietNam. And as long as those lives weren't lost by a draft, no one is going to squawk loudly enough to make a difference. So Clinton can implicitly put American lives at risk in threatening Iran without worry. Besides which the whole Iranian thing is just plain silly. Sure, she shows how mean she is by threatening genocide, but Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, is years and years away from having a nuclear weapon, has never threatened Israel despite the fact that it despises the Israeli state like everyone else in the region. It is much more likely that Israel will make a nuclear attack on Iran. Will we obliterate Israel if it attacks Iran? Will anyone do anything if that happens?
But just because the Iran-attacking-Israel scenario is patently absurd, the hate that HRC expressed is real and alive. She would love to have an excuse to attack Iran. So would Bush. So would McCain. The fact that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in the neighborhood for hundreds of years, unlike Israel and the United States, is a cause for great frustration among those whose appetite for death is insatiable.
Anybody have any idea where this appetite for killing comes from? Ten gold stars for a plausible answer. God knows I've never been able to make any sense of it.
The MSM economic analysts never mention any relation between the >$120/barril oil price and the Bush-McCain-Clinton bomb-Iran threats and promises. If Iran is obliterated (perhaps preemptively for a "suspected" attack against some country) then oil will go way above $200. Those speculators who read the news (even the MSM) are obviously eagerly buying up oil futures to make a big financial killing from the collateral war killings.
ACC,
I'm not sure I can answer your last question, so I'll try instead to give my reasons why I find these hypotheticals and the responses they occasion totally worthless.
If you look around this site, you'll find plenty of folks (by and large HRC supporters) who insist that she never threatened to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. They'll tell you that she was delivering a conventional and expected response to a question she couldn't have answered (by and large) any other way unless she wanted to be tagged as soft on the use of military force.
These same folks will insist, however, that any response by McCain, or Obama, or whoever really reflects the speaker's true and undisguised views/policy approach/etc.
Of course, the big question is: where do people get these wonderful crystal balls that enable them to magically divine another candidate's real views and how can they be certain that their opponents' crystal balls are defective when employed against their candidate?
Given that in every case I've ever encountered, supporters of candidate A are infallible in their efforts to divine the inner psychological workings of candidate B, and just as regularly find candidate B's supporter's efforts to divine A's mind 100% in error, I'm suspicious of the whole business.
So I can't support your claim that "the hate that HRC expressed is real and alive" or that "She would love to have an excuse to attack Iran." She may or may not feel or desire those things, but her remarks about Iran don't give me any real window on them.
I'm far more inclined to view the whole thing as part of a larger strategy to keep military spending at or near its current levels. Fear of Iran's building a nuclear weapon is useful in order to ensure the unimpeded expansion of the military-industrial complex. It is frankly far more profitable to the United States to involve itself in selling weaponry (short of nuclear, of course) to countries like Iran or Iraq (or others in the region) than in "obliterating" them. The U.S. needs a world market for its machinery of death, after all.
Of course, you're right that I could be wrong about HRC, but her Iran statement (IMO) isn't going to help either of us answer that question.
"calculated political rhetoric."
Cut the bullshit and call it what it is , a lie . To paraphrase her statement of improbability " If Iran were to
foolishly attack Israel then we " would be able " iniliate Iran .
Let's put the probability in simple terms that you can understand . " If the moon were made of green cheese then we could have a whopper of a fondue-party.
What's with dancing around the word " would " . US military already " would be able " with or without provocation . How big a leap would there be there be from her "would be able " to McCain's "would" .
I sort of sympathize with a dim-witted populace who lost their best populist candidates on the cutting-room floor because what Americans do best is shop and watch or read MSM
You praise calculated political rhetoric . Adolf Hitler was much better at it than Hillary Clinton.
Even if Clinton loses to Obama, she might pull a Lieberman switch and become McCain's running mate, causing the Country to collectively gag. I wouldn't out this possibility out to pasture in these bizarre times.
Clinton going with McCain..
I could see this happening only if or when the US attacks Iran and then Clinton could say: boy things are dangerous now we need to join forces blah blah blah.
I think the question on Iran was just set up as another thing to unsettle the Iranians and maybe make the mullahs do something rash.
Ron,
I'm not exactly sure what our point is. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I was praising Clinton's "calculated political rhetoric" or "lie" as you prefer to put it.
Nope, I was merely pointing out that it is difficult to treat it as anything other than political posturing.
Look at the context and consider the audience. Clinton was asked this question on ABC's "Good Morning America," not exactly the most serious political venue out there. Who's the audience for a show like this? What kinds of things has this audience been habituated to hear?
Does "Good Morning America" typically favor discussions that are nuanced and technical, or statements that are boldly declarative?
This was a political softball served up to HRC by a network that already displayed considerable favor towards her in the Pennsylvania primary "debate." They floated one out there and she slammed it. Home run! Go, Hillary, go!!
Like I said, the point of these questions is to do your best Dirty Harry impression. McCain, Obama, Clinton: they all do it, but they're all far more interested (generally) in selling the massive arsenal of weapons (new or obsolete) that the military-industrial complex produces than in using them. They all prefer softer use of the great hegemon's force (economic, etc.) to actual employment of our own military technology against other nations since: 1)you reduce the customer base in doing so; and 2)you have to waste all that expensive machinery.
I am far from a Thatcher fan...... I disliked the lady intensely..... But I wonder what "unneeded war" the author was referring to that the "Iron Lady" was so proud of taking her country to. As I recollect the Falklands conflict was the only conflict of significance in that ear for the UK. That was hardly an unneeded war...... one hardly submits to foreign invasion of one's territories occupied by one's citizens..... No nation on earth can do that and expect to continue to exist.
The hawkishness of Clinton and McCain are in no way similar to Thatcher......... Thatcher did immense damage to her country on the home front, and the totally justified conflict in the Falklands redeemed her administration in the eyes of her people...... Though she was a miserable leader on the whole.
Our hawks in America are obsessed with "projecting power" and dominating sovereign nations throughout the world, enforcing our will upon them. When "defense" of America has no relation to the conflicts. Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan are all such conflicts.
We are faced today with the greatest crisis in the history of modern civilization. Our civilization has grown wildly on the basis of very cheap and abundant energy. We are now looking at ever rising energy costs......which by the way have little if any connection with oil prices which are about triple what they were in the crisis of 73/74, while gas prices are 10 times that amount...... Something is deeply wrong here and it has it's foundation in local greed, not international oil pricing. The finger of course gets pointed at the "greedy Arabs".... most of whom are not Arabs at all.... just people who speak Arabic. We will ultimately use our immense military might in an attempt to save our civilization.... our way of life by securing the oil supplies that remain, and it will be our downfall. We are between the proverbial rock and the proverbial hard place. No combination of alternative fuels is capable of taking the place of these fossil fuels that we burn at a rate of 20 million barrels per day. Biofuels are a huge liability.... a net negative, and an extremely bad and irresponsible way to go as some of us have been trying to point out for many years..... only to be accused of "negativity".... another word for being truthful. We cannot replace our needs with wind and solar..... though they will make significant contributions, and nuclear is a horrendously bad idea. The hydrogen fantasy is as far fetched as the biofuel fantasy...... At a 60% loss in electrolysis, huge transportation and storage problems, etc.... it can never step into the breach. Coal mining is very destructive, but as an energy source is probably has the most short term potential.
The truth of the matter is that the way of life we have grown to expect as our birthright is over with...... though it will take some years to disappear, and most of us will find what comes along to replace it very much NOT to our taste. We must institute as system of triage..... and prioritize the most important usages of fuel. We must also entirely restructure our economy so that we are again localized, and eliminate most shipping of goods. Trucks must largely disappear from the roads except for short haul, and we must modernize and radically scale up rail transportation. Jetliners must largely disappear from the skies.....with most freight and human transportation being by train and bus. People must become less mobile, living and working and having necessary services available within very short distances of home..... We must step back to an earlier and more sane lifestyle where goods and services are local, products made to last and to be repaired. And most importantly we must reduce population to reduce demand on our decreasing resources.
In th short term, wackos like Clinton and McCain will dominate....... The people want to blame others for our plight..... it's human nature, and demagoguery thrives in this environment. People will seek and find ways to justify in their minds the destruction of nations with the resources we want and need to fuel our economy. We probably WILL "obliterate Iran" and who know what other nations...... It is normal human nature to seek justification to commit crimes against those who stand in your way.......it is not a pretty picture... but in an amoral society based on greed and consumption this is the way things will ultimately go, and there is little you and I can do about it. There is no palatable solution to our difficulties... none at all! The result will be insanity and destruction. And if we come through it, someday some of us will hang our heads in shame and say "what have we wrought?"..... and "what could I have done? Would it have made any difference if I had spoken out?" The fear people felt who were "out of step" during the first 6 years of the Bush Regime was very real...... fear to speak out lest one be attacked as "unpatriotic" or some other nonsense. The same fear people who opposed other dictators, and needless conflicts felt. History repeats itself and our society is on the brink of an orgy of destruction. The pieces are all coming rapidly into place. Unemployed, hungry, and desperate people are on the increase, and are the natural fodder for the war machine.
Howard (painter of a not so pretty picture)
Although there is evidence that Hillary says things that aren't true, I wouldn't want to take the chance that her threat to Iran IS real.
It does seem as though we are already watching a Republican vs Democrat race. The rhetoric, the vote patterns, and other aspects make it seem as though Obama has to face first one Republican, and then another.
Clinton thinks she will get it right at three in the morning, when she got it horribly wrong at three in the afternoon on Iraq. She of course doesn't see it that way. She is a war candidate. She will wage war against all of us - remember how the Clintons put a war criminal Barry McCaffrey of "highway of death" fame, in charge of waging war against the American people and our liberties?
Write your super-delegates and urge them to publicly announce support of the Democrat in the race, before the Democrat impostor ruins our party and our chances in November.
Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com sums it best today:
"What is clear, by now, is that the War Party is openly rooting for Hillary: see the Weekly Standard for the neocons' paean to Hillary the war goddess..."
Read the rest, cause he almost nails it. The one thing he forgot was that the NeoCrazys also want CorpCandidate HRC for the easy target practice...
Here's the test for all office-runners: either they agree that WAR is the ultimate last resort, or they need to go live in a country where it's WAR first, diplomacy maybe at some point in the future.
Enough already. And the worst is yet to come. A year and one half of this tripe is enough to disgust the most hardy. Vote tomorrow before Bush can start the planned war in Iran.
We don't have a mutual defense pact with Israel. So any attack on Iran would require Congressional action.
Hillary is thumbing her nose at the Constitution before she is even ahead in the race for the nomination.
Bill better get out and give some big speeches at the rate the Hillary campaign is burning up their assets.
Hillary is the clearest proof of the claim that there is very, very little significant difference between the two parties. It is claimed that, at least, Clinton would not appoint Supreme Court justices of the ilk of Scolia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. Frankly, I don't trust her that far. When her husband was looking for candidates, I remember very well dreading who he would nominate and breathing a deep sigh of relief everytime he did not appoint someone from the very far, insane right wing. If Hillary is anything, she represents the corporate, racist, warhawk, racist, bloodthirsty, racist, heavy handed on crime, racist, greedy, racist, racist, racist, racist, far right of the party, just this side of the likes of Zeke Miller (I hope).
frank1569,
I think the corporate elites are quite conflicted and not monolithic with regard to opinion on the presidential race, and that many of them have decided to switch to Obama after Hillary's reckless statements, and McCain's repeated demonstrations of incompetence, of the past few weeks. There has been virtually universal international condemnation of Hillary's Iran remarks, and the international community is favoring Obama to a greater and greater degree. The empire is crumbling and the natives are restless, and so many US elites want a reassuring and calming figurehead like Obama to gain back some trust and respect. It is quite difficult to manage an empire when all the natives are in revolt.
I am not sure this is true, but it occurred to me as I read that Russert and other corporate media pundits were declaring the race over after Obama's convincing win in NC, especially after Russert seemed to be quite soft on Obama on Sunday on MTP. The corporate media certainly could have chosen a different narrative, and so I took it as evidence of some change in attitude by some of the most powerful corporate elites. However, I could be proved dead wrong if the corporate media resumes its attacks on Obama to provide McCain with an easy road to victory.
The same media that reacted "with a yawn" to Clinton's inflamed rhetoric waxed hysterical over a deliberately mistranslated statement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad. All he said (correctly translated by many Farsi scholars) was: "The imam [Ayatollzah Khomeini] said that the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Quoted sppech, without an active verb. Compare that with Ilse Koch's threat to "obliterate" Iran.
STONETOOL
i love your rhetoric.............i'm just at a loss as to how these changes are going to be implemented in time to save us all. (not a pretty picture indeed.........but then sometimes the truth hurts.)
pundit Said: War against Iran will probably consist of some recreational bombing of suspected nuclear sites. Even Insane or Clinton must understand that "boots on the ground" in Iran is not feasible. Not to worry.
ANY attack on Iran by the United States is not feasible and will cause global events to spiral out of control, worse than they already are.
Stonetool: Very good! Excellent commentary!
Coco: The gods can only be tempted for so long before they are angered.
She said it, she meant it. Those of you trying to spin this need to give it up. She supported the illegal Iraq invasion. She was the only Democratic candidate to vote for Kyl-Lieberman. She is a warmonger.
You need to realize we are not all stupid.
I will never ever undestand the bizzare demonization of Hillary Clinton; it must be because she is a woman. You are all insane.
You are insane if you don't realize that Obama is a hawk, too - his "realistic" foreign policy positions are based on his admiration for and desire to emulate Ronald Reagan and George Bush I. 'Nuff Said!
Democrats have made a huge mistake - now they will pay for it, but so will the rest of us!
While I admit that Obama is hardly Kucinich (who I supported), a quick look at Obama's advisors and a comparison to Clinton's will negate the previous comment.
The author says..."With Clinton, as with Thatcher, quite apart from gender, there seems to be a more basic philosophical commitment to using military force before other options have been seriously explored."
Military force is the only option because unreasonable demands by corporate America will do nothing to promote their bottom line. There is no desire for some of corporate America and their lackies in Washington to establish a diplomatic resolution but rather it is their desire to promote an atmosphere of looming conflict. This is accomplished by saying that it is America's enemies that refuse to bargain in good faith so therefore what's the point of going through the motions?
Just ask any Iranian official in Washington They do have an embassy there afterall!)when was the last time any Iranian diplomat was invited to the White House or to meet with ANY elected official to exchange ideas, complaints or solutions and they will tell you that a posting in D.C. is like a posting on the moon.
The same pattern was used with Iraq prior to the occupation. Saddam would have loved to negotiate if he were given an opportunity to do so. Instead he was officially and unofficially ignored at all costs in fear of the American public catching wind of a reasonable proposal. For example, if Hussein had come to America and addressed Congress that he would willingly and immediately step down,leave Iraq and hand over complete control to a UN agency (...but without U.S. troops or civilians), the Neo-Cons would have gone ballistic. A golden opportunity for a handful of powerful corporations to rape the public treasury would have evaporated and Bush would have failed miserably in in promise to further enrich America's aristocracy.
Rich Griffin,
We don't demonize Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, but because of her policy of supporting Georg.W. Bush and the Republican agenda, a fanatical allegiance to Israel, and her support of un-Constitutional legislation starting with the anti-democratic 'Patriot Act' and moving along as a Bush/Cheney/McCain enabler. Nothing at all to do with her gender. Or Obama because he is black. Nope. Not at all. As long as she is running in November, my ballot will be for a "black, female" candidate for president of the United States, Cynthia McKinney.
Are Democrats really making mistakes, as you say, or is this part of their strategy?
I will also be voting for a woman in this presidential election (Cynthia McKinney).
http://www.runcynthiarun.org/
http://www.gp.org/
Thank you Common Dreams for the publishing this article, and Robert Scheer for bring Lee Feinstein to my attention, and that Martin Indyke are her key foreign policy advisors.
I have been checking up on Lee Feinstein for the past hour, and it is horrible, is a CFR imperialist who conspired with Albright on Yugoslavia when she was Secretary of State. Scheer makes clear the dangerousness of these two super-hawks.
Interesting for readers is a variation I noticed in the above article in the San Francisco Chronicle with the same dateline in a topical paragraph.:'… folks who care about the peace issue had better be deeply worried…
TruthDig's variation on a theme, a dilution or moderation for the same.: '…folks who care about the peace issue would have serious reason to worry…'
'had better be deeply worried' - became merely – 'would have serious reason to worry'
I wonder what Mr. Sheer thinks about that? Robert, are you reading this, would you enlighten us, please?!
The title also morph, but I understand that is the within the news editors job discretion or prerogative. But again, for the readers edification I will cite the distinction:
SF Chronicle: 'Who is the biggest hawk?'
TruthDig: Battle of the Hawks'
The Chronicle is contrasting and asking the reader to analyze and make a conclusion. TruthDig equates them and does not challenge you to think or decide anything.
I value these boards for the input I am not getting as quickly upon reading a news report from anywhere or anyone else as quickly or consistently. And that is wonderful, please suffer me the best you can.
Thank you, Rich Griffin.
Eric J-D eloquently stated: Questions like these (I am convinced) are almost purely rhetorical occasions, opportunities for the candidates to do their best Dirty Harry impressions
As others have noted, I hope you are right, sir.
However, HRC on several occasions has responded with bellicose remarks about the "3am phone call". This to me sends a very powerful message that such remarks are not rhetorical opportunities, but represent a long-standing conviction.
I believe that if we recall the past 9 presidents, we will not find as many aggressive comments as those of HRC. And her comments are directed at a country that is neither a nuclear power, has a barely adequate navy for coastal defense, and no way of projecting power more than a thousand kms or so.
Actually, listening to HRC's almost shrill statements is more akin to Khrushchev banging his shoe at the UN.
Barrack Obamma - Lesser evil.
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Evil.
John 'Bomb Bomb' McCain - Greater Evil.
Yup. There's a slate of candidates I could get behind...
opeluboy,
I ask again (not as a Clinton supporter or an Obama supporter but as someone who wants to see McCain/the Republicans defeated):
Where do you get your crystal ball that informs you that "she said it; she meant it."
You imagine (erroneously) that I am interested in spinning HRC's statement (presumably because I am an HRC supporter--wrong again).
That's not the case. I am saying that none of these statements, made on shows like ABC's "Good Morning America" gives any real indication of what a candidate would do or desires to do if the stars aligned and the hypothetical event came to pass.
If you think that they do, then you're in the following quandry. How do you differentiate between the people who make these statements and don't mean them (i.e. are merely engaging in poltical gamesmanship) and those who do?
Because as far as I can see, the criteria for differentiation thus far have been this: "my guy says these things because (s)he has to in order not to appear weak/soft/effete/etc., but that guy says them and means them."
This is (to put it kindly) no criteria at all. It's asshattery.
I submit that these statements are rather calculated political rhetoric of the most transparent kind. They are about as meaningful as HRC's recent comment about not basing her campaign positions on the opinions of economists.
According to your thinking, HRC just outed herself as some sort of anti-intellectual, supporter of the booboisie: "Book larnin's for sissies!"
That's just silly. This is political rhetoric again, calculated to increase the perception of Obama as some effete, Washington snob who sucks up whatever Robert Reich says and of Hillary as "just plain folks," responsive to the common man.
Let me be clear: while this sort of rhetoric is pathetic and sometimes even appalling, it isn't revealing at all. I have no greater sense of what HRC's real intentions are toward Iran than of her real opinion of economists.
RichM my sentiments exactly. My latest theory is, is when the Clintons "triangulated" in the early 90s they vacuumed the Repulican evil into their souls. Or more prosaically they are funded by the exact same arms and oil companies as the the Repigagains.
Poor Demoks. They're failing so far to accomplish what's needed to win the progressive vote away from third parties. When the Repuks get elected because the Demoks failed to unite the left, the Demoks will have nobody to blame but themselves.
hootowl ... right idea, wrong date.
Back in Arkansas, Billy Clinton was elected as the nation's youngest governor. During their first term, the Clintons actually did try to do some progressive things. As such, they pissed off the Ark good ol boy power structure and corporate interests. So, when that 2 year term was over, they lost their bid for re-election.
They came back two years later as complete sell outs to the good ol boy power structure and corporations like Tyson chicken. Ever since they've run this con of pretending to be liberal while really being just the errand kids of anyone with the money to finance their continual campaigns.
They chose back then between power\money and morals. Since they chose power and money, they've been locked in on this course. Once they abandoned any morals, they were committed to this course.
Eric J-D
I figure Clinton meant what she said as she has repeated it and given the opportunity to clarify or retract her statement, enhanced it.
I also base this belief on the fact that she supported the 2 wars we are presently in and voted, by inking the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, to give a proven war criminal — George Bush — the green light to attack a third. Her actions solidify her words.
Further, it is clear that this threat was intended to draw support from the AIPAC wing of the Democratic party, a group that has supported these wars and seeks the destruction of Iran to insure Israeli hegemony. So many Arabs/Muslims to slaughter, so little time.
That we are now engaged in 2 disastrous occupations begun on this premise, her threats of obliterating an entire population should not be taken as idle yakking.
And I could ask you how you could possibly know she doesn't mean it.
Anytime, repeat, ANY TIME, you are listening to a politician and you don't feel they believe what you are saying, that should immediately lead to the conclusion that you will NEVER vote for them.
I'm so sick of this crap from the Democrats that continually now says that we aren't supposed to listen to what they say. Instead we are just supposed to make up some idealist candidate in our fantasies and just assume that this is what the Democrats really are. Both Obama and Hillary are now spinning this same complete bull.
The Democrats are desperate. They fully committed to a course back in the late 80's where they were completely abandoning what their supporters believed in. They exchanged this for becoming complete servants of the money they craved. The catch is that in every election they must now try to find a way to con the voters into thinking they actually support them instead of supporting their big contributors. If you watch their ACTIONS (like $200 billion going for more war), its very plain who they represent. So, they have to spin a lot of lies and bs and try to con people into thinking they are really something different.
That this has now sunk to such a low that the Democrats now try to con us into pretending their candidates are some imaginary fantasy candidate is just simply amazing.
opeluboy,
I never said she that I "know she doesn't mean it." I said that the statement itself gives no indication either way as to what she would actually do or what she desires to do regarding Iran.
Here's why. Politicians habitually say all kinds of things that they will never do (remember George H. W. Bush and his pledge not to raise taxes?) and then turn around and do them. This raises the distinct possibility that they also say thing that they will do, that they in fact won't.
But then again, they may.
I have no doubt that you believe deeply that HRC desires to obliterate Iran and will find whatever way she can to achieve these nefarious ends, but basing this belief on a politician's utterance on "Good Morning America" is, I would argue, a bit foolish. Unless of course you also believe that she doesn't have any use at all for economists either, in which case she has probably nuked her own presidential ambitions.
Finally, I think you've seriously misjudged the diabolic nature of the American capitalist system. That system desires not the insane genocide of Iranians but their regular reproduction/representation as both enemies and consumers. The U.S. capitalist system (with which U.S. militarism is in complex collusion) needs an Iranian enemy (or some other clse facsimile) in order to justify its expansion of the military and maintenance (or even expansion) of its present defense budget expenditures. It also needs Iranians (and other labeled enemies) to occasionally serve as consumers of its obsolete military technology.
Your mistake (IMO) is to imagine U.S. hegemony as entirely bent on destruction, hence your belief that AIPAC and HRC desire "the destruction of Iran to ensure Israeli hegemony." I'd argue that the evil of the present system is both more insidious and in many ways far more flexible than your paradigm would allow.
And what makes you think Obama is not a hawk. He has the same policy proposals as Clinton!
Just because he doesn't use the same language...actually read, would ya?
There is no change with Barack Obama.
Sanctions on Cuba; support for Colombia; tough talk on Ecuador and Venezuela; Israel can do whatever it wants to the Palestinians; all options are on the the table; none of the 700 plus world wide bases to be cut; increases in military spending (not needed); increases in troop levels (again, not needed); and on and on!
Clinton=Obama on all policies in the foreign arena. They both took their advisors from the Clinton Administration. So, what's the difference?
And Obama has that fool Brzezinski advising him. You know, the clown who got us involved in Afghanistan in 1979? Before the Soviets invaded by the way. And we're still there!
On that basis alone Obama is a pathetic judge of who should be advising him.
formernadervoter,
Who is your question directed at?
Indyk Feinstein Pollack
Gee; Three MORE AmericanJews (Israeli's) pushing for American War in the ME (Dead Americans & Arabs)
One MSM, Two Govt...Pulling HC's strings.
This picture is getting ever clearer, omnipresent.
Thanks Robert Scheer.
Eric J-D: Can you really afford to be so naive? (Maybe you are just young and haven't seen firsthand yet how it works?) A large group within the ruling class establishment has made clear their desire and intension to bomb and/or invade Iran. Clinton's remarks send a clear message that she's on board.
Why is Limbaugh throwing his (considerable) weight behind her? They don't like her, just as they didn't like her husband - even though he too carried out their agenda, and at the very worst was a holding pattern till they got their own maniac in power. CLinton would be a bonanza for them: she'll carry out their agenda, yet they get to attack her from the right, and hope to get their next lunatic into office.
Eric J-D wrote, "Politicians habitually say all kinds of things that they will never do (remember George H. W. Bush and his pledge not to raise taxes?) and then turn around and do them."
Politicians speak with forked tongues. There are the messages directed towards the voters, and there are the messages directed at the big money power players. You say there are no indications about which way Clinton would really go concerning Iran. No? How about her record concerning Iraq?
What did her husband do concerning Iraq? If you remember, there was a huge movement to lift the sanctions against Iraq, and to normalize relations. British MPs were breaking the law and flying into Iraq to show their support for ending the genocidal sanctions. Jimmy Carter broke the law and flew to Iraq, as did some other congressmen. Nelson Mandela did the same.
What did Clinton do? He bombed Baghdad. An international outcry and protests around the world halted for a moment his intentions to invade. Only after 9/11, with Bush in power, did the ruling establishment get what it hoped for: "a Pearl Harbor-like event" in which to push forward with their plans, and invade.
Iran has always been a part of the plan. There's been remarkable consistency regarding the USA and its relations to Iraq and Iran - whether the Prez was a Repub or democRAT; whether Congress was one party or the other.
Eric J-D: I can tell you what crystal ball I'm using: it's the same one that told me in 1999 that the US was not going to lift the sanctions against Iraq, but were rather committed to invading Iraq. (I told an Iraqi friend the same; he didn't believe me, he really thought the sanctions would end soon. I hope he and his family are still alive; but I've not heard from them in years.)
It's the same one that told me that Bush was going to invade Iraq - that all the talk about "negotiations" were a farce. It's the same one that told me that there were no WMDs in Iraq - and I said as much, a year before the US launched its invasion; I posted it loudly and often in the Net, - to much ridicule and derision, I might add (and not just from rightists).
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Colter will certainly be turning up the heat for the next primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky for "their" candidate! Arghh.
Remember what Mr Putin said a short while back, an attack on IRAN is an attack on Russia. Now I don't feel it would get nuts but who is the say Russia may feel threatened even more and take action else where. King George wants the cold war to start all over for his rich friends and the 25% of the congress and House that make money off war. I have seen postings saying it will not matter who is in there and every day I fear they are right.
I guess it doesn't matter the steps in the last few weeks IRAN has taken toward an agreement. www.globalresearch.ca is where you will find that story.