Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 26, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar
At Lake Scugog

At Lake Scugog

Troy Jollimore

more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Iran Condemns Clinton

Posted on May 1, 2008
Flickr / Nrbelex

If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president, her administration will have a hell of a time improving relations with Iran, a country that has a few cards to play when it comes to stability in Iraq and the price of oil. That’s because Clinton recently threatened Iran’s annihilation and it turns out that the Iranian government pays attention to these things.

AP via Google:

UNITED NATIONS—Iran strongly condemned presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton late Wednesday for threatening to attack and “totally obliterate” the country if it uses nuclear weapons.

Iran’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, called an April 22 statement on ABC by the New York senator, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible” and “a flagrant violation” of the U.N. Charter.

Read more

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By cyrena, May 4, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment


I’ve explained this IN DEPTH!! There IS NO QUESTION for me to ‘dance around’ here. THAT”S THE POINT BERT! What you are suggesting is a non-existent impossibility that doesn’t even reach the level of a hypothetical. It doesn’t DESERVE a response, because it is beyond improbable that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, it is IMPOSSIBLE!

For the last time bert, Iran DOES NOT POSSESS a nuclear weapons system to attack Israel or anybody else!! NOR is there any possibility of Iran creating a nuclear weapons system within the next decade, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO, AND THEY DON’T!

The plain physical and scientific evidence has already proven this out. The sovereign state of Iran has been combed from top to bottom, by everyone who knows anything about nuclear weapons and nuclear energy and nuclear anything, and we KNOW that Iran does not possess this capability.

Let me say this again very slowly for you bert….It is a NON-QUESTION. So your utter ignorance in suggesting that Obama would suggest ‘talking’ is exactly that. IGNORANT. 

It would be like him talking about what to do if Billary becomes pregnant, or Saturn becomes involved in a fender bender with Mars.

Go swallow some pills with your sourmash bert, and take a really long nap.

Report this

By great_satan, May 4, 2008 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

Note that she would obliterate Iran, not kill half the human beings who live there…big difference. Iran is not a sentient being, it is a country on a map…a bunch of desert.
  Obliterate Billary.

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, May 4, 2008 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

Clinton’s vile rhetorical pronouncements, calling for the obliteration of Iran, or any other sovereign entity within that region of the world, words if they were to fall from the mouth of any other elected leader of another country, would be considered the lunatic ravings of a tyrant. As President, god forbid, she would be wiping her rear end with the Constitution in the same fashion the present empiricist, corporate administration has done, who stands on the mountaintop, clutching a nuke in each hand, spewing villainy and hatred against those who do not fall on their knees in submission.

If mad-bomber McCain weren’t already enough to worry about!

We had better not hear any criticism from her, or the neo-con ranks she is obviously pandering to and courting, when other nations begin clamoring for the obliteration of the U.S. from the face of the map. Might does not make right; it only breeds contempt!

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Report this

By cat, May 4, 2008 at 9:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Again, I will see the day when the Children of God have a chance to vote.
Not since Barabbas have we had this choice.  My Brethren be strong and of good will, Lift your voices on high. Fear not that which is distorted and twisted to give the victory unto Satan. I have lived my life CLINGING yes CLINGING to the teachings of Jesus. 
And I say unto Sean Hannity who has spoken of the hate mail he has received.  May ye reap what ye sow seven fold.  But I will pray for you.  I will pray that your hate be turned to love.  And may ye reap what ye sow seven fold. 
And I will confess that it was I who caused Rev. Wright to speak,  after 9/11 my heart was in unrest and I cried and asked the Lord, How could they hate us so, How could they take the lives of our innocents.  And he brought forth the messager who was liken unto John the Baptist and I found his words to be offensive and I did turn my head in disbelief
That we who love our neighbors and have gone forth to feed the hungry and clothed and shelter them as befitting the Children of God to do, would be now accused of such debacuary.  And now again what was in the dark has been brought to light are the words of The Rev. Wright.  And this time we are forced to hear the message, And I CLINGING to the teaching of Jesus for understanding and I am told, we have a choice for a new leadership.
Barack Obama hear me for I do believe you are that leader. And I do believe that Peace is at hand. I pray that my Brethren do realize what is at stake and we join our voices on high and choose you to be our leader. For it is you who have the ability to lead America with the strength of Peace, not only will America know a new day but so will the world.
Glory be to Our Father in Heaven for he so loves the world that again he sends us a savior.

Report this

By TDoff, May 3, 2008 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

A huge publishing auction is planned for early this summer, when nearly every Global publishing house is going to attend the Hillary Clinton offering of her new book, ‘To Nuke a Village’.

Richard Mellon Scaife has already promised to fund a pre-publication purchase of one million copies, to be distributed with a cover letter from the RNC, gloating that ‘She’s one of US!!’

Which will give Hillary one more argument to overturn the Obama primary results, claiming that she’ll get a lot of republican cross-over votes in the general election, because she’s more of a hawk than McCain.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 3, 2008 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

And your point is?

Report this

By great_satan, May 3, 2008 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

Why did I ran have to go and say that?
  Don’t they know that it translates to a pro-Hillary statement in the US Press?
  Probably they do. That’s why they said it. They prefer Hillary. Little reverse psychology, huh?

Report this

By great_satan, May 3, 2008 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

“the only problem Iran has with Hillary is that she’s a WOMAN!”
  Hmmm, the words “obliterate Iran,” wouldn’t factor in.
  You give yourself away. The only reason you side with Billary is because she is a woman. 
  You are the sexist.

Report this

By cyrena, May 3, 2008 at 12:48 am Link to this comment

To answer your question properly Johnathon, I’d have to dig out the real interpretation of the “wiping Israel off the map” comment. It isn’t ‘new’ to Ahmadinejad though. It’s standard rhetoric that has been around for decades, (like since the onset of the Palestinian Holocaust).

So, rather than me try to tell the interpretation myself, (I don’t speak Persian) I’ll need to look it up. I can only say that it is not a ‘literal’ interpretation.

Matter of fact, it’s something on the same order as the supposed ‘denying’ of the Jewish Holocaust. (I always make it a point to differentiate between that Holocaust and the many others that have occured, even though I know it’s sort of a wasted point, since most folks don’t acknowledge any other Holocaust).

Anyway, in that case, neither Ahmadinejad or anyone else has ever said that it DIDN’T happen. Of course we all know that it did. What he has said, is that Israel has USED it in mythic terms, or otherwise turned it into an EXCUSE to perpetrate the same genocide against the Palestinians. So, there’s a big difference in the language and the interpretation there.

As to the other question of Ahmadinejad representing the Iranian regime, I would say NO. I don’t believe that he does at all, and my few Iranians colleagues in academia have said the same. Specifically, they explain the obvious…that he is ONE person. He is their elected president, just as most claim that GW Bush is ours. And, just as GW Bush doesn’t really represent the US regime, (dick cheney does) Ahmadinejad doesn’t represent the entire Iranian regime either.

That said, I don’t believe either Ahmadinejad or the Mullahs or any of the rest of the Iranian regime is anywhere near as dangerous as GW Bush and the dick cheney regime. Fortunately for us, the Iranians (and most other countries as well) are fully aware that our regime does NOT represent the American people. If they thought that, we’d be in worse trouble than we already are.

Report this

By kevin99999, May 2, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What an idiotic post?

Report this

By bert, May 2, 2008 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

cyrena, you did not answer kevin99999’s question. You danced all around it. What would the U.S. do if Obama was President and Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons?

Are you saying Obama’s answer is we would talk?

Report this

By cyrena, May 2, 2008 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

No, YOU should ‘go figure’ bert, even though you always still come up WRONG when you claim that you’re actually, ‘figuring’.

This isn’t about Obama or his ‘supporters’ needing for you or anyone else to ‘cut us any slack’. It’s about how we conduct ourselves based on the laws of the land and international relations. AKA=FOREIGN POLICY.

It’s not about your petty partisian hatreds and obsessive desire to win at all costs, including whatever Israel wants us to do for them. You call that an ALLY?

So, tell me, where did you find this “allied agreement” that we have with Israel? You keep looking for it OK. Since most INFROMED people know that such an agreement DOES NOT EXIST, that should keep you busy and out of our hair for a while.

Report this

By cyrena, May 2, 2008 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Not so kevin99999

Obama has already RESPONDED, before such a non-issue could even occur. He’s responded by suggesting (as anyone with even a tad bit of foreign policy intelligence would do) that we TALK TO IRAN, since diplomacy and dialogue are required in maintaining healthy relationships with the rest of the world.

And ya know what? That should NOT be confined to liberals only!! The fact that the gangsters in DC have been determined to CREATE enemies and continue to piss on and piss off the rest of the globe, just really isn’t a very smart thing to do, REGARDLESS of one’s political ideologies.

In the case of this ‘question and response’ it was a gotcha question to begin with, because it was framed on ‘what if’ Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, when that is an IMPOSSIBILITY, since Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation that possesses nuclear weapons, aside from the now deceased Saddam Hussein, formerly of Iraq, ISREAL IS THE ONLY MIDDLE EASTERN NATION THAT MAKES A HABIT AND CAREER OUT OF ATTACKING HER NEIGHBORS! So clearly, this ‘hypothetical’ was an exercise in perfidy, with the actors and their possibly actions switched.

continued at part 2

Report this

By cyrena, May 2, 2008 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

Let’s also remember that Iran HAS NEVER attacked or THREATENED to attack, any other nation in the Middle East OR ELSEWHERE.

So no, none of us SHOULD care what Obama’s response to a non-existent situation would be. It’s stupid, and Hillary was stupid to respond the way she did, because she should KNOW that Iran can’t attack Israel with Nukes, and that they’ve not attacked Israel or anybody else since about the 12th Century, give or take a few. (Centuries that is).

Iran has made multiple attempts during the past several years, to normalize relations with the US, based upon opening dialogue. Each time, these efforts have been flatly rejected, and we the people only get the continuing echo chamber of propaganda as dictated by the thugs who insist that Iran be seen as the demonic enemy. And the masses and the sheeple buy into it, believing whatever the created conditions are.

And that IS what they are…created conditions. It’s the ‘setting up’ of a created ‘enemy’ (what is sometimes referenced as an ‘objective enemy’) so that the US or Israel CAN ATTACK them, and have it presumed by the rest of the world that it’s somehow legitimate, because we’ve been ‘setting them up’ by means of false accusations in advance of that attack.

It’s like me telling everybody in the world that YOU are trying to hurt me or my family, and that it is your INTENT to hurt me and my family. And, if you buy some fertilizer for your lawn, I’m gonna tell the world that you’ve procured that fertilizer NOT for your lawn or garden, but because you plan to use it to bomb me and my family. And I do that consistently for years on end, while I continue to jab at you from all ends, and send my own fighting machines to hang out around your house and lawn and garden. At the same time, I tell all of your neighbors that because you intend to use the fertilizer to bomb me and my family, (and NOT on your lawn and garden) that they should band together to PREVENT YOU from even being able to buy/procure the fertilizer for your garden, so that you can grow food or whatever you need to sustain your own well-being. That is DESPITE the fact that you have every right to grow food in your garden to feed your family, and despite the fact that the designated watchdog for the world has been monitoring your activities to KNOW that you are not using the fertilizer for any other purpose than to grow your food or maintain your lawn.

All the while, I consistently bully and attempt to intimidate you in your own house, still claiming to the world that it is YOUR intent to hurt me, even though there is absolutely NO evidence of tha! Finally, when I actually DO attack you, the rest of the world thinks its fine, because after all, that’s what I’ve already told everyone that YOU intended to do to me.

You’ve already witnessed this very same tactic to take over Iraq, so I don’t know why so many of you are having a hard time seeing the duplicate play this time around. Iran was always part of the PNAC plan anyway, just as Iraq was.

And if hundreds of thousands of average folks can figure this out, Obama obviously can as well. So the ONLY ‘response’ is to stop the setting up of an objective enemy by means of normalizing relations. Why would anyone NOT choose to avoid yet another massacre of millions of innocent civilians, based on a lie?

That is NOT ‘liberal v conservative’, it’s about right and wrong and a respect for humanity.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 2, 2008 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

Israel has spied on, attacked outright and sought to take over our democracy against the will of our people alot more than Iran ever has.

Report this

By bert, May 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

You have to cut Obama supporters some slack, Kevin. Many suffer from shorterm memory failure.

They condemn Hillary for saying she would bomb Iran if they attacked Israel. But they conveniently forget Obama has said he would bomb Pakistan if the US has actionable intelligence that Al Quaeda was present in border towns. I guess the difference is it is OK if you say you will bomb an ally (Pakistan), but it is not OK if you respond to an attack on one of our allies (Israel) by a non-allied country, Iran. Go figure.

Report this

By bert, May 2, 2008 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

I was just going to write something very similar. I agree with everything you say, and second your motion.

See. There is something we can agree on.

Report this

By cyrena, May 2, 2008 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment


Thanks for these links. Excellent idea, and the work is appreciated.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 2, 2008 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

I have no idea what Obama’s response would be.  However, it is not a liberal/conservative issue.  It goes without saying that if Iran launched a nuclear strike on Israel (or anyone for that matter) that the US would put its full weight behind a retaliation.

The point is a diplomatic one: don’t open your mouth so wide that both legs fit inside.  And don’t use words like “obliterate”.  She could have answered that question in a variety of ways that would have made the same point without the unnecessary provocation.

“Are the liberals so dumb?”  Well, we are dumb all over…black and white, liberal and conservative.

Report this

By Allen Wood, May 2, 2008 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You are dead wrong on that. If you want business as Bush Usual, go ahead and vote for McCain. One question I have for anyone that votes in this election though is a simple one. Why are you even bothering to vote? Unless you are a total moron, you must know that the winner of the upcoming election, if there even is one, was decided years ago. ALL ELECTIONS TO POLITICAL OFFICES IN THE US ARE RIGGED, FIXED, CORRUPTED, just choose the term you like best. What a freakin joke.Just remember one thing, If a politician ever delivered everything that was promised during his/her campaign, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR CHRISTMAS PERIOD. Good luck you suckers. When you are being waterboarded in a FEMA Detention Camp, think back to this post. ITS OVER BABY, SUCK IT UP!

Report this

By Jonathon, May 2, 2008 at 11:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

—“Iran can be as self-righteous as they wanna be in saying this, because the proof is in the record. Iran neither attacked or threatened to attack ANY OTHER nation in well over a century, (UNLIKE some other nations I could mention) and they have every right to defend themselves against attacks from anyone else.”

Not to be a smart ass since you’re obviously much wiser than I, but what about Amidenjad’s declarations about wiping Isreal off the map?  Does this count as a threatened attack or does he not really represent the Iranian regime?

Report this

By Shining Star, May 2, 2008 at 8:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

1st - who cares what Iran thinks????  2nd - The only problem Iran has with Hillary is that she’s a WOMAN!  That’s the real issue.  All you Hillary-haters should be ashamed of yourselves for the way you have tried (and not succeeded) to stop her.  If you think McCain’s 100 Years War is the solution, you’re crazy.  I’m glad I don’t have any sons or daughters to ‘sacrifice’ for this insanity.  May God have mercy on your souls.

Report this

By Maezeppa, May 2, 2008 at 7:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president, her administration will have a hell of a time improving relations with Iran”

Nonsense.  This little bit of political theater on Iran’s part means nothing and should be ignored.  We all know Clinton has to talk tough and the ‘obliterate’ comment was conditioned on a hypothetical act on Iran’s part.

Everybody calm down!

Report this

By Aegrus, May 2, 2008 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

I would hope you reconsider. It won’t help anyone to not vote Democrat this year. Here’s me, urging you to do your part.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, May 2, 2008 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

Would Iran really fit under Hillary’s bus?

Report this

By TDoff, May 2, 2008 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

Just what we need! Another NeoConZionist president whose main raison d’ etre is ISRAEL UBER ALLES.

Under Hillary’s reign, ‘Zionist’ will become ‘the ‘Z’ word’, and Guantanamo will be expanded to house any ‘terrorists’ who criticize Israel, Zionism, or the US empire’s policy of sending it’s youth to war whenever the Israeli government expresses concern that someone, somewhere, may be planning to interfere with Israel’s goal of dominating the Middle East.

Of course, this approach should fill Hillary’s campaign coffers quickly, as soon as AIPAC and AEI and the rest of the Israel lobbyists redirect their share of Israel’s ‘foreign aid’ to the Clinton campaign.

Report this

By mstamper, May 2, 2008 at 3:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Hillary wins the nomination, we need to sit out the Presidential election and work for a strong Democratic Congress.  If Clinton were elected, the Democrats in Congress wouldn’t dare oppose her.  This woman is a dictator-in-waiting.  If she wins the nomination, let’s walk out of the convention.

Report this

By Jack08democracy, May 2, 2008 at 3:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The unconstrained votes of some 800 top Democratic Party officials, known as Super Delegates, now matter even more following the Pennsylvania Primary, which continued to leave both Presidential candidates short of the 2,024 primary-pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Those believing these Party insiders (who include governors, mayors, state and Congressional lawmakers) should be more accountable to rank-and-file Democrats, can now have their voices heard through This one-stop portal is the first and only one empowering grassroots Democrats to directly communicate with their state’s Super Delegates – via email, fax or postal letters. maintains lists of Super Delegates who have endorsed Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or are still uncommitted. Users can, with one click, target all uncommitted Super Delegates and urge them to publicly endorse a certain candidate, or remain uncommitted. Users can similarly lobby Super Delegates to keep an existing commitment, or switch to the other candidate.

Although Sen. Obama leads with 1,490 pledged delegates to 1,336 for Sen. Clinton, neither would attain 2,024 even if one or the other won two-thirds of the remaining primary delegates. While Clinton leads among Super Delegates, 259 to 235, Obama has narrowed this gap steadily over the past six weeks. Over 300 Super Delegates remain uncommitted.

The website is strictly independent, and is not aligned with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. was created as a public service under the auspices of the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation, whose similar civic engagement website,, is dedicated to delivering democracy to your desktop by connecting citizens and lawmakers.

Thousands have visited since it was launched on April 3. Since then, the website has been upgraded by adding a blog, the ability to invite friends, and free email delivery.

Report this

By cyrena, May 2, 2008 at 12:37 am Link to this comment

By golly Fadel, I think you hit the double bulls-eye on this one:

“To stand by her so-called man despite all he did can be interpreted either as lack of dignity and self-respect, or as a practical acceptance for a secretive sexual deviancy of her own.”

Yep..I think it’s ALL OF THE ABOVE!! wink

Good interpretation.

Report this

By kevin99999, May 1, 2008 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh, I forgot…liberals don’t care what Obama’s response would be…cause he can do no wrong.

Report this

By kevin99999, May 1, 2008 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And would your darling’s (Obama’s) response be if he were asked the same question? I think the question what would the U.S. do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapon.

Are the liberals so dumb?

Report this

By Don Stivers, May 1, 2008 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

Come on Hillary.  Keep the pandering to the masses going.  Who cares what you say about a people half way around the world?  Show what you’re made of!

We forget that it is our warships occupying their sovereign territory and we are the provocateurs.  Come on let’s just keep poking them in the chest and say “Come on you stupid shits!  Fight me!”  That’s when they pull a Tomahawk cruise missile out of a container ship and fire it at the White House or the Capitol Building.

Very brave, very smart leaders we have.  That includes you too Hillary who voted to give Bush the power to go to war and kill innocents.

But then again, what happened before the Wright furor?  I don’t remember.  Gas prices went up.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, May 1, 2008 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

If Hillary needed to obliterate anyone, she should have done that with her man who was fooling around with other women when he was in the Governor’s office and in the president’s office. To stand by her so-called man despite all he did can be interpreted either as lack of dignity and self-respect, or as a practical acceptance for a secretive sexual deviancy of her own.

And there are people who are willing to take chances with this woman of dubious character!

Report this

By cyrena, May 1, 2008 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

•  “Iran’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, called an April 22
statement on ABC by the New York senator, …“provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible” and “a flagrant violation” of the U.N. Charter.””

And, he would be 100% correct. Her remarks and her entire mentality are provocative, unwarranted, and irresponsible, IN ADDITION to being a FLAGRANT VIOLATION of the U.N. Charter. Hillary Clinton is a fascist in a pantsuit with earrings and the standard iron fist that all Republican fascist dictators have. She might be smarter than george, but she’s as much a bully if not more.

•  “In the letter, Danesh-Yazdi said “Iran is a leading nation in rejecting and
opposing all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear
weapons.” He added that Iran has repeatedly declared “that nuclear weapons
as the most lethal and inhumane weapons have no place in the defense
doctrine of the country.””

He’s absolutely correct on this as well, and Iran is on record (many times) for having said this in the past. They are also in total compliance with the NPT, and have all of their paperwork in order with the U.N. They’ve been thoroughly investigated the inside out by the IAEA, as well as the US intelligence agencies that produced the most recently NIE.

Hillary REALLY screwed up, and screwed up badly.

•  ““Moreover, I wish to reiterate my government’s position that the Islamic Republic of Iran has no intention to attack any other nations,” Danesh-Yazdisaid. “Nonetheless ... Iran would not hesitate to act in self-defense to respond to any attack against the Iranian nation and to take appropriate defensive measures to protect itself” as authorized under the U.N. Charter.”

Iran can be as self-righteous as they wanna be in saying this, because the proof is in the record. Iran neither attacked or threatened to attack ANY OTHER nation in well over a century, (UNLIKE some other nations I could mention) and they have every right to defend themselves against attacks from anyone else.

So, let’s hope the superdelegates are accessing this as carefully as they should. Neither we or the rest of the world can stand by and allow another Hitler to terrorize the globe, no matter what race or gender they happen to be.

But of course, who knows if we’ll even get that far. Hillary would only be completing the plans made by the neo-cons long ago, and if Cheney has his way, this will happen with or without her assistance, and before any elections can take place. Matter of fact, it could be the very fact that she’s losing, that will cement Cheney’s resolve to make sure that it happens before the elections. If Obama wins, then Dick Bush and the PNAC crowd will have to give up that dream of attacking Iran and controlling the entire Middle East. Only a win or theft by McSame John or McSame Hillary would allow for the continuation of his dream.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 1, 2008 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment

“provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible”

Pretty much sums up Hillary’s campaign in recent time.

Report this

By purplewolf, May 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment

And this is from the person who is ready on day one to take control of America and will answer that 3 A.M. phone call? Yet when I saw her on live news after seeing and hearing her say that she would obliterate Iran and promising to send our soldiers( yeah, I know, what soldiers?) anywhere in the Mideast into yet another war and then denying she said that. Then claiming “I was tired”. Well, that comment didn’t cut it. If she is so tired that she can make a statement like that and then claim she didn’t, “did I?” It is obvious she is not ready to take control at all. She is just another warmonger and no better than Bush.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 1, 2008 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

Oh, they’ll understand…she was tired, it was late/early.  She didn’t really mean it.  I can’t believe that they didn’t catch the wink!  But whatever, Bill will smooth things over for her.  Everybody loves Bill, right?

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook