You'd have to ask Zbigniew Brzezinski, not Hillary, she and Barack are both on his strings

May a two hump camel climb upon Hillary's back and cast his seed within her uterus.

This morning's news brings a nice addition to this saga of hypocrisy when it comes to other people's weapons system. As India unveils a nuclear submarine fleet which will allow it to "project its power" by its ability to deliver attacks by land, air or by sea, this act of international belligerency generates nary a word of concern from Madame Secretary Clinton. Rather she reserves her indignation for Iran and follows the cardinal rule that if you do anything at all to "upset" our staunch ally, Israeli, you must IMMEDIATELY deliver a saber-rattling missive against one of Israel's enemies. Having dared to suggest, as some Israelis interpreted it, that the U.S. offer of an umbrella against Iran attack suggested that the U.S. had given up on the effort to stop Iran's nuclear development, she now she makes one thing "perfectly clear" in this warning to Iran: "If you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we are not going to let that happen.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6728374.ece

Meantime the U.S. goes on its happy way of helping India to "project its "power" by helping with that country's nuclear development.

Though his rhetoric has sometimes suggested otherwise, it is doubtful whether Obama ever intended to deal with a independent and nationalist Iran in any other way--his foreign policy team is rife with proponents of hypocrisy and aggression, such as Clinton, Robert Gates and James Jones.

Israel has refused to join the IAEA, sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow inspections of their nuclear facilities.

Not one American soldier, bullet, plane or bomb should be expended to protect Israel. What has Israel ever done for the U.S. except to bomb the USS Liberty, spy against its so-called ally and take billions in aid? There is not one logical or acceptable reason for the U.S. to protect Israel from any nation. We already saw the dancing Jews when 9/11 occured. Does anyone really believe Israel would come to the aid of the U.S. if another country attacked us?

Israel has violated international law with impunity for over 60 years. They engage in ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies. Israel should be isolated by the world comunity and brought to account for their numerous war crimes and violations of international law.

Let me try to keep score here.

1. U.S. Mid-East Allies are ask to trust the US and not seek nuclear weapons because the U.S. will absolutely never let IRAN have nuclear weapons.

2. But these U.S. Mid-East Allies should also rest assured that if the U.S. does allow IRAN to have nuclear weapons the U.S. will absolutely protect them with our nuclear weapons, so they, the U.S. Allies in the Mid-East, do not need to seek nuclear weapons of their own.

3. Iran is ask to believe that if they get nuclear weapons the U.S. will be just as steadfast in protecting our Allies as we were in absolutely preventing you, Iran, from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Everybody feel safer now ???

And apart from all else that has been said, keep in mind that for domestic political purposes, it never hurts to have Hillary remind us that she has an impressive War Boner of her own tucked inside those polyester slacks!

· Yr Obd't Servant

"This is something that a secretary of state, in an academic or off-the-record setting, might muse about," said Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator now with the Woodrow Wilson Center International Center for Scholars.

Note: The courting of the muse is rewarded only by its return.

Otherwise known as "running it up the flagpole" to test the response. Clinton's rhetoric is historically well managed in terms of marketing. It also arises following an extended period and environment of brinksmanship in introduction of mercenary force use that has elbowed the envelope for hegemony. "Musing" is a poor term for the public (in any context) presentation of a catch phrase about an entire paradigm.

I'd risk saying that Hillary Clinton is delusional, has long been, but the reality is worse. She's deliberate, most surely knows she's speaking as prostitute of the Empire of today, knows she and the Empire's leadership, ruling "elites", are hypocrites, hegemons, ... seeking global, "full spectrum" dominance, and ... so on. They're all delusional, nevertheless, but they're deliberate in their evil(s), and this is much worse than being only deluded.

Matthew Lee wrote, "The concept is based on the Cold War era of deterrence and aims to stop a nuclear-armed country from threatening an unarmed neighbor", which seems to infer that he actually believes that that's the real aim.

If he believes that, then he's like everyone else who also believes it, which is ... [delusional]. The U.S. ruling "elites" have [never] had any such aim. Just because the say they do doesn't mean that they really do; their words of supposed goodness are always hypocritical and used to mask the real truth about their objectives, and they know damn well that they're hypocrites, pathological liars, etcetera.

The U.S. wasn't worried about "a nuclear-armed country" being able to threaten "an unarmed neighbor". If it was, then it wouldn't have criminally protected Israel and its nuclear arms R&D over ... too many decades, and wouldn't see to protecting the privilege of other governments with nuclear arms programs and possessing nuclear arms without accepting to sign on to the nuclear NPT, etcetera.

The U.S. ruling "elites" are only concerned about achieving global dominance and any countries, governments that even seem to be potential problems in this respect are to be dealt with according to the choosings of the ruling "elites" of Empire USA. They don't want anyone potentially screwing up their plans for ... the world, planet.

ALSO, nuclearising Iran's neighbours that are allied with the U.S. and aren't yet nuclearised would be BIG PROFIT for Lockheed and other major U.S. corporations. See the video clips in my first post in this CD page, the video, "US-India Nuke Deals Raise Fears of Escalated Indo-Pakistan Arms Race".

Yet, I doubt that the U.S. ruling "elites" would want to nuclear-arm Iran's neighbours, for they would then be able to stand firmly enough against U.S. meddling, etc. Maybe the Empire's "elites" would let the big profits for the MIC of the U.S. blind them enough to nuclear-arm Iran's neighbours, but I doubt they rationally would do this. They're not particularly rational people though. Isn't that comforting?

After all, the article repeats, several times, that these U.S. political representatives of the Empire's ruling "elites" keep using the argument of Iran threatening its neighbours, but Iran has NOT done this at all. To see or hear threats coming from Iran when none are, now this is either very, very delusional, or it's a lie, a smokescreen, a very poor one, but still intended to smokescreen the truth so that we can't see it. For ruling "elites" to think we're this dumb is also delusional. Even if they've been right in the past with respect to too many U.S. citizens, they've been steadily losing credibility, they've steadily been making themselves naked in public.

The only reasons they'd lie like that would be because they really do aim to try to achieve global dominance and want to gain big profits for Big MIC of the USA, while realising that they better try to keep the public ignorant about such reasons.

Jerry Wells,

That's an excellent article to post the link for and excerpt from, and I appreciate learning, for my first time, that Bill Van Auken had run against Hillary Clinton for the Senate seat in 2006. I'll specifically refer to the last paragraph of the excerpt you provided, while certainly finding that the rest that you excerpt is important history to know about. I had known about it, but hadn't read some of the quotes Bill Van Auken provides from the Carter administration years, so am thankful to see those quotes now.

Quote: "There are immense dangers in the escalating US intervention. The talk of a nuclear umbrella, a regional arms buildup and possible Israeli air strikes all pose the threat of a conflagration that could dwarf the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while drawing in other major powers with their own considerable interests in the region."

He's right. It would undoubtably be worse than the extremely bad consequences of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan for Iran is not nuclear-armed, but nevertheless is very armed, has an organised and trained army, even if the west doesn't call it an army, and will surely do as President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leadership people have said if Iran is attacked. They'll retaliate ... strongly, very. And based on past words during the years that Vladimir Putin was President or leader in Russia, any missiles launched at Iran could be interpreted, by Russia's anti-missile defence system which hasn't been modernized, upgraded, as targeting Russia, which'd cause the system to kick into defencive action and ... oh, the consequences could, if not would, be extremely bad. Russia might nonetheless do something to try to help defend Iran; maybe. President Chavez of Venezuela, who might not have been serious enough to actually follow through on his words, said, once, twice, ..., I'm not sure how many times, but at least a couple; he said Venezuela will join in trying to help defend Iran, if it's attacked by the U.S. and/or Israel. But Iran, alone, would retaliate strongly, too.

As for the war in Afghanistan, how the U.S. and NATO are doing there, the following video recording for the statements of a U.S. air infrantryman, 23 years of age, and recorded July 14th might be fitting to reflect upon.

Not providing article and video page titles in order to avoid undue or wrongful censorship, because this is testimony the U.S. ruling "elites" would surely prefer that Americans not see or hear, the following article was posted July 23rd at Uruknet and provides a few paragraphs of text and three embedded video clips for the full recording of the Q&A between ... a questioner and the captured U.S. soldier. The total is around 22 minutes.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=56295

Alternatively, the direct links for the three clips are the following, for parts 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The above Uruknet article, however, has a text statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THmerXtKiqA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSrSJUTEWCs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Att-tlZPcZs

It definitely seems authentic, as well as honest, with plenty of information we evidently should hear or learn about from US soldiers possessing a lot of this knowledge, first hand. And this US soldier might be safer to never return to the US after what he says in this video recording. Why? He'll be treated better by his captors than he would be by the U.S. ruling "elites", after what he's now helped to make available to the public.

If he's right, that is, accurate, enough anyway, about how the U.S. is actually doing in Afghanistan, then the U.S. clearly wouldn't want to attack Iran.

I downloaded the three clips just in case they become disappeared from Youtube, but wouldn't know this until trying to view them again some ... months, say, from now. They'll be backed up for my own personal copy though.

What's It To Be, A Nuclear Umbrella Or A Peace Agreement With Iran + Justice for the Palestinian people?

"If it's a nuclear umbrella?"

"Doomsday?'

"Based on?"

"Perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse."

"But if it's the peace agreement + justice for the Palestinians?"

"Turnabout."

The following video report is 13 minutes, or roughly that, and provides some important information, such as the major profits Lockheed and another U.S. corporation could gain, if these nuclear deals go through.

"US-India Nuke Deals Raise Fears of Escalated Indo-Pakistan Arms Race", July 24 2009

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/24/with_lucrative_nuke_deals_with_india

People preferring the video in two clips can use the following, parts 1 and 2, respectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnJUM73DHOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk-IkZwXDGY

What can Iran do, what should it do?

Iran should or needs to,[sue] the U.S. in the World Court, ICJ, International Court of Justice, at or in the Hague. Professor Francis Boyle provides a good explanation for this and definitely encourages Iran to do this. He made the recommendation to Iran, which he says has been seriously considering what he suggested, so it's up to Iran get on with this business of suing the U.S.

The following are parts 1 and 2 of the interview he provided and his words remain valid today.

"Francis Boyle: Iran Should Sue to Stop US Attack", (6:58 and 7:37, respectively), justForeignPolicy, July 28, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TegRo4lUPDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFGK0LJXSKg

I wish Iran would get on with doing this, instead of dilly-dallying. The leadership people there need to get off their damn asses and sue the U.S. in the World Court. The sooner this is done, the sooner the rest of the world will be able to get a break from all of this bs, hegemonic, hypocritical, ... sabre rattling of or by the U.S. If Iran can't do it for itself, then let it be done for the rest of us!

" . . . current thinking on Iran, which has been strictly focused on preventing the country from acquiring nuclear weapons . . . "

Bunk.

Obama continues his wars, occupations, and encirclement of oil and gas regions in Central Asia despite the nuclear proliferation that his intelligence agencies tell him will result.

Why?

Control over hydrocarbon resources and their transport, no?

AP's asnooze -
If it was true last week and still is, it can still be news.

If Mrs. Clinton's remarks were meant for anyone they were meant for the 'folks back home'. Most of the 'audience' she is playing the tune for, are 'tone deaf', and or cannot hear the music very well back home. The commotion and 'noise' of their collapsing society and collapsing economy prevents it. Add to that the history/reputation from loosing two wars, after several other loses in the 'war department'---and if anyone out there in the 'real world' truly thinks that the USA is going to be much of threat they should review the situation more closely.

The USA is presently showing the classic signs of a 'downward spiral' in its society and economy and its manner of solving the problems it created all by itself.
They worship mediocrity and live a national 'denial' that would shame most nations, while at the same time do a very poor job of presenting themselves to the world as a 'positive example'.
Just one example is that many of them believe that THEIR health care system is the finest in the world; yet the WHO puts the USA at no. 37 in 'advanced nations' while they top the list as the most wealthy.
If the world truly begins to think that the USA is any real threat; they simply need to cut off the lines of credit, 'call in' their loans, and sit back and watch the USA and the Americans, devour themselves.

The irony is that the USA is 'the most capable' of all the nations of making the needed changes.
Then the world would truly have a "positive example".
Without the needed changes.
The only 'real threat' the USA poses is to its self.

Good Luck America, you really need it.

The following article from WSWS, with the essential historical background, provides a critical socialist perspective. Author Bill Van Auken, representing the Socialist Equality Party, ran against Hillary Clinton for Senate in the 2006 election.

(Read the full article here:)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j24.shtml

The Hillary Clinton doctrine
24 July 2009
Bill Van Auken

At the beginning of 1980, President Jimmy Carter inaugurated a major American military buildup in the Middle East.

In his State of the Union address of that year, the US president outlined what became known as the Carter Doctrine, declaring, “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

The doctrine was pitched as the Carter administration’s response to two events that had taken place the year before. The first was the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah, who had served as Washington’s loyal gendarme in the region. The second was the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan, which Washington itself had provoked to—in the words of then-Carter and now-Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski—“give to the USSR its Vietnam war.”

Carter left no doubt as to what “vital interests” Washington was prepared to defend with force. He stressed that Afghanistan was of “great strategic importance” because it lay in a region that “contains more than two-thirds of the world’s exportable oil.”
...
...
There are immense dangers in the escalating US intervention. The talk of a nuclear umbrella, a regional arms buildup and possible Israeli air strikes all pose the threat of a conflagration that could dwarf the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while drawing in other major powers with their own considerable interests in the region.

For pete's sake, are we suffering from a form of collective amnesia on this site so that we must debate once again the same issue that was raised on another CD article just a week ago? http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/22-4 Apparently so, in which case I have to assume (maybe in vain) that someone read and remembers the position I took on the "nuclear umbrella" issue with the following posting:
..........
The commenters who have posted here so far seem to have missed the implications of the material at the latter part of the article, that the Israeli government has itself condemned the "nuclear umbrella" on Israeli's (and other countries') behalf that Clinton was offering. If there is any sane thing that can be done in this insane world of nuclear proliferation (besides removing the provocations for attack), it would seem to be the idea that nuclear warfare is contained in the "deterrent" power of one's world rivals. Was this not the basis of the nuclear stand-off that prevailed during the period of near-monopoly of nuclear power by the U.S. and the Soviet Union? While I passionately support the nuclear disarmament of all nations great and small, is it not better (in a world of lesser evils) that nations not engage in independent nuclear power development but rather rely on the "umbrella" protection of those countries that already have such protections? In my view, the real measure of Clinton's (and the U.S. government's, including the White House and Congress) AIPAC capitulation is in its failure to demand that Israel take down its own nuclear weapons program as a condition to the offer of a U.S. "umbrella" (I don't think U.S. officials have even acknowledged the fact of Israel nuclear weapons.) A nuclearly-disarmed Israel would seem to be a real improvement in the security of the rest of the world. I find it a shade ironic that the posters here who condemn the "umbrella" as a measure of Israeli-government pandering of the U.S. are joined in their condemnation by an agent of the Israeli government itself---although the reasons for their condemnation are assuredly very different.
................

Nothing has arisen in the last week really to change my view that the real problem is not the nuclear umbrella itself but the failure of the Obama administration to insist that Israel take down its own nuclear weapons program before being allowed to come under the U.S. umbrella.

Since we are going nowhere but the same historical circle of disarmament demands and deterrence expectations that we have been debating ever since the beginning of the Cold War and since these issues continue to be hashed over without any noticeable changes of position, I'm a little inclined to agree with Naturally that the current article is a "news" item ginned up by the Associated Press---not unusual in the news business that the same stories are continually recycled as if they were something new when they are in fact very old.

Hillary is like a never ending recurring rash with fetid pustule that regularly erupts spewing the mantra of our demented fascist oligarchy.

Such a moral stance, threatening to murder millions of people and irradiate an entire region, all under the euphemism of a "defense umbrella".

But, of course, "the other guys" are the terrorists, not us. Never us. We are the "shining city on the hill" which stands for freedom and democracy.

And if you disagree, we will vaporize your populations.

Gotta protect the source of her bribes, eh?

"The source of millions of dollars allegedly laundered by five rabbis in the US state of New Jersey has been Israel, Israeli media have revealed."

"The [nuclear umbrella] concept is based on the Cold War era of deterrence and aims to stop a nuclear-armed country from threatening an unarmed neighbor."

Nuclear deterrence has been U.S. policy for decades, as the Associated Press well knows. So why is this news?

It appears that AP is trying to gin up a story based on Hillary Clinton's celebrity "news value," as opposed to import or consequence. TMZ anyone?

"The concept is based on the Cold War era of deterrence and aims to stop a nuclear-armed country from threatening an unarmed neighbor."

We better look in the mirror, because this is the U.S. mode of operation. Leave a country defenseless than occupy it with all our military might.
---------
Iran or N. Korea is not going to commit suicide by launching a nuclear attack on it's neighbors. We have enough nukes pointed in their direction to discourage any such actions!

This article is just more propaganda from the MSM.

As we destabilize governments we increase the chance of a rogue loose cannon getting hold of a nuke and I can only imagine who they will target.

That this horrible woman is in charge of the State Dept. is in itself proof that Democrats, like their twin brothers the Republicans, are a waste of this nation's time and money. More than a billion dollars spent in the fake fight between Obama and Hillary last year just so now we can enjoy these two pearls sharing power in Washington today.

If all that money had been spent in health care or to fix the US failing bridges and roads, instead of wasted on these two war criminals.

Perhaps, Ms. Clinton is speaking for the Council on Foreign Relations or Zbigniew Brzezinski, maybe even President Obama.....
After all, we are still in Iraq with no exit. After all, we are expanding our efforts in Afghanistan. After all, we are doing, Cambodia Like, attacks in Pakistan. After all, we still are using mercenary groups, almost 140,000, in Iraq and Afghanistan......Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and the missles to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East and has shown its intentions to use U.S. policy to initiate defensive attacks into other countries....
As a "Ruling Empire", we have the right to protect those nations that are "With Us" and "Those nations that are against us or our friends, we have the right to attack."

Americans still can not get the picture: "The policies of Bush/Cheney may have been: immoral, illegal, evil, and sinister......but, when you are "The Power Elite" you can do anything you want: assassinations, kidnapping,torture,murder, spying, destruction of evidence, perjury, falsification of documents, and control of all investigatory commissions including 9/11 commission.

Ms. Clinton spoke "The Truth"......

We should be looking to create an umbrella of containment that goes much further than just loose cannon Hillary Clinton.