Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHillary's 'Dr. Strangelove' Shtick
During an April 22 interview with ABC's Chris Cuomo, Hillary Clinton vowed to attack Iran and "totally obliterate" the majority of the Persian race in a furnace of primordial fire should the Iranian government attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which they do not now possess.
Missing in Clinton's campaign trail pandering to America's pro-Israel lobbies and the mushrooming evangelical Christian Zionist movement is the "inconvenient truth" that Israel has the most modern and most deadly military in the Middle East thanks to an annual $3.5 billion in American aid -- one third of the U.S. aid budget.
Israel is a major nuclear power in the region, with up to 200 nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them. Israel can and will "pre-emptively defend" itself against Iran, the country that a February International Atomic Energy Agency report concluded has not diverted nuclear material to non-peaceful purposes.
So the real truth behind Hillary Clinton's "Dr. Strangelove" shtick or John McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" off-key hyperbole is a cynical exploitation of the unholy marriage of convenience between fanatical Jewish Zionists and fanatical Christian Zionists. The former want a Muslim-free Israel in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecy and bring about the first coming of their Messiah, and the latter want the entire Mideast in flames to fulfill New Testament prophecy and bring about the Second Coming of their Messiah.
Jewish Zionists need the money and the political clout of the Christian Zionists. Christian Zionists need the Semitism and the chutzpah of the Jewish Zionists. Politicians need the votes and campaign contributions that both groups can deliver, which in religion-drenched America is a hefty consignment.
Depending on which poll is the most accurate, there are between 105 million and 135 million evangelical and born-again Christians in the U.S. Of these, a 2004 International Fellowship of Christians and Jews poll found that 31 percent identified U.S. support for Israel as their "primary consideration" in selecting a presidential candidate, while 64 percent cited it as an "important factor."
Predictably then, when Hillary Clinton and John McCain threaten to obliterate Iran with nuclear weapons, their primary audience is not the Muslim "evildoers" but is, instead, the pro-Israel lobby and the Christian Zionist muscle in America, which are willing to see the "ultimate evil" committed to further their ideological agendas.
Nowhere does the "ultimate evil" play a more prominent role than in the machinations of two well-connected Christian Zionists, Tim LaHaye and John Hagee.
Tim LaHaye is best known as the co-author of the blockbuster Left Behind series, which is based on apocalyptic prophecy in the Book of Revelation. He is least known as the founder and first president of the secretive Council for National Policy. Formed in 1981, the CNP was described by the New York Times as consisting of "a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country" who meet "behind closed doors at undisclosed locations to strategize about how to turn the country to the right."
Though the membership of the CNP is a guarded secret, a list of those known to have been associated with it reads like a who's who of Christian Zionists and neocon ideologues whose passion is to see the Mideast in flames and in chains.
John Hagee, televangelist and pastor of the 19,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, is the founder of Christians United for Israel. Hagee formed CUFI in 2005 following the publication of his book, "The Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World," which sports a mushroom cloud on its cover and argues for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West.
Christians United for Israel is the evangelical equivalent of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby courted by every American politician who has national aspirations. John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have each pledged their fealty to AIPAC.
When Christian Zionists with the stature of LaHaye and Hagee shill for Jewish Zionists who are promoting the ethnic cleansing of Israel or the pre-emptive "defensive" nuking of Iran, politicians with the stature of Hillary Clinton and John McCain, along with a hefty consignment of the electorate, are their willing dupes. It's just the politics of religion as usual in America.
But Jewish Zionists should never forget that Christian Zionists have no intention of being around when the sands of the Mideast are turned to glass in a furnace of primordial fire. They will have been Raptured and out of harm's way in Paradise. Their Bible tells them so.
Robert Weitzel of Middleton writes frequently for newspapers, magazines and Web sites. He is a contributing editor to Media with a Conscience.
© 2008 Capital Newspapers
17 Comments so far
Show AllRich Griffin [May 16th, 2008 10:15 pm] wrote:
"It's not that I'm a Clinton supporter. I did not vote for her. ... But I'm registered Green-Rainbow. If you want to know why I defend Clinton so much, read Katha Pollitt's excellent chapter in "30 Ways To Think About Hillary". It's the level of the misogynistic attacks on her that gets to me; and the fact that Obama supporters never talk substance."
Rich Griffin, it's hard to believe that you are Green since you always defend Hillary in these threads at CD, and I have yet to hear you criticize her. Katha Pollitt and her friend Pam Martens endorsed Hillary long ago -- I suggest you take what they write with a grain of salt. It's true that there have been some Hillary-haters who have attacked her with mysognistic insults, but I wasn't among them, and neither were Kathyodat (Be For Kids) and others. I don't have any visceral hatred for Sen. Clinton -- I don't know her personally -- but I don't think she would be a good president and I work against that happening.
Finally, many have posted specific information on Obama's policies, voting record and accompishments, but you've refused to read or acknowledge them. You're a broken record who continues to post the same 'he has no record, he has no substance' rubbish long after it has been disproved. That also leads me to believe you are a Hillary supporter cloaking yourself as a Green or independent voter. Maybe you're even a Republican mole, trying to convince others to waste a vote on McKinney to split the progressive vote -- it's part of the GOP strategy this year.
Whatever it is, go to the website below and read it thoroughly and then stop making these ludicrous 'Obama has no substance, he's never done anything' posts. They only make you look stupid and uninformed.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php
Rich Griffin, you write:
"It's the level of the misogynistic attacks on her that gets to me; and the fact that Obama supporters never talk substance."
Obama doesn't "talk substance" because, like Hillary -- who ALSO doesn't talk substance -- they're both corporate-sponsored candidates. And, as such, they're not going to talk about or otherwise address issues that, if they WERE discussed, would jeopardize the priviledged position of the economic elite -- again, the deep-pocketed hands that feed both Obama and Hillary.
Fact is, Obama has more corporate money behind him than Hillary! So how much "substance" can we expect from him? He's a the "happy face" ruling class would want to put on the same-old imperialist brutality/domestic deprivation that's been going on, nonstop, for the past 40 years.
As for misogynist remarks, while inappropriate, they're also beside the point. The issues are the War, housing, unemployment, inflation, torture, rendition. You know them as well as I do. And misogyny is WAAAAY down on the list. ... Politics is about priorities.
"It's the level of the misogynistic attacks on her that gets to me" --
Randi Rhoades defended Hillary against Chris Matthews' blatantly misogynistic comments during the early debates and into the primaries, and turned her fire on Hillary for dirty campaigning & pandering to the bellicose and brutal constituencies in the US.
Defense of Hillary at this stage is simply nostalgia for the '90s & a distortion of egalitarian ideals, which Hillary does not in fact hold. She could never have gotten to her present position except through being married to a former president.
Clintonism is pure liberal dysfunctionality -- no matter how badly the Clintons have used, absued & dragged them through the mud, these groups & cliques stay loyal.
As for the "obama supporters don't talk substance", that's as ridiculous as any Bushiite slogan.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your roving reporter, Irving Invertebrate.
Hillary Clinton is about to begin this hastily called news conference. We have no idea what she's going to say but her handlers have told us that she's about to divulge information that may *salvage* her run for the presidency.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Hillary Clinton. ...
"My fellow Americans, I'll get right to the point. My husband, Bill Clinton, who as you can see is standing next to me, is a hopeless dickhead.
"By finally admitting this all-too-obvious fact, I'm hoping that my campaign for president will be revived and eventually successful.
(Thunderous applause.)
"I realize now that during the Monica Lewinsky affair, many of you were turned off by my standing by this useless piece of ****.
(BILL smiles, obligingly.)
"Many of you felt that I stayed with my husband for selfish, opportunistic reasons. WELL, OF COURSE I DID! Jesus H. Christ, any idiot with an IQ greater than their shoe size could have figured that one out. (Ponders what she just said): Still, there sure are a lot of idiot votes out there. (Turns to her husband.) Right, Goober?"
"Sure are, honey-bunch."
(Pats BILL on the head; gives him a Milk Bone Dog Biscuit): "Good boy! (Turns back to the audience): Now, as I was saying. This sorry excuse for a human being, I want everybody to know, especially the superdelegates, is a disgrace. True, loyal, upright Americans would never stand for his heartless behavior as a husband. The only thing he's interested in getting upright is his you-know-what.
(BILL blushes): That's right, honey-bunch. (Waves to the CROWD): That's right, folks.
"Sure, I put up with this philandering pig-dog for over 20 years, but that's because I figured it would get me a shot at The Big Enchilada. But now that I'm up Sheboegans' Creek without a paddle, I'm changing course, baby, and pronto!
"Fact is, I'm so desperate for votes, I'm actually gonna try telling the truth. And starting with this putz. (Eyes BILL up and down): Sheesh! Look at him. The guy's a card-carrying hound dog. Am I right?
(The CROWD screams their approval.)
"Why, he's not worth a bucket of warm you-know-what. And I don't mean piss. Let's face it, he's a dickhead; and today, before God and Mickey Rooney, I want all the world to know!
(BILL leans into the microphone, smiling): "That's right, folks, I'm no good. And I can prove it."
(HILLARY throws BILL another biscuit): "Good boy, Fido. (Turns back to the CROWD): And so, my fellow Americans, I'm kicking this bum out, hoping of course that by doing so I will have finally earned the trust and respect–
(BILL interrupts): and gullibility.
"... and gullibility of the American people. Then, if I win the nomination and then the presidency, Bill and I can go back to being the lowlife shysters you all know and want us to be.
(Raucous cheers. The CROWD goes nuts!!!)
Thank you. Thank you, crowd. Because let's face it, (pauses dramatically) without power, slimeballs like Bill and me are nothing but obnoxious s***s. Right, Bill?"
"That's right, honey-bitch."
"WHAT???!!!"
"Err, I mean, honey-bunch."
Atheist: let's get to the real question. What should be the response of Brazil if Uruguay lobs nuclear bombs at Rio and Sao Paulo? This is a huge threat that we must prepare for. Also, there is the issue of what China should do if Bangladesh hits Beijing with nukes. We have to be prepared for these eventualities! And then there is the nuclear threat posed by Canada. Probably we need to hit them now, before they can turn Washington and New York into steaming glass.
Mrraven500 denies being antiSemitic and says he accuses those with paranoid ideas about Israel of being Nazi-like. But paranoid ideas about Israel and its supporters are inevitable when we get the level of threats being put out today, and given the links between the Israeli right, the US right, and the South African apartheid regime. I would argue that a "nigger" is not someone with dark skin, but anyone who reacts to oppression with "yes, Massa." And I would argue that Naziism is not a metter of connection to either German or Jewish blood, but a matter or racism, scapegoating, and proposing Final Solutions. Thus one can hardly blame tyhe Palestinians, crowded and starving behind walls in their own homeland, legally teated as second-class citizens, for calling the Israeli state a Nazi regime. And now my disclaimers: I am also a US citizen, white, and half Jewish...though I am loath to claim that half these days.
If these capitalists push the launch button in some desperate effort to save their sinking dollars... well if they even consider it... which they are.... you can rest assured we are being lead onwards by psychopathic megalomaniacs.
It's not that I'm a Clinton supporter. I did not vote for her. Had I voted in the democratic primary, my first choice would have been Dennis Kucinich, then Mike Gravel, then John Edwards. But I'm registered Green-Rainbow. If you want to know why I defend Clinton so much, read Katha Pollitt's excellent chapter in "30 Ways To Think About Hillary". It's the level of the misogynistic attacks on her that gets to me; and the fact that Obama supporters never talk substance.
In October 2003 the LATimes released a story stating that, with the help of the US Navy, Israel was now able to launch a nuclear strike at any target within 100 miles or so of the sea. Iran was mentioned as the target of greatest interest, despite not having nuclear weapon capability or anything close to it.
200 nukes is toward the low end of the size estimates of Israel's arsenal these days, as I've seen 100 min, 500 max. What are all these nukes for? This is massive overkill relative to those in the Islamic world with the capability to attack Israel? Is it possible they are to keep the US in line? It is not as if the US Navy high command has not taken another nation's interests above those of the US before: remember the Liberty, remember Pearl Harbor.
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/1012-02.htm
Atheist asked: "What would be an appropriate response to Iran's unprovoked first-strike nuclear obliteration of Haifa or Tel Aviv?"
If we were civilized it would be convening the U.N. to discuss what the world thinks is the correct response to the second country to use a nuclear weapon on another country (the U.S. being the first.) But since we aren't civilized likely the U.S. and Israel would nuke many cities in the middle east killing millions out of raw rank eye for an eye revenge, starting WWIII, and possible even ending life on this planet. But that's probably a-OK with you, right atheist? Anything to maintain a tough guy image even if it's adding more millions dead to the atrocity that would be millions dead from an attack on Israel.
And no I am not an "anti Semite" I have consistently in fact attacked people who call themselves "leftists" but who in fact say Israel is trying to secretly take over the world and thus their rhetoric far from being left is like Nazis. That is not acceptable! Unless we hold murderous fanatics on all sides of the spectrum accountable the human species is likely doomed.
Anyway your question is fear mongering for I think it's far more likely that the U.S. will attack Iran with nuclear "bunker busters" than vice versa. If you are genuinely afraid of nuclear war vent your spleen toward Dick Cheney who actually HAS nuclear weapons under his command, lives in a country who has used them before, and has threatened to use them. And, BTW American citizen here, far from "hating America" I love America and would like to see us saved from neo-con tyranny and fear mongering.
This is a good article, except for this: "Depending on which poll is the most accurate, there are between 105 million and 135 million evangelical and born-again Christians in the U.S."
I doubt these figures. It's no secret that right-wing Christopublican churches routinely inflate their actual membership, using such tricks as adding anyone who contacts them for information as a convert, or collecting names in petition drives for charitable causes such as feeding starving children that are later added to beef up the church's numbers. I've been told that even someone casually attending a service is asked to sign their name in the guestbook; in at least one case, one of the guests who didn't agree in the least with this far-right sect was surprised to find his name later listed in the church bulletin as a new member.
These numbers are bogus -- I would bet that the sort of far-right believers that are the subject of Robert Weitzel's piece amount to no more than 5 to 10 million Americans.
A letter from a Boston Globe reader:
"HILLARY CLINTON'S statement about "obliterating" Iran that the Globe finds so objectionable did not come out of the blue, although a casual reader might think so from the way the editorial took it out of context. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made plain his desire to wipe Israel off the map. On the day of the Pennsylvania primary, Chris Cuomo of ABC News asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, and she gave a clear, pointed answer.
Days earlier during the ABC News-sponsored debate in Philadelphia, Barack Obama was asked a similarly direct question: "Should it be US policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?" His response was halting and tepid: "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."
What would be an appropriate response to Iran's unprovoked first-strike nuclear obliteration of Haifa or Tel Aviv? Does Obama, or the Globe, believe that it is necessary to convince the Iranian regime that we are prepared to take military action against them in the defense of Israel should Iran ever launch such an attack? If so, how?
ROGER BRUCE FEINMAN
Briarwood, N.Y."
Having a friend (Israel) that needs to be defended from the bad guys (Anybody who dares to critizie it, but especially all the "muslim countries") is a handy excuse to wage wars in the middle east getting USA hands on all the oil there...
Politicians need the support of Israel because their offices are in occupied territory.
Hoa binh
Rich Griffin goes from article to article posting multiply on each; with the obsession of knocking down Obama and building up Clinton; despite the latter the occasional nice word (and claim of support for) Cynthia McKinney--which seems like a disingenuous attempt at legitimizing the Obama attacks. How then the constant Hillary defenses? In general this past week or so, I've noticed a surge of proClinton trolls on this site. When she finally (please please please) goes away we can all breathe again...........
The fact that so many US politicians--including so many Democrats--support the war crimes of the Israeli government makes a mockery of US "justice." When Clinton can claim that Israel's bombing of Lebanon in 2006 was a defensive attack, and when the US Congress rushes to pass a resolution stating that Israel's preemptive bombing is akin to self-defense--well, let's just say that there isn't a single congressperson who can credibly speak for human rights anywhere in the world. When I hear them pontificate against Myanmar, China, or N. Korea I'd just like to remind them that they created and continue to support an Israeli Frankenstein, so no one is really listening to their empty words about human rights.
Why no mention of Obama's support for Israel and their illegal occupation? And why no mention that this is a systemic problem of both parties almost universally?? Otherwise, it's spot on.
Right on. I'm surprised this was published in a mainstream paper. I'm guessing the phones are already ringing off the hook, even though it's Madison.