Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
In Reckless Hands

In Reckless Hands

By Victoria Nourse
$16.47

more items

 
Report

Kucinich Calls Out Clinton’s Nuclear Blunder

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 11, 2007
Kucinich and Clinton
AP Photos / Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Jeff Roberson

At odds:  Democratic presidential hopefuls Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

By Kasia Anderson

A year ago, Hillary Clinton said she “would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table” when it came to confronting Iran about its expanding nuclear program.  That comment contrasts conspicuously with her more recent statement, on Aug. 2, in response to fellow Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s similar statement that nuclear weapons were “not on the table” for him in a hypothetical discussion about targeting terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  “Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons,” Clinton countered later that same day.  “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”

Once again, as with her stance on the Iraq war, Clinton’s record has been inconsistent when it comes to how, when and against whom she would take military action were she to become the U.S. commander in chief.  Perhaps she has decided, or been urged by her advisers, to strike an aggressive pose in order to compensate for being a woman in a race for the presidency, a situation that some voters might view as virtually irreconcilable.  But balancing “I’m your girl” wink-wink affability with “I can play with the big boys and their big guns” credibility is one thing, and going so far as to introduce even the dim possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in a notoriously volatile region is entirely another.

In their coverage, such as it was, mainstream media outlets largely focused on Clinton’s apparent self-contradiction—as her campaign reps gestured at contextual differences in an attempt to integrate her two remarks—or on her bids to cast Obama as a foreign policy neophyte.  However, for Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the biggest issue raised by Clinton’s comments isn’t so much consistency as it is her character, and by extension her ability to effectively serve as America’s president.  Here, Kucinich sounds off to Truthdig’s Associate Editor Kasia Anderson about his concerns about Clinton’s nuclear politics and their global implications.

Kasia Anderson:  What’s your reaction to Sen. Clinton’s comeback to Sen. Obama about the possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan?

Dennis Kucinich:  I think that that single comment by Sen.  Clinton raises questions about her fitness for the presidency.  In a week in which we observe the [anniversaries of the] tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, any American presidential candidate who rattles the nuclear saber must be viewed with the greatest amount of skepticism.  Given Sen. Clinton’s commitment to the neocon doctrines of pre-emption, unilateralism and first strike, all Americans should be very concerned about how she would use the power of the presidency.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
There’s another question here, and that is: Is she unaware of the fragility of conditions on the Asian subcontinent with respect to nuclear parity and first-strike concerns?  Does she really mean what she says, and is she ready to take responsibility for potentially catalyzing a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan?  Has she really thought this through?  This really raises questions about whether she has the thoughtfulness to be able to lead the nation.  Given her willingness to attack Iraq without any evidence whatsoever, without having read any of the documents, without having done any of the research—is she that susceptible that she’s willing to reach for the nuclear football?

Anderson:  Can you say more about first-use doctrine in this context?

Kucinich:  There’s a doctrine of first use which really is a violation of international law.  The first-use doctrine is the prelude to Armageddon.  We live in a time where the entire world understands the imperative of getting rid of nuclear weapons, and Sen. Clinton’s lack of awareness of the danger of that kind of rhetoric legitimates the first-strike doctrine among all nations.  And so, in some ways, her comments necessitate a deep discussion within the Democratic Party about what we stand for.

I believe in strength through peace, through enforcing the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty, which at its heart calls for nuclear abolition.  We should be talking about nuclear abolition, not about first strike.  This desire for aggressiveness with nuclear weapons is chilling and requires the most intense scrutiny of someone’s position on the most basic issue of survival of the planet.  Jonathan Schell was writing about these things decades ago—about the effects of the use of nuclear weapons.  I don’t understand why [Clinton] feels this need to look tough with respect to weapons.  What kind of calculations could she possibly be making? 

Everyone knows that there is no survivability from a nuclear attack, and that the use of nuclear weapons brings about ecocide.  At a time when we’re worried about the health of the planet, that someone would talk about using nuclear weapons shows a willingness to misuse power that could lead to the destruction of the planet itself.  We can all have these discussions about global climate change, and we all want to work together to improve the quality of life on the planet.  But the first-strike doctrine changes everything, because it invites the use of nuclear weapons, which destroy not only the target nation but the nation that uses them.

I think that what we’ve seen in the past is a real weakness that comes from a willingness to use deadly force without regard to the facts.  This is not only a political question; this is a question of character.

 


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.

Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, August 18, 2007 at 10:42 pm Link to this comment

Re #95807 by mackTN on 8/18 at 1:22 pm

Democrats could elect anybody in 08. Must we settle for Clinton II? She’s about 9th in a field of 9, as far as I’m concerned.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 18, 2007 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

I have to agree with Skruff.  I wish more voters would behave as if they were interviewing a job candidate rather than annointing a celebrity.  If we made candidates more accountable to us, the voters, for information and direct responses to questions we ask them, perhaps we wouldn’t elect presidents who behave like kings (or queens).

But we have a middleman between us and the candidates—the press, largely the Traditonal Media, and most of them are infiltrated by either partisan pundits or wannabe celebrities whose perspectives are self-serving.  For example, in the last YouTube debates for Democratic pres candidates, there were hardly any questions on NAFTA, open borders, illegal immigration, population sustainabilty—the most pressing issues of our times next to Iraq and health care.  I can’t believe CNN didn’t receive any questions on those topics, and I’ve asked CNN to print a list of everey question submitted. 

I don’t suppose you can submit an FOIA request to a news organization, can you?

If Senator Clinton were sitting across from me, I’d ask her questions to which I expected the answers.  In job interviews, we are given hypotheticals all the time—for valid reasons.  But this election process is driven by money, spinning, celebrity—factors that should have nothing to do with winning the job. 

If Hillary Clinton had not been married to Bill, she would not be a senator today—and she wouldn’t be running for president.  If Dubya had not been the son of GB, he wouldn’t even be working in public service. 

Logic dictates that one can’t prove something true by mere association:  From Wikipedia—

The logical inverse of “guilt by association” is honor by association, where one claims that someone or something must be reputable because of the people or organizations that are related to it or otherwise support it. For example:

Alice is a lawyer, and Alice thinks highly of Bob. Therefore, Bob must know the law.
Aaron will make a good race car driver, because his friend is a good race car driver.
Mother Theresa was good and a Catholic, so all Catholics are good.

And how about:

Bill Clinton was president, therefore his wife is qualified to be president.

George Bush was president, therefore his sons are qualified to be president.

Given the past 8 years, you would think voters would not repeat the same errors in judgement.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, August 18, 2007 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

#95785 by Leefeller on 8/18 at 10:36 am
(331 comments total)

Hillary wants to get back in the White House so bad, she has sold her very being to special interests for the opportunity.  Do you for one moment believe she will hold the interests of us, the people over the money interests paying her way? 

The women thing is not an issue, it would be nice to have a women as president, sex of the candidate has nothing to do with it.  Sleeping with special interests means one thing, business as usual.”


Leefeller,

I’m afraid so. In the U Tube debate, when Hillary said she had no problem taking money from anybody because “real people” give it to her, and with her record how could anybody think she could be influenced by money, as my jaw dropped, I heard a cynical “hah” coming from the audience. What is this, hypocrisy, naivette, total lack of self-awareness or what? Whatever it is, we don’t want it in a president.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, August 18, 2007 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

Hillary,

Wants to get back in the White House so bad, she has sold her very being to special interests for the opportunity.  Do you for one moment believe she will hold the interests of us, the people over the money interests paying her way? 

The women thing is not an issue, it would be nice to have a women as president, sex of the candidate has nothing to do with it.  Sleeping with special interests means one thing, business as usual.

The only change you will see, is less in your pocket.

Report this

By Skruff, August 17, 2007 at 6:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would ask you two questions, Skruff:-
1. What president ever behaved like an employee?

John Quincy Adams, Dwight Eisenhower, and Jimmy Carter… not that I approve of all their actions

2. What group of ordinary people ever behaved like a board of directors?

My town does a good job of behaving like directors twice a year.

I would guess you are not a “Yankee” trying to explane “Yankee” is akin to attempting to define “Southerner”  complex! 

I’m just about done with this site….getting fairly boring!

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 16, 2007 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

Doug Chalmers:

I’m sure when things have settled down, we won’t be subjected to such an intense level of scrutiny. 

But Truthdig was in danger of losing its forum to a couple of tricksters whose intention was to make this an unpalatable forum for discussing ideas. 

If I lose a couple of posts in the process, so be it.  It’s worth the sacrifice.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 16, 2007 at 11:04 pm Link to this comment

#95592 by mackTN on 8/16 at 9:41 pm: “...I have no problem with differing points of view.  This is an open forum designed for debate on the issues stimulated by the article that is published. .......People do want to talk about the content of these articles and not wade through reams of nonsense, knowing full well that to make any comment is pointless, as it will be drowned in another stream of devil talk. ........I’m beginning to think you are all one person registered under different names….”
#95577 by Goshspeak on 8/16 at 7:50 pm: “...Anybody noticed that Godsend’s spittle comes up and many other posts only show the names with no comments…”

Well, Goshspeak, that is what a blog looks like when the moderator or administrator has pruned the off-topic or offensive comments. Pity they took so long and someone had to “throw down the gauntlet” so to speak. If there is to be any Truth on Truthdig, there has to be some adherence to psoting guidlines - and the administrator has to enforce them. Otherwise interested commenter (and readers) don’t get a chance…...

Especially with the recent 3 or 4 Hillary Clinton topics, mackTN, I think that Truthdig has managed to allow Karl Rove Republicans to covertly subvert the topics and spoil them for others with their over-posting and irrelevant comments. If Scheer wants to promote his GOP friend, Arnie Swarzenegger, then he only has to put his picture on the front page, not have his stormtroopers camping here.

You wouldn’t think anyone in California voted for Barbara Boxer the way things have turned out on Truthdig. This topic has 2 pages and, so far, they have only cleaned up the first page. But so-called Truthdig have deleted some of my postings in other topics as well - and have been brutally repressive of my on-topic and relevant free speech in that regard.  Again, some one of Scheer’s friends’ private agendas have been obviously pandered to. That’s not very nice.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 16, 2007 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

Thank goodness, it now looks like Truthdig is doing some moderating and returning the forums to people who can be respectful of others with different views.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 16, 2007 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment

I have no problem with differing points of view.  This is an open forum designed for debate on the issues stimulated by the article that is published.  It would be a dull, boring, undemocratic forum if only one point of view dominated.  Additionally, I don’t learn what other people think; then I don’t learn.

But accusing people of speaking through snouts and being satan and all that bs solely and repeatedly and whereever there seems to be a critical article about Hillary Clinton appears deliberate…besides being stupid, off topic, and rude.  It makes this site worthless, which is perhaps your intention.

People do want to talk about the content of these articles and not wade through reams of nonsense, knowing full well that to make any comment is pointless, as it will be drowned in another stream of devil talk.

If you have a private argument, why not take it to your private email.  Why do the rest of us have to be subjected to it? 

I’m beginning to think you are all one person registered under different names.  For someone who has posted as much as you have and who’s been registered for such a short time, I’m surprised this is all you have to say. 

Whereelse but on the internet where you can be anonymous would you dare to act out like this?  Either you are off your meds or you need some.

Report this

By Goshspeak, August 16, 2007 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anybody noticed that Godsend’s spittle comes up and many other posts only show the names with no comments?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 16, 2007 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment

#95442 by Skruff on 8/16 at 10:12 am: “... ‘hire a president” ....I adamently disagree. These folks are our employees ...... the president is an “employee” who is in office at the pleasure of the people. The word “leader” appears nowhere in that document, nor does the word “privlege” .....They work for us, at our pleasure…”

I would ask you two questions, Skruff:-
1. What president ever behaved like an employee?
2. What group of ordinary people ever behaved like a board of directors?

You are trying to use a corporate model to describe governing the country and you see now what the problem is. In fact, it is in having a congress and a senate filled with “employees” as you have wished which has put us all in the very worst situation. They are just being used and manipulated by the ‘decider’ president even if they have an opposition majority.

Yes, I agree that “fire with cause” is a valid idea but ‘we, the people’ already had an executive meeting some time ago and failed to act on a “one-term-discharge” -  and so here we are. That is clearly incompetence of the board to allow a criminal president and his executive clique to continue in office to the detriment of the ‘shareholders’ of the body politic.


And, it a 45 gallon drum, not a 55 gallon drum of “tar”. I wish you luck with the “angry people and some feathers” but you’ll find that they’re hard to handle. The kind of action we need is for people to be upstanding in being more responsible in every way as well as being totally unwilling to take being treated as dirt in their own country by their own “board of management”.

Perhaps a better idea would be to cut your losses by selling out and leaving corporate affairs to the new owners? That is, the Chinese, the Japanese and the European stockholders! Then again, haven’t the majority of America’s shareholders already effectively sold out on them selves and their and their childrens’ futures a long time back?

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 16, 2007 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

#95438 by Frank

Can you not imagine a scenario where the use of a nuclear weapon, of any yield or magnitude and application, might need to be employed?

Short answer: Yes.

That’s a good one. There are other ones, too.

The scary part is that a tin-foil-hat knucklehead like Kucinich wouldn’t lie about not using them, and then not allow the use of one when it’s absolutely required.

Report this

By loveinatub, August 16, 2007 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

Kucinich is right on! He’s intelligent, ethical and the most honest of the democratic candidates. He’s liberal and I fully support a “strength through peace” foreign policy. Hillary is a Thatcher in the making if there ever was one. Vote Kucinich!!!!!

Report this

By Skruff, August 16, 2007 at 11:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

95389 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/16 at 7:14 am

“One thing you can’t do, in all honesty, is to ‘hire a president”


I adamently disagree. These folks are our employees;

An election is a “call for resume`s”
Vote majority is the “board’s decission to hire”
Impeachment is “fire with cause” and one-term-discharge is a fire for lack of preformance..

The Constitution makes it clear that the president is an “employee” who is in office at the pleasure of the people. The word “leader” appears nowhere in that document, nor does the word “privlege”

They work for us, at our pleasure, and too few folks know that!

Frankly, I’m in favor of reviving an old New England tradition.

All we need is angry people, a 55 gallon drum of tar and some feathers!  I know from reading around the internet that we already have the angry people!

Report this

By Frank, August 16, 2007 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

’Can you not imagine a scenario where the use of a nuclear weapon, of any yield or magnitude and application, might need to be employed?”

Short answer: Yes.

Imagine that we know with certainty that Al Quaida operatives are hiding out in caves with a cache of militray grade bio-weapons acquired on the black market, preparing to deploy them in a widespread attack on western targets throughout Europe and elsewhere. We know the location of the cave network where they are but have only a few hours to eliminate this threat before the weapons are moved by scores of differen human carriers and we potentially lose track of some or all of them. We have nowhere near enough time to plan and mount an assault by conventional forces that can succeed. Conventional airstrike will not work either, as no conventional bombs have the power to penetrate deeply enough into the caves where the terrorists and weapons are located. 

The only hope in preventing dozens of bio-weapons attacks across European cities is with a nuclear bunker buster missile that can be launched immediately and has a nearly 100% chance of destroying the underground targets with minimal radiation and damage above ground.

Would any responsible Presidential candidate absolutely rule out the use of a tactical nuke in scenarios like this? No, they wouldn’t. They would only lie about it for the sake of getting the left vote.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 16, 2007 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

#95350 by Skruff on 8/16 at 4:28 am: “...I do believe you have placed your finger directly on the problem.  US citizens seem to be intent on “annointing a savior” rather than hiring an employee.  .......AND over all, the absolute worst slate of candidates from both parties in my lifetime.

Maybe, maybe not, Skruff. At least Hillary has put effort into remaking herself and has something to offer. Her past sins are not Bill’s sins and might yet be forgiven her. At least, she is willing to put in the hard yards to make positive change happen - and for as many as she can. The rest, I agree, are representative of various levels of disappointment - or toxicity.

But for “annointing a savior”  or “hiring an employee”, neither ideas are clever. As you say, though, too many do want to just leave the thinking and the hard work to someone else. Quite frankly, I don’t really blame them as it is a really awful mess to have to confront. The trouble is that we all do have to now - as the ‘bill’ for the last 100 years never mind the past 7 years is being presented to us.

One thing you can’t do, in all honesty, is to “hire a president” - unless you are the CIA, and they do that all the time, duh. Someone has to offer their services. You are then lucky if you have a choice but there will be those with unbridled ambition and total self-centredness and maybe one or two who do have the country and its citizens at heart.

There is one on offer that I know of who at least is amongst “the best qualified and the most experienced”. Choose wisely, eh?

Report this

By Novista, August 16, 2007 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

‘Can you not imagine a scenario where the use of a nuclear weapon, of any yield or magnitude and application, might need to be employed?”

Short amswer: No.

Let’s turn it around: Would you be willing to risk the human race just to get even? Not to mention the ‘collateral damage’ to the planet generally.

I wonder if WW2 Japan had had the retaliatory capability, would they have used it?

Be careful what you wish for. Given India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and Russia that we know of ...

Report this

By Skruff, August 16, 2007 at 5:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

95336 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/16 at 1:26 am says:

“Thus, attacking mercilessly and flagellating their only future presidential saviour”

How much are you paid by the shill’s campaign?

I do believe you have placed your finger directly on the problem.  US citizens seem to be intent on “annointing a savior” rather than hiring an employee.  Sad sad days for this country.

AND over all, the absolute worst slate of candidates from both parties in my lifetime.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 16, 2007 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

#95096 by Skruff

Open sites invite open expression.  While I regret some of the opinions expressed, they are indeed valid “opinions” assassinating posters because they do not conform to some (IMHO imagined) order of internet protocol is (again IMHO) facism.

I do believe you see the irony in the “progressives” who want to stifle freedom of expression.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 16, 2007 at 2:26 am Link to this comment

This topic has become disappointing to post in yet the wankers at blog HQ at Truthdig merely add a few Smileys to their own favorite commenters’ postings instead of pro-actively administering it. Pathetic! Then Scheer + co. whine about Hillary not ‘pro-actively’ administering everything in Washington even though she is not yet president. Unbelieveable!

So much for the California lifestyle these days that the politically-correct obsessed trendies must compulsively insist that their Democrat president-to-be mouth only exactly that which exactly fits their pre-conceived narrow formulae about nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, heading towards another war in Pakistan and with Obama’s assistance, yet.

Regardless of the consequences, editorial fools like KS and Scheer then proceed to vivisect Hillary over the slightest perceived error rather than questioning their own all-pervasive clique’s abysmal ignorance of correct procedure in politics or government never mind the adroit application of “the art of war” in foreign affairs.

Thus, attacking mercilessly and flagellating their only future presidential saviour, they fail utterly in any comprehension of the superior “art of peace” about which they seem to have never heard. So much for the pretend-to-be Buddhists of West-coast USA. Are they following Barbara Boxer or Arnie Swarzenegger? I tell ya - they can’t really make up their minds in “Cally-fornia”, these days!

Report this

By Skruff, August 15, 2007 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

95063 by mackTN on 8/15 at 6:47 am contends:

“It’s rude to take up reams of comment space and dominate commentary by arguing with posters who have agendas.” 

Maybe.

“I hope Truthdig gets rid of the both of you.”

Perfectly valid “hope”. 

If you continue in this vein, you will be banned from commenting here.  I’m not the only one who has complained about this behavior.

Open sites invite open expression.  While I regret some of the opinions expressed, they are indeed valid “opinions” assassinating posters because they do not conform to some (IMHO imagined) order of internet protocol is (again IMHO) facism.

If this site is only for people who “argue” within a set format, I guess I do not belong here either.

So what’s truth dig’s model?  Are we a local Diner? A town meeting? A University seminar? or a WWF sideshow?

My guess?

closer to WWF than college.  and I like it like that!

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 15, 2007 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

#95063 by mackTN

It’s rude to take up reams of comment space and dominate commentary by arguing with posters who have agendas.

Everyone has an agenda. Even you, mack. Your problem seems to be accepting the need for a contrarian viewpoint. Absent that, what is left? A chorus of sycophants. What good is that?

This meta-discussion is sorely lacking here. You should be thankful for it.

Report this

By jimijazz, August 15, 2007 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary is bad news period. Its about time these people who call themselves democrats or progressives wake up to that.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 15, 2007 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

It’s rude to take up reams of comment space and dominate commentary by arguing with posters who have agendas.  You, Lilmamzer repelled other posters with other points of views about the article at hand because you chose to confront an idiot—like you were going to change his mind or something. Or maybe you two work together with the intention of preventing discussion about certain articles. In any case, I hope Truthdig gets rid of the both of you. 

If you continue in this vein, you will be banned from commenting here.  I’m not the only one who has complained about this behavior.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 15, 2007 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

#94974 by Douglas Chalmers

#94902 by PaulMagillSmith on 8/14 at 2:16 pmFrankly though, I believe lilmamzer might be a ‘plant’ in the vein of Rovian tactics, which use the tools of smear & slander to intentionally distract from the discussion at hand….”————->

Yes [Douglas Chalmers]

“plant” “Rovian” “tactics” “tools” “smear”

It never ceases to amuse me (and not without some morbid interest, either) to see the streak of paranoia that runs through the landscape of the far left, and evident here especially. Any poster with a point of view that may deviate from the party line simply has to be a ‘plant’ or a paid agent provacateur. It couldn’t be the voice of an individual with his or her own ideas - that would contradict the myth of ‘unseen forces’ - and threaten the left’s cherished tenet of groupthink.
——————————————

but ‘lilmamzer’ has managed to actually say something too

No way!
Does that mean I haven’t been a good plant?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 14, 2007 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

#94902 by PaulMagillSmith on 8/14 at 2:16 pmFrankly though, I believe lilmamzer might be a ‘plant’ in the vein of Rovian tactics, which use the tools of smear & slander to intentionally distract from the discussion at hand….”————->

Yes, and posting repetitively at length taking up page space but ‘lilmamzer’ has managed to actually say something too. Kucinich has been “the perfect ‘useful idiot’ for the Democrats” (#94899 by lilmamzer on 8/14 at 1:58 pm) but they are now sadly using him to attack each other in this article re the Truthdig interview. The idea of having a WOMAN for PRESIDENT seems to frighten some of them, too…...


“No matter how idyllic his message, it will never make it in the world of realpolitik….... The majority of American citizens ‘get it’. That is why Kucinich will never go anywhere…” (#94932 by lilmamzer on 8/14 at 5:42 pm)

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 14, 2007 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

#94912 by noodle

It’s really very simple. Let all the candidates just say “We (the U.S.) will never be the FIRST to use nuclear weapons no matter what the provocation.”

This discussion is a waste of time. It is emblematic of the spiraling off-ramp that has trapped the left and the Democratic party into irrelevance. It’s a political dead-end.

The US has no need to prove its bona fides as a free nation among free nations. The US should never make promises it might not be able to keep. Can you not imagine a scenario where the use of a nuclear weapon, of any yield or magnitude and application, might need to be employed?

If you cannot, you would have no business making policy decisions affecting the security of this nation or any of the many allies depending upon us for their security.

The majority of American citizens ‘get it’. That is why Kucinich will never go anywhere. No matter how idyllic his message, it will never make it in the world of realpolitik.

Report this

By noodle, August 14, 2007 at 4:45 pm Link to this comment

It’s really very simple. Let all the candidates just say “We (the U.S.) will never be the FIRST to use nuclear weapons no matter what the provocation.”

Report this

By NewsSophisticate, August 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Check out this hilarious video

Kucinich Supporters Brilliant Video: The Chenguin
http://newssophisticate.blogspot.com/2007/08/kucinich-supporters-brilliant-video.html

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, August 14, 2007 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment

RE: #94890 by globalwarmingsucks on 8/14 at 1:02 pm
(1 comments total)

“Well, from the perspective of someone who literally joined Truthdig only moments ago, it seems as though mackTN is making the most sense. lilmamzer, while you might not lie about your intentions to fight bigotry, I can’t fail to notice your glancing references to our country becoming an “Islamic hellhole”. Honestly? You think you’re somehow less of a bigot? mackTN’s right, you guys have only distracted so far.”

I have to agree with you here AND also what you said mackTN RE: #94868 by mackTN on 8/14 at 11:28 am
(19 comments total)

“Why oh why are we so naive?  We fall for it all the time.  Don’t you know, people, that these campaigns have “fast-response” posters whose job it is to distract attention by posting bs in response to certain articles?” 

After viewing some of his/her posts (lilmamzer) I even mentioned the same thing way back on this post #94550 on 8/13 at 10:03 am


“This has been a pretty nasty & vile thread, folks, and likely inspired by a foolish hypocrit named lilmamzer….”

(Sorry, as a new poster globalwarmingsucks, that you had to step into a thread like this. Unless we get the occasional rightie ‘schill’ the posts are usually more on topic, informative & energetic, but civil)

“Frankly though, I believe lilmamzer might be a ‘plant’ in the vein of Rovian tactics, which use the tools of smear & slander to intentionally distract from the discussion at hand.”


Just to show I was on topic I will repeat a few key sentences, with just one addition to clarify, to wit: All Jewish people are not neo-Con Zionist fascists AND not all Zionists are Jewish.

Back to the topic at hand:
RE: #94550 by PaulMagillSmith on 8/13 at 10:03 am
(119 comments total)

“DEFEND does not mean or equal ATTACK. Historically fascist regimes attack and democracies defend. Which do we want to be? 

We weren’t talking of an article about the Jewish or Islam (although I will admit there are some related issues involved). The discussion at hand is about the pre-emptive (OFFENSIVE) use of nuclear weapons.

As a matter of undeniable fact we are already using nuclear WMD (OFFENSIVELY) in the form of DU (depleted uranium) in the middle east, and have been doing so since the first Gulf War in 1991.”

I value other people’s opinions on the topic of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons of any kind. My opinion is they are too deadly to both sides in a conflict from a medical, legal, humanitarian, and political standpoint, and should not be used…EVER.

Can we continue the discussion ON TOPIC from here?

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

lilmamzer is much more of a devilish and gross obscenity than he is a racist bigot. His kind can usually only be de-fanged by exorcism. Of course, a wooden stake through the heart or silver bullet has been known to do the trick on occasion - but he’s a lot more devilish and deceptive than a vampire! Melting also is sure to work. Yahweh usually gets these things right! wink The mere mentioning of the Name ( HaShem, or ‘Jesus the Christ’ ) will also drive them insane with rage. They have been known to stampede into the nearest body of water to drown themselves! smile Oh, wait - that’s swine (with a snout) - into which their demons escaped.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 14, 2007 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

#94890 by globalwarmingsucks

lilmamzer, while you might not lie about your intentions to fight bigotry, I can’t fail to notice your glancing references to our country becoming an “Islamic hellhole”. Honestly?

Honestly. It could happen. There are people working hard to make that a reality. Kucinich is the perfect ‘useful idiot’ for just such an outcome.
———————————-

You think you’re somehow less of a bigot?

I’m not a bigot at all.
———————————-

I’m all for ending biases and prejudices (although, to be fair, I don’t think bickering with Godsend will accomplish that)

Nothing will change Godsend’s mind, but the point has been missed by you: when there is blatant and crude bigotry posted right in front of you and you simply step to the other side of the street without making at least a token response, you might as well just give up. You send the message that it’s OK, just let it ride, it’s not offensive enough to merit any kind of denunciation. And so the shame is on you for that. It’s called sticking up for what’s right.
———————————-

but that’s entirely irrelevant to this friggin’ sweet article that’s been posted. mackTN’s right, you guys have only distracted so far

Multi-threaded comments can be interesting and challenging. To rigidly insist on a ‘topic party line’ shows a lack of intellectual agility and imagination. If you ever could impose such a paucity of outlook on what should be a freewheeling exchange of ideas, it would be a shame, but not at all alien to leftist modes of thought.
—————————————

On topic: I love Kucinich. Apparently lilmamzer’s only problem with him is he’s to leftist, as though that makes him a less rational or honest man.

It’s not that he’s on the left, it’s that he’s a lightweight, and hasn’t a firm grasp of much of what he needs to in order to engage in serious policy-making. We’re all better off that he has no chance of ever becoming a chief executive in this country.
—————————————-

Everything he says is born of sound logic and thorough research.

The vast majority of even left-of-center voters disagree with you on that. That is why Kucinich isn’t going anywhere.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

http://www.crescentandcross.com/

Hate the Devil? Why would anyone hate the Devil - or his Zionist worshipers, running the Rogue State of Israel?! (theirs is a sordid and shameful history and littany of inhumane and inhuman behavior, far too long to list here). Do they deserve the hate of humanity and annihilation by Yahweh? You betcha!

There is no country in the world where ‘Regime-change’ is more desperately needed than Israel! Problem is, every time they change the Regime, the new one is worse than the previous one! wink What irony that Jews will yet again be victims of Nazism - the new and improved and home-grown variety: Zionism!

Not to worry, Yahweh will take care of ‘the rebellious house of Israel’, in His usual, very effective manner! smile It will be the Final ‘Regime-change’ in Israel. The world just has to wait, watch and try to get out of the way.

Sewer-rats like lilmamzer will be scurrying out of the penetrating light. They can run but they can’t hide!

Report this

By globalwarmingsucks, August 14, 2007 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

Well, from the perspective of someone who literally joined Truthdig only moments ago, it seems as though mackTN is making the most sense. lilmamzer, while you might not lie about your intentions to fight bigotry, I can’t fail to notice your glancing references to our country becoming an “Islamic hellhole”. Honestly? You think you’re somehow less of a bigot? I’m all for ending biases and prejudices (although, to be fair, I don’t think bickering with Godsend will accomplish that), but that’s entirely irrelevant to this friggin’ sweet article that’s been posted. mackTN’s right, you guys have only distracted so far.

On topic: I love Kucinich. Apparently lilmamzer’s only problem with him is he’s to leftist, as though that makes him a less rational or honest man. Everything he says is born of sound logic and thorough research. I recognize his chances of winning are slim, but I think it’s unjust, because he’s the best candidate I’ve seen yet.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 14, 2007 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

Sorry.  But the posts are so ridiculous that I refuse to even enter into a dialogue with something so ridiculous and off the mark.  All that does—as this does as well—is distract people off topic.  I’m surprised anyone gave him the pleasure of response.

If enough people report objectionable commenting, we’ll ensure that these threads stay focused with sincere dialogue from all perspectives.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

#94879 by mackTN

You see how they take over these discussions?

There is an object lesson here for the far left, mackTN, and so far, at Truthdig and every other far left venue I have seen, the disgrace has been the failure to confront the most obscene bigotry right under their noses.

In this case, you make clucking noises but say nothing substantive about Godsend the many bigots here parroting his paranoid scapegoating, further proving my point about the failure of the left wing media.

You may wink and nod and at most pay lip service, but in the end you bring discredit upon the entire so-called Progressive movement for your collective failure.

You just can’t have it both ways.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 14, 2007 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

You see how they take over these discussions?

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

#94873 by GodSend

Who wants who to win in 2008 is no longer relevant - if it was ever relevant. The only unresolved question is whether or not Zionists will be able to ‘elect’ one of their (many) candidates to the office of the president.

So much paranoia, so much anxiety, so much pure hatred.

It must suck to be you.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 14, 2007 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

#94822 by GodSend

The Devil speaks through lilmamzer’s snout - only lies, deception, filth, obscenities and blasphemies emerge! “Get thee hence!” (that means SCRAM! in modern English)

How very medieval of you.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Who wants who to win in 2008 is no longer relevant - if it was ever relevant. The only unresolved question is whether or not Zionists will be able to ‘elect’ one of their (many) candidates to the office of the president.

If Bush becomes the ‘Dictator-in-Chief’ (most likely scenario), there won’t be an election. There will be a military coup (eventually) to put him out of our misery.

If Ron Paul wins, America will get an ‘extension’ of time, that’s all.

If the Zionists succeed in ‘electing’ the next president, it doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican, Democrat or Independent. The ultimate fate of America is sealed! There may be a Revolution (especially if there is a Military Draft) to make things more interesting - sorta goes hand-in-hand with the Grand Depression! (already in progress)  wink

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, August 14, 2007 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Hillary’s posturing and pandering makes me nervous, and I would be loathe to vote for her even if she won the primary. 

When we will learn?  We’ve already elected one guy who was a candidate only because of his relationship with another president.  If Bill had divorced Hillary as he wanted to long ago, she wouldn’t even be a senator, much less running for President. 

If she wins the primary, the Republicans will make a laughingstock of this and they desperately want her to win.  they can beat her, easily.  Why do you think Rove has left office?  He’s going to help drive up her numbers like crazy.  He’s invested in securing the Bush legacy and keeping all the Iraq stuff in friendly hands—not Democratic hands.

Why oh why are we so naive?  We fall for it all the time.  Don’t you know, people, that these campaigns have “fast-response” posters whose job it is to distract attention by posting bs in response to certain articles? 

Please think.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

“No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jesus the Christ)

‘No one’ means not ANYONE - be they ‘Christian’, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Zionist (worshipers of Satan), agnostic, ecumenist, theist, or any other ‘ist’ who denies the Deity of Christ (to the exclusion of all other gods!) What could be more clear?! smile

“I and the Father are One” (so much for Judaism)

“When you have seen Me, you have seen the Father”

The Devil speaks through lilmamzer’s snout - only lies, deception, filth, obscenities and blasphemies emerge! “Get thee hence!” (that means SCRAM! in modern English)

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

PMS:

I read your post and I don’t SEE any area of disagreement! Yes, real Jews have to stop the abomination of Zionism dead in its tracks - before they fall victim to it. Zionism is the real enemy of the Jews! (SEE Alan Hart’s book: “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews”)

DECEPTION ( even of the ‘elect’ ) marks the End Times - and there is plenty of it going around these days - including 50 million or so-called ‘Christians’ (CUI). Hey, this is all prophecy being fulfilled! smile

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 14, 2007 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

#94805 by GodSend

What about Judaism and real Jews?

They deny the Deity of Christ. That makes them enemies of God and of Jesus the Christ (God).

Yep. Along with Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Bahai, and everyone else on the planet.

And the best part of it all, Godsend, is that while most of these people don’t mind peacefully coexisting with Christians, the truth is they just don’t care about Jesus.

God, in his infinite wisdom, has granted the human race with many different paths to spiritual fulfillment.

It’s a big world. Deal with it.

Deal with it.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 14, 2007 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

The ‘blame’ for the world’s predicament and coming Judgment falls on Zionists and their god, ‘the god of this world’ - known as the Devil!

Zionists are NOT real Jews (real Jews are Torah Jews - they obey Yahweh’s commandments - well, at least try to, sort of) wink

Zionists worship Satan in the “Synagogue of Satan”. They are the ‘rebellious house of Israel’ who will be MELTED in Yahweh’s furnace. (Ezekiel)

What about Judaism and real Jews?

They deny the Deity of Christ. That makes them enemies of God and of Jesus the Christ (God). Followers of Christ and real Jews (as well as Zionists and others) mix like oil and water! wink Where does the leave ZioChristians? It leaves them on the road to hell! - following the likes of Hagee and other so-called ‘Christian’ leaders who support the Rogue and Satanic State of Israel!

“There will be gnashing of teeth” - and lots of MELTING! (soon).

Who is lilmamzer? He is a soulless, living obscenity and offspring of the Devil! (a Son of Darkness). He is a shining example (Luciferian light) of what Zionists are like - UGHH! Don’t get too close!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 14, 2007 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

#94784 by Kem Patrick on 8/14 at 4:20 am: “...Douglas Chalmers on 8/14 12:33am blasts Paul M smith for writng the truth. I read that article Paul quoted and he is correct. The Christian churches do suport Zionism and that is what Paul was conveying. Why state Mr. Smith is guilty of anything, I understood his message and it was a good one. I think you may have mis-understtod what he meant….”——————>

Well, Kem Patrick, it looks like you and I both started in about the same way here - finding out the hard way just how lax and shoddy Truthdig really is despite their “Best Political Blog” of the year award. Never mind,  perseverance brings rewards. They profit and get a “winning” reputation while we put in all the effort and talent for nothing except the chance to writeabout our own personal agendas. That is truly the California laid-back lifestyle!

# Quote Kem Patrick: “...Since Hillary Clinton has said, she would take nuclear weapons off of the table, I wonder if that would include depleted uranium…”

Sorry, Kem, join the army and you get to use the stuff. You then are the sucker. Do they care? No! Doesn’t the army also have an opinion on DU and a responsibility as well? That and a lot of other things should be made to disappear from the Earth forever, I agree.

But don’t think that WHO will help. They have already been infiltrated. Check what is happening at http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php and at http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
All of this is being subverted for profit:-
Quote: “...The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations….”—————>

But, Kem, as far as my story you complained about is concerned, I too have checked my facts on AIPAC and the Christian Zionists, etc etc. and I have already addressed that separately under more appropriate topics here. There are also topics more directly related to issues of DU and Iraq. Check the links at the top of the page for more recent articles not on the front page, eh.

It is you who perhaps have misunderstood. The topic here is Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich. He has now gone the way of candidates who have to make political capital by attacking other candidates. By implication, this topic is also about Barack Obama, nuclear weapons and pre-emptive strikes but mainly in regard to the forthcoming Pakistan problem.

Just like the Iraqis, I guess they too will “Love America” for killing their people, polluting the land and water and mutating their children and forcing millions into homelessness. The USA missed is chance there in the 1960’s and things have gone backwards ever since. How does that make them evil? If there is one thing Christian Americans hate, its another inconvenient democracy which is choosing Islam.

As I said, the problem is in the USA, not in Israel. Americans only have to change their ludicrously selfish and self-righteous agendas on foreign affairs to stop all of these problems. If Americans have been manipulated by pro-Israeli imperialist-expansionist Zionists,  all they have to do is to say “No!”. Why don’t they?

My guess is that both Nancy Pelosi and Hillary will eventually sidestep the AIPAC crowd and their Christian supporters. As with a number of problematical issues, though, that too will take some time and effort. Policy is changing but it can’t change much yet while it can still all be vetoed by the “decider guy”. He is not a Democrat, by the way, but he has become an embarrassment to his own party which now risks cumulative electoral disaster. They want change now, too.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 14, 2007 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

#94784 by Kem Patrick

Douglas Chalmers on 8/14 12:33am blasts Paul M smith for writng the truth. I read that article Paul quoted and he is correct. The Christian churches do suport Zionism and that is what Paul was conveying. Why state Mr. Smith is guilty of anything, I understood his message and it was a good one. I think you may have mis-understtod what he meant.

Can’t you be more direct?

Just say it: the vast majority of Jews in America and around the world are Zionist (naturally). They are Zionist because Zionism is an inseparable part of Jewish culture and identity.

To believe otherwise would be evidence of willful ignorance or typical far-left identity-politics scapegoating.

Do you want to end up like Godsend? Falling into the lazy trap of pinning blame on the boogeyman of your choosing?

Kudos to Douglas Chalmers for bucking the Truthdig trend in this regard.

Report this

By Kem Patrick, August 14, 2007 at 5:20 am Link to this comment

Douglas Chalmers on 8/14 12:33am blasts Paul M smith for writng the truth. I read that article Paul quoted and he is correct. The Christian churches do suport Zionism and that is what Paul was conveying. Why state Mr. Smith is guilty of anything, I understood his message and it was a good one. I think you may have mis-understtod what he meant.

Report this

By Kem Patrick, August 14, 2007 at 4:53 am Link to this comment

Never mind again, it did post, I;llstick around. I’m sorry.

Report this

By Kem Patrick, August 14, 2007 at 4:21 am Link to this comment

Never mind, just remove me from your mailing list. Thank you for the inconvience. Kem Patrick

Report this

By Kem Patrick, August 14, 2007 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

I am newly registered. I wrote two comments and they were not offensive in any manner and were pertenant to the artile’s subject matter.  They were not posted. What am I doing wrong? I understand they would be posted immediately if I am regestered.  One was just written and submitted, th efirst wa written several hours ago. As it was abpout the same as the second, I would request the first be canned. If you do no twant me to post here, just let me know. Okay?

Report this

By Kem Patrick, August 14, 2007 at 4:03 am Link to this comment

One of the commenters here, a Paul M Smith, mentioned the use of depleted uranium in weapons by the United States in the two Gulf Wars. I found his comment to be most appropriate, for depleted uranium used as a weapon of war, not only is a violaton of five of the war crimes listed in the Geneva Conventions, it also is the final word for the term, weapons of mass destruction. Thr very reason Bush started a war with Iran.__ Ironic is the word.

Since Hillary Clinton has said, she would take nuclear weapons off of the table, I wonder if that would include depleted uranium, (DU) bombs and shells?  The word “depleted” is a mis-guided term, designed to confuse the general public. DU is solid uranium #238, which is only depleted in the sense that it is not suitable for use as a fuel in a nuclear reactor. In solid form, DU is relatively harmless, the radiation emmited will not penetrate the skin. When it is used as a weapon of war however, it burns when the round strikes a target, the result is a deadly cloud of microscopic specks of uranium 238 isotopes, which if inhaled, will create havoc in a human body.

The DOD and personel in the Pentagon state that DU is not harmful. They lie, and they know they are lying. DU is a superb weapon, it is very dense and when a projectile strikes a target of armor plate, it will burn through and destroy any humans inside of a tank or armored personel carrier. The public has also been informed, the shells are tipped with DU. Another falsehood. A Abrams tank shell is ten pounds of solid DU, a 30mm cannon shell is 3.5 pounds of DU. Bombs may have as much as a hundred pounds of DU. We have scattered hundreds of thousands of TONS of DU in the Mid-East, Iran, Kosovo, Afganistan. In addition, since the early 70s our military has expended hundreds of thoudands of tons of DU in the United States on militay firing and bombing ranges.

The resulting smoke and dust does not stay put, the deadly specks of DU are microsopic, invisible to the naked eye. Winds pick it up like any dust and blow it up into the atmosphere and it may travel for hundreds of miles. If only one microscopic speck of DU is inhaled by a human, cancer of the lung is assured. When one considers, that in a single cupfull of powdered DU, there would be five billion specks of DU floating through the air. There are many, many cupfulls in hundreds of thousands of tons. It’s all over the cuntry.

The U.S. arms industry has now sold DU weaponry to 29 other countries. Good money in atomic waste weapons.  The munitioons manufacturers get the depleted uranium from the atomic power plants for almost nothing, sometimes for nothing, the nuclear power industry does to have to spend good money to ‘safely’ store it forever, as they have sworn to the NRCand to us, they would safely store it forever, before being allowed to open and operate a nuclear power plant. 

I will stop, I’m not a doctor or a scientist, I am you, one of the bloggers. I do get my information from reading articles available in books and on the internet, written by doctors and scientists who are very concerned, but are hitting the stone walls put up by various governments officials and respected organizations like WHO. Who has been compromised by someone with money and or influence. Why? I’m not sure, but the genie is out of the bottle and no one wants to admit it was a horrible error to use DU for any purpose and may be the worst mistake ever committed by mankind. The radiation hazard of DU is far worse than any atomic bombs we have ever exploded and the radiation hazards last far longer.

Here is just one wevsite of more than many thousand.Thisone explains what DU contamination is doing to just one of our states, and Linda Kroll, a retired nurse, is not able to get it stopped from being tested at military bases on the Islands of Hawaii. I warn, some of the photos are disturbing.

http://www.protecthawaii.ws/page2.html

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 14, 2007 at 2:19 am Link to this comment

#94689 by vet240 on 8/13 at 5:45 pm: “...Clinton said, “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”

#vet240: “That thinking is so wrong headed! How much “Peace” has there been in the world to date? If she means keeping the big powers from each others throats, then maybe there is some truth to her statement. .......The problem is that we appear to be using our Nuclear detterence to assure we can invade any non-super power with the feeling of omnipotence…......

Certainly we have the weapons systems that assure we could in theory completely destroy any country. But what would that accomplish but world-wide hatred and the ultimate end of America. .......Our leaders have seen fit to make us vulnerable to economic destruction by almost any consortorium of nation who simply decide to call in their loans….....

On the contrary Ms. Clinton, America should unilateraly announce further reduction of our Nuclear, Biological and Chemical arsonels….”————————————>

Oh, yes, vet240, this is the rub - and it is confusing for idealistic voters, yet a little patient analysis proves that things can get better. After all, this is about electing a new president for a new era of politics in the USA.

These things are true:-
* The USA is a nuclear superpower and has WMD’s and has used them
* There is less peace in the world as a result - and a tendency to acquire nuclear weapons
* Most countries hate the USA as a result - they would be happier to love the US instead
* The USA has effectively threatened pre-emptive nuclear strikes on any country


Its hard to come back from that position but a new administration with a new outlook can. A new president can’t, though, merely by ignoring responsible policy and the consequences. Its a painful step-by-step process and winding down the military-industrial complex will take decades.

Sadly, thanks to the Bush-Cheney Neocons,  things have already progressed to a stage where it is really no longer possible to make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. Any future president is stuck with that and we should be more realistic about it - for a change!

After all, its only a “posture” which has ramifications in the diplomatic art of war but it can’t be ignored in the real world. It doesn’t imply any intended use and Hillary has avoided that whereas Bush has threatened virtually every country around the world with his past opportunistic ravings.

If you want to replace “the art of war” with the “art of peace”, you do have to work for that as a goal if you really want to succeed. As the Machiavellian Neocons are about to (hopefully) be replaced, that shouldn’t be too hard. It will take a while, though, to earn the respect and co-operation of other countries now.

That has already started with the ascendancy of the Democrats in the congress and the senate and with Nancy Pelosi as leader but there is nothing to be complacent about. Others are watching but there is an awful lot of policy which has to be changed and it will take a while. The Democrats can succeed if they try.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 14, 2007 at 1:47 am Link to this comment

#94719 by GodSend on 8/13 at 7:44 pm: “...“The seeds of many of the problems that continue to plague our mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform.” (H. Clinton) - “...This is a feeble attempt to sidestep the REAL issue, which is the illegal invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq, as demanded by Israeli Zionists and the ‘Israel Lobby’! H. Clinton is a deceiver, like the rest of the Zionist worshipers of Satan….”

Oh, get off the grass, GodSend, please. Why don’t you just bring on your “protocols of Zion” agenda and be honest about it? Actually, Hillary Clinton is only a Zionist to you because she is a woman who dares to become president!

Then there is that “little man” who has put all those Smileys in your post (and similar posts). It couldn’t be that Truthdig has a misogynist agenda here too??? Let’s all hate Hillary is a trendy new club in LA, I guess???

Perhaps Scheer had to pay a favor to Swarzenegger and the GOP by having what’s-her-name writethis disreputably bigoted and biased article in the first place? Getting Kucinich to bag Hillary was the real ploy, wasn’t it? Dumbo!

I guess saying all those awful things before about Arnie’s blackshirted stormtroopers in MacArthur Park must have really had some effect…....!?!?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 14, 2007 at 1:33 am Link to this comment

#94732 by PaulMagillSmith on 8/13 at 8:49 pm: “...RE: #94719 by GodSend on 8/13 at 7:44 pm “...Is there a doctor in the House? - who can cure America of life-threatening cancer (Zionism and Zionists)...?”
#PaulMagillSmith: “Having done a Google search on Zionists Mossad and 911, I agree with you our enemy is not necessarily the Republicans, but something more far reaching & sinister. The goal of the Zionists is world domination with a motto of, “By means of deception we will wage war….”

Oh, give it up, PMS. Stop expecting someone else to solve all of America’s problems. Its not the Zionists or AIPAC really but the people in the Christian churches and in business who support them and the “Christian” politicians who pander to them.

If you want a solution, it is how you deal with your murderous so-called Crusader Christians right here at home. By the way, don’t forget the gun lobby pack of killers…....

You are just as guilty as the ones who manipulate the game!

Report this

By Evelyn Smith, August 13, 2007 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have read all of the comments here and many are little mmore than bashing one another, which I don’t believe is very productive. It’s fun to have fun and stray off of subject matter, but some of the comments here are not what any sensible person could construe as fun.

Ayway, this is a serious issue. I fully agree with several bloggers here, especially a Paul M. Smith, who mentioned depleted uranium, or DU, a weapon which the Uited States has used in the Gulf Wars. That is a subject which should be the most important of all, for all of mankind.

The U.S. has scattered thousands of tons of DU in the Mid-East. Depleted uranium weapons are relatively harmless to handle in solid form, when fired however, the result is a smoke filled cloud of deadly uranium #238 isotopes, that will kill any livng thing. The radiation hazard will be deadly for four billion years. That is not a mis-print. The half life of DU is 4.5 billion years.

There are five billion specks of DU in a single cupfull. A single microscopic speck of DU, inhaled, will insure cancer of the lung. One single speck. Any who have been to Iraq are contaminated with DU and they will, over time, die from inhaling the deadly and invisible to the eye dust. Everyone who has been there. A background radiaton reading for DU should be zero. The backgound readings in Baghdad are 2,000 a reading of 20 would be cause for concern.

DU is the final word for weapons of mass destruction, it takes from three to five years for the symptoms of DU poisoning to appear, and a person may live for thirty years suffering from a variety of serious internal ailments, cancers, before death ends their suffering. There is no cure.

DU has also been used extensively in the United states on military firing and bombing ranges, thousands of tons of it have been fired or dropped as bombs. The wind picks up the deadly dust and carries it for hundreds of miles. There is a misconception about the term “depleted”. DU is only “depleted”, in that it is not suitable for fuel in a nuclear reactor. Ammunition shells are not tipped with DU, a tank’s cannon shell is ten pounds of solid DU and a 30mm cannon shell is 3.5 pounds of DU. When fired, DU burns, and then is when it becomes deadly.

Please read this link, Linda Kroll is a nurse in Hawaii, who is attempting to have the use of DU stopped in her state, and the state legislators and congressmen, U.S. Senators, are not helping. There is a lot of profit selling ammunition.__ Of course.

Thank you all, Kem Patrick

http://www.potecthawaii.ws/page2.html

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, August 13, 2007 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

RE: #94719 by GodSend on 8/13 at 7:44 pm
(305 comments total)

“Is there a doctor in the House? - who can cure America of life-threatening cancer (Zionism and Zionists)? Let’s hope so! Wouldn’t it be lovely if our Jewish citizens (NOT dual Israeli citizens) lead the way?!”

Having done a Google search on Zionists Mossad and 911, I agree with you our enemy is not necessarily the Republicans, but something more far reaching & sinister. The goal of the Zionists is world domination with a motto of, “By means of deception we will wage war.” Starting conflicts by means of ‘false flag’ operations are their specialty.

One thing we are in absolute agreement on is, “Wouldn’t it be lovely if our Jewish citizens (NOT dual Israeli citizens) lead the way?!”

It is imperative that decent Jewish people of the world take responsibility for ill deeds being done in their name, or they, too share guilt for the modern day holocausts that are happening & will continue to happen. Knowledge of a crime, and doing nothing to stop it makes for conspirators, who are just as guilty of the crime as the perpetrators.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 13, 2007 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

“The seeds of many of the problems that continue to plague our mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform.” (H. Clinton)

This is a feeble attempt to sidestep the REAL issue, which is the illegal invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq, as demanded by Israeli Zionists and the ‘Israel Lobby’! H. Clinton is a deceiver, like the rest of the Zionist worshipers of Satan. Deception is their trademark! EVERY Democratic Senator and member of the House is accountable to their constituents - and their constituents have demanded an end to the illegal occupation and WITHDRAWAL of American troops in the last election. It is the patriotic DUTY of Democrats to IMPEACH the traitors and criminals Bush & Cheney! But these Zionists bastards and traitors owe their primary allegiance to Israel! “I have loyalties that are greater than my party” (Joseph Lieberman - the Democrat/Republican/Independent ZIONIST).

All members of Congress who voted for Bush’s INSANITY and DECEPTION are TRAITORS TO AMERICA! What punishment do they deserve? Isn’t there some law that allows them to be shot on sight? If there isn’t, perhaps there should be? Maybe Bush will sign a ‘Signing Statement’ to that effect? Then he can shoot himself and nobody will object! wink

H. Clinton for president? In the word of that famous American WWII General in response to a German request for surrender: NUTS! The same NUTS! applies to ALL Zionist (Israel/‘Israel Lobby’-supported and funded) candidates for ANY office from 2008 until the End of Time (coming soon thereafter).

The 1st order of business for the next president (should America be so lucky) or dictator (after Bush), will be to cut off the Zionist’s source of financial power: ABOLISH the Federal Reserve and CUT ALL financial support for Israel. That’s just for starters! smile

Who is America’s LAST HOPE? Ron Paul, of course! Is there a doctor in the House? - who can cure America of life-threatening cancer (Zionism and Zionists)? Let’s hope so! Wouldn’t it be lovely if our Jewish citizens (NOT dual Israeli citizens) lead the way?! smile

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

#94701 by omop

Response from a GEICO classic, “What?”

If you tried to pull crap like that in school, you’d get a failing grade for making up shit and passing it off as fact.

Unless your professor was Ward Churchill, who built his career on plagiarism and other forms of intellectual dishonesty.

If only you and others with your lack of integrity would follow in Ward’s footsteps: out the door and in disgrace.

I shall now call you Ward.

Ward, where and when did Hillary say the following words that you have attributed to her in your earlier post:

#94495 by omop

BOMB LADY HILLARY’s remarks about keeping all “US and Israeli nukes on the table” has created mass diarhea

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment

#94701 by omop

Ees dis the truth Hillary babe?

Trithdig’s finest.

Report this

By omop, August 13, 2007 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

Ees dis the truth Hillary babe?

Clinton writes, “While our forces, in particular the Army and Marine Corps, are under strain, re-establishing a draft is not the answer. The seeds of many of the problems that continue to plague our mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform.”

“In previous years, when asked about a draft, your Administration has stated that it is the Administration’s policy to oppose a military draft and support the all-volunteer force,” the presidential frontrunner added. “Given Lieutenant General Lute’s comments last week, I ask that you clarify whether there has been a change in your Administration’s opposition to reinstituting a draft.”

Response from a GEICO classic, “What?”

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

#94679 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/13 at 5:00 pm
(632 comments total)

#94668 by lilmamzer on 8/13 at 4:06 pm: #94628 by omop “......sounds of crickets chirping….... I’ll wait for you to cite your source….”

Seems like your “source” is standing on the street corner waiting for you - to come up wit a few more $$$ for a packet. Kindly stop filling up the blog with your trash…..

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

You are lazy. You didn’t pay attention before typing out your cheap shot, Douglas.

It’s not my source, it’s omop’s non-source, since he won’t be able to produce one, and dig himself out of his hole.

Why don’t you kindly attempt to uphold some minimal intellectual standards by demanding posters at least cite their sources when quoting?

Oh, right, this is Truthdig - standards not required - carry on, Douglas Chalmers, carry on…......

Report this

By vet240, August 13, 2007 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

Clinton said, “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”

That thinking is so wrong headed! How much “Peace” has there been in the world to date?

If she means keeping the big powers from each others throats, then maybe there is some truth to her statement.

The problem is that we appear to be using our Nuclear detterence to assure we can invade any non-super power with the feeling of omnipotence.

It now appears this theory is also wrong, depending on the strength of the will and the numbers of those who are invaded.

Certainly we have the weapons systems that assure we could in theory completely destroy any country. But what would that accomplish but world-wide hatred and the ultimate end of America.

Our leaders have seen fit to make us vulnerable to economic destruction by almost any consortorium of nation who simply decide to call in their loans!!

On the contrary Ms. Clinton, America should unilateraly announce further reduction of our Nuclear, Biological and Chemical arsonels.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 13, 2007 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

#94668 by lilmamzer on 8/13 at 4:06 pm: #94628 by omop “......sounds of crickets chirping….... I’ll wait for you to cite your source….”

Seems like your “source” is standing on the street corner waiting for you - to come up wit a few more $$$ for a packet. Kindly stop filling up the blog with your trash….....

Report this

By Mstessyrue, August 13, 2007 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

As the presidential debates heat up and tensions increase, the candidates need to be reminded of the critical issues that still trouble our society today.  Issue such as global poverty needs to be address by our candidates to each and to the general public. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, the Bush Administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop.  According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition.  However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this “war on terror.”  And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars.  It’s time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Report this

By Duke Nuke'em, August 13, 2007 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m sure you all understand no candidate is talking about strategic nuclear weapons here, right? The only nukes that anyone from either party is suggesting might be ‘on the table’ for the middle east is tactical nukes, specifically low-yield bunker busters, which are designed to detonate underground, causing maximum damage to underground caves, tunnels, or bunkers, with minimum damage and radioactivity above ground.  These are not leftover cold war doomsday weapons that level cities and incinerate kids at the local playground ala Terminator 2.  They are environmentally nasty, yes, but compared to the effects of a protracted above-ground conventional war aimed at achieving the same goals, they are probably no more destructive to the civilian populace, perhaps even less so if remote areas were targeted, such as the mountanous caves in the Afghan/Pakinstani border region.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

#94495 by omop

BOMB LADY HILLARY’s remarks about keeping all “US and Israeli nukes on the table” has created mass diarhea

You quote Hillary. You put words in her mouth. You lied about what she said, or rather, what she didn’t say.

You just make up shit and pass it off as fact.

It’s intellectually dishonest. It’s also called lying.

Still waiting for you to cite your source. Or admit that you just make shit up.

......sounds of crickets chirping…....

Go ahead and launch personal attacks. That’s the coward’s way out.

I’ll wait for you to cite your source.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

#94628 by omop

lilmemzer:

if you are still waiting and hearing crickets i suggest you stop it and start really playing with your self or your that special stuff that emanates from your orifices. Unless of course you can get the WSJ to publish one of your prayer’s a la Podhoretz. Better make sure you are of a similar faith before giving up playing solo.

Uh oh, he’s trying to be mean.

You have failed to cite your source, omop.

You have failed.

You just make up shit, which makes your arguments shit.

You quoted Hillary thusly:

BOMB LADY HILLARY’s remarks about keeping all “US and Israeli nukes on the table” has created mass diarhea

I challenged you to provide the source of your quote, and you cannot produce the source.

Instead of backing up your argument, you revert to personal attacks. Lame and childish personal attacks.

Come on omop, cite your sources.

You wouldn’t just make shit up, would you?

Do you make shit up for your research papers in school, too? How intellectually dishonest is that?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 13, 2007 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Quote Kasia Anderson: “Perhaps she has decided, or been urged by her advisers, to strike an aggressive pose in order to compensate for being a woman in a race for the presidency, a situation that some voters might view as virtually irreconcilable.  ......But balancing “I’m your girl” wink-wink affability with “I can play with the big boys and their big guns” credibility is one thing, and going so far as to introduce even the dim possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in a notoriously volatile region is entirely another…..”


Oh, really, KS, at least Hilllary smiled and laughed when she made that statement. Considering that she basically had to shout the entire time to make herself understood by an audience which seemed to prefer loud deep-voiced big men, she actually did quite well. And considering that you supplied this link, you could at least take the trouble to read it and to watch the clip properly:-
“For 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine, and I’ve come out stronger,” she said. “So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I’m your girl.” http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=6361

As far as the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan issue is concerned, you seem to be trying to create the impression that Hillary couldn’t be aware that it is “a notoriously volatile region” for your own reasons, KS. Apart from her experience as a senator, she did do quite a lot more than just prepare Bill’s lunch during her years at the White House, you know. And you also know that you are being dishonest in trying to portray her as merely the little wife - either then or now.

No-one except the Bush-Cheney regime and a few extreme Republican candidates want the USA to ever engage in pre-emptive strikes with nuclear weapons. That doesn’t mean that the situation couldn’t arise and if Pakistan, a nuclear state, is actually taken over by extremists, that could then become a very real possibility. Its hardly fair, though, to accuse Hillary of “introducing” that possibility. You are manipulating the real story to suit your own agenda again, KS.

Kucinich knows that too yet has sought to use your interview to attack Hillary despite also being aware that it was actually Obama who had ” introduced the possibility” of pre-emptive strikes in Pakistan in the first place.  Given that distortion of the truth, all Americans should be very concerned about how he would use the power of the presidency.

Report this

By omop, August 13, 2007 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

lilmemzer:

          if you are still waiting and hearing crickets i suggest you stop it and start really playing with your self or your that special stuff that emanates from your orifices. Unless of course you can get the WSJ to publish one of your prayer’s a la Podhoretz. Better make sure you are of a similar faith before giving up playing solo.

Report this

By John F. Butterfield, August 13, 2007 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

pre-emption

It used to be that having a standing army and giant stockpiles of weapons (including 27,000 atomic bombs) deterred any attack against the U.S. by any nation. Not only that but if an army advanced toward us we would see them before thay got here. It was clear. They would not attack us because then we would attack them and we were much stronger. All that is still true but now Americans are way paranoid, afraid of their own shadows.

Now, if a kid in some third world country has a rock in his hand, the paranoids go crazy and talk about pre-emptively nuking the world.

Then the greedy Americans who think they have a right to steal everything in the world, want to kill all the Iraqis and take their oil. That’s how Christian America is.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

#94550 by PaulMagillSmith

Let me ask you, do we have a Department of OFFENSE? No, it is named DEFENSE. In your own words you speak about, “...sovereign right to defend themselves against external aggression”. The key word in the sentence is DEFEND, is it not?

Can you not imagine a scenario in which proactive military action would be required to keep this nation from suffering grievous harm?

If you cannot, it is good thing you have no say in forming policy.
==========================

Why do you assume other nations have no right to defend against the imperialistic “external aggression” from us?

You do not know what my assumptions are. I never stated that other nations have no right to defend themselves against aggression, even from this country.

You need to read and think critically instead of rushing to judgement. It doesn’t make for a convincing argument.

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, August 13, 2007 at 11:03 am Link to this comment

This has been a pretty nasty & vile thread, folks, and likely inspired by a foolish hypocrit named lilmamzer. As for the part about hypocricy here is what he says on 8/12 at 1:21 pm:

“Nations which subsume their sovereign right to defend themselves against external aggression under the aegis of corrupt and illegitimate entities such as the UN eventually cease to be sovereign”

Let me ask you, do we have a Department of OFFENSE? No, it is named DEFENSE. In your own words you speak about, “...sovereign right to defend themselves against external aggression”. The key word in the sentence is DEFEND, is it not? Why do you assume other nations have no right to defend against the imperialistic “external aggression” from us?

DEFEND does not mean or equal ATTACK. Historically fascist regimes attack and democracies defend. Which do we want to be?

Frankly though, I believe lilmamzer might be a ‘plant’ in the vein of Rovian tactics, which use the tools of smear & slander to intentionally distract from the discussion at hand.

We weren’t talking of an article about the Jewish or Islam (although I will admit there are some related issues involved). The discussion at hand is about the pre-emptive (OFFENSIVE) use of nuclear weapons.

As a matter of undeniable fact we are already using nuclear WMD (OFFENSIVELY) in the form of DU (depleted uranium) in the middle east, and have been doing so since the first Gulf War in 1991. Without detonating a major nuclear bomb we are still effectively poisoning the people & landscape there anyway. The only problem is we are also contaminating friend, foe, innocent civilians, and our own soldiers alike, with implications of this deadly irradiation likely to be felt in the middle east AND America for generations even. The indescriminate use of DU could even cause the demise of all species on this planet. Google DU and you will find over 1.3 million references, and few have anything positive to say about, except from a military perspective of course.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

#94495 by omop

BOMB LADY HILLARY’s remarks about keeping all “US and Israeli nukes on the table” has created mass diarhea

Still waiting for you to cite your source.

......sounds of crickets chirping…....

Omop, you can’t make shit up and then expect to make a credible argument.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

#94495 by omop

BOMB LADY HILLARY’s remarks about keeping all “US and Israeli nukes on the table” has created mass diarhea

Show us where and when she said these exact words.

Report this

By omop, August 13, 2007 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

lilmamzer.

Obviously you are beginning to feel the effects of what Godsend has referred you to on a number of postings.

And seems to have you all figured out to an I.

By the bye review my comments [if you are still able to] and show exactly where I specifically put “quotation marks” on what Hillary stated?

If you can you nebish.

Report this

By atheo, August 13, 2007 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

Charley Reese:

The great tragedy caused by the interventionists is that they sabotage the peaceful and prosperous country that America could be. It’s no mystery why the infrastructure is beginning to fail. It’s no mystery why public education fails in so many places. It’s no mystery why health care is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Look at the cost of the empire – the military and intelligence budgets, the cost of the wars. Between the military-industrial complex and the new war service industry, the treasury is being sucked dry by the worst people for the worst reasons.

In the meantime, what are the presidential candidates talking about? A few social schemes. Different strategies for intervention. They are like the first-class passengers on the Titanic, sitting around discussing their business deals and various affairs. They show no sign of awareness of the real world outside the televised game show called “Win the Nomination.”

Who’s ahead? Who zinged who? Who cares?

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

#94503 by omop on 8/13 at 7:44 am
(20 comments total)

lilmamzer

Are you implying that your shit is better?

If it is why don’t you spell out exactly what your reading of what BOMB LADY HILLARY said.

You quoted Hillary.

I’m saying you shouldn’t quote without citing your sources. In this case, there is no source because Hillary did not say what you attributed to her, in quotes.

When you use quotation marks to indicate Hillary said something SHE DID NOT SAY, that’s just making shit up.

So prove me wrong and cite your source. You do want your posts to have some credibility, don’t you?

Report this

By rage, August 13, 2007 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

LOL!

Yeah! Get her!

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 13, 2007 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

This is your lucky day, lilmamzer! Here is another website that you’ll really enjoy:

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2972

You may need to print out my website again when you’re done reading. I recommend glossy paper so the photos will come out better - and you can entertain yourself while you’re sitting there! Don’t forget to print out all the links as well. A big ass like you needs at least 2 wipes!

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 13, 2007 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

http://crescentandcross.wordpress.com/

“....Because It’s FUNNY When We Do It”

Report this

By omop, August 13, 2007 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

lilmamzer

Are you implying that your shit is better?

If it is why don’t you spell out exactly what your reading of what BOMB LADY HILLARY said.

And what Kucinich stated.

Till then keep a bottle of Phillips of Mag handy.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 13, 2007 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

So what you’re telling us, lilmamzer, is that after you printed out my 10+MB website (that would take about 1000 rolls of TP) and wiped your ass with it, that in addition to being a big prick, you’re also a big ass! We can believe that! smile

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 13, 2007 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

lilmamzer:

Since you found my website so useful, I’m sure you’ll find this one even more to your liking:

http://crescentandcross.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/…because-it’s-funny-when-we-do-it/#more-45

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

#94495 by omop

BOMB LADY HILLARY’s remarks about keeping all “US and Israeli nukes on the table” has created mass diarhea

If you want to use quotes, quote accurately - don’t fabricate.
Hillary did not say that. You’ve gone beyond merely twisting words into making shit up.
If you can’t make your argument based on the facts, you have no argument at all.

Report this

By omop, August 13, 2007 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

Maybe hubby “slick Willie’ was right after all when he responded to a question about his womanizing, “hell Hillary has slept with more women than I have”.

So the 15 year “rightwing” fighter wanting [ I AM YOUR GIRL] to show her “balls” is OUTBUSHING BUSH, MCCAIN,LIEBERMAN, AND THE PRAYERFUL PODHORETZ, KRISTOL, PERLE, WOLFOWITZ ET AL.

Rumors in the bazaars, in Tehran, Damascus, and capitals in Indonesia, Pakistan and other selected capitals, are that BOMB LADY HILLARY’s remarks about keeping all “US and Israeli nukes on the table” has created mass diarhea in their respective populations. Even the Russians who are for the most part a constipated people have jammed the public restrooms on hearing bombastic Hillary’s remarks.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

#94477 by GodSend

Wanna be ‘in the know’?

Go here:

http://novalight.org

I wanted you to know I did find a use for your website.

I printed it out and wiped my ass with it.

Thanks for all your hard work putting that page together.

Peace

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 13, 2007 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

#94477 by GodSend

Wanna be ‘in the know’?

Go here:

http://novalight.org

Must have taken you so many hours to put that website together.

Too bad it’s just crap.

Love, lilmamzer

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 13, 2007 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

GB and CB, et al:

Yes, it’s the year 2007 and to what level of enlightenment has humanity advanced after a few thousand years, to be talking seriously about the use of nukes? Have we advanced at all? Who is really running the show in this world? (pun intended). What ARE Bush and Cheney, et al really ‘up to’, besides ‘no good’! Here we are, blogging on and on about this and that with a million or more points of view but what does it all boil down to? Can it be boiled down to just a few issues that REALLY matter? It’s a REAL PUZZLE, isn’t it?!

SURPRISE! Some of us DO know that it all boils down to! Some of us DO know what the Bush Cabal is REALLY up to! Some of us DO know who is ‘the god of this world’ and what he is up to! Some of us CAN SEE! - the past, present and future as it REALLY was, is and will be!

Wanna be ‘in the know’?

Go here:

http://novalight.org

and SEE! - maybe for the 1st time in your life (and maybe for the last time in your life) wink

Report this

By lodipete, August 13, 2007 at 6:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Frontrunner & The Neo-Con Artists.
  If you didn’t know it, the Neocons are a political party unto themselves with allegiance to nothing BUT themselves. Here’s a little clip from antiwar.com;
The front-running Hillary is the darling of the neocons these days, partly because of her spat with Obama over what Fred Barnes calls the “would-you-meet-with-despots” question. Our future commander in chief answered “firmly and coolly,” says the man who coined the phrase “big government conservatism.” “She excels,” raves National Review editor Rich Lowry, who says Clinton “has done more than any other Democrat to show she’s ready to be president.” Neocon bellwether David Brooks’ paean to Hillary, the Warrior Goddess, heralds her as “the perfect combination of experience and change.” Even Charles Krauthammer, the neocons’ resident Cato (the Elder), hailed “the grizzled veteran” Hillary in her alleged victory over “the clueless rookie” Obama in the talk-with-tyrants spat.

Report this

By GB, August 12, 2007 at 11:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For those who think pre-emptive strikes work, just take a look at Iraq. 480 billion dollars later, nearly 4,000 US service men and women lost, and at least a half million innocent Iraqis lost and no occupation solution in sight and no plan from the idot in the White House who keeps talking delusional thoughts to the American people like children who don’t understand.
Do you call that leadership? There’s not enough money in China for the US to keep borrowing to fund more lunacy like this. This fuzzy math of Bush economics is destroying America from the inside. If you have a sane leader in the White House like Kucinich, he would have been going after Bin Laden instead of wasting our country’s treasury, lives, reputation and solidarity with the rest of the world. Its much more effective to reach for intelligent strategy instead of cowboy foriegn policy. What is Bush and Cheney really up to? No one outside Cheney’s inner circle knows. They use a phony war in Iraq to run whatever it is in secret and rip up the constitution. This is not security and its certainly not preserving Democracy for anyone.

Report this

By Carl Baydala, August 12, 2007 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The issue is the issue. Here we are discussing the topic of nuclear war.  This is the year 2007.  Man is supposed to have progressed and moved beyond ancient methods of conflict resolution.

This whole debate reminds me of the ones occuring during the last couple of presidential elections where the invasion and what to do about Iraq was the central theme.  It was still about war and how to deal with it.  And, this is a Republican theme, something they like to talk about because it justifies their existence as a political party and as a means of gaining and holding onto power.

The nuclear discussion is in the same vein as the one about the Iraq War. We have just ratcheted up the debate a bit to include total destruction of the enemy.  Why is the Democratic Party spending so much time on a Republican inspired issue?  Perhaps the word duopoly comes to mind.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, August 12, 2007 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

Jesus has apologized over and over for missing the development and production of nukuler weapons and Fat Man and Little Boy and has assured me, in a vision, that he would never allow Billary to explode a nukuler weapon.  So you folks can relax and go on and discuss, say, homosexuals or Mormans or Nader.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 12, 2007 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

H. Clinton is a criminal Zionist whore and her chances of being nominated (never mind elected) are ‘off and under the table’!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 12, 2007 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

#94238 by felicity on 8/12 at 9:24am: “...where is it written that Hillary is the most qualified, the most senior, the most experienced candidate running on the Dem ticket? ....... Her ‘experience’ amounts to one term plus in the Senate.  Is it her marriage to a former president?  Well, I’m married to a civil engineer but only an idiot would cross a bridge I designed .......It would seem that Hillary, yet again, concurs with our esteemed Commander-in-Idiocy…”

No, it doesn’t have anything to do with your lack of knowledge of civil engineering, felicity, as the fact that you would most probably build a bridge veering off to one side anyway, ha ha. People don’t seem to understand that there are several issues involved and are allowing themselves to be blind-sided by their own inability to cope with the novel concept of having a first female president.

I agree whole-heartedly that the continued existence of nuclear weapons is a scourge and that the Bush Neocon era has pushed other countries, even Russia, into re-arming or developing WMD’s themselves - effectively “replacing MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, with NUTS, Nuclear Use Theories”, as you say.

As far as the Hillary vs Obama nuclear debate is concerned, though, Pakistan could yet become the serious threat that everybody fears. Having stated that US use of nuclear weapons in the region wouldn’t happen is only an incentive to extremist forces within Pakistan to sieze control and to promote their own bigoted agenda against their old enemy, India, etc etc.

Sadly, things are now happening quite fast in Pakistan and Obama’s immature aggressive statements of the past week have done nothing to help. One could almost say that he intentionally did so as a favor to some other party either in US politics or related to AIPAC. The results for Pakistan could be that an extremist Islamist political group (as opposed to ‘Islamic’ religious) could succeed in a takeover and then Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be in their hands:-

Quote “... her clearest statements yet on the widely reported and denied “deal,” Ms. Bhutto told Reuters in New York that forcing Gen. Musharraf from power through a street agitation could lead to another spell of military rule or an extremist takeover….” http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/13/stories/2007081354841400.htm

In that case, and it could happen, Hillary’s preferred style of comments last week would have been diplomatically absolutely correct. Do you see that if ever there were an opposing duo outside of Israel and the USA likely to engage in a pre-emptive nuclear conflict, it would be Pakistan and India? The attitude on both sides sadly is “We’ll teach them a lesson!” - and at any cost! The USA would then have to become immediately involved one way or another.

Remember that some time ago Obama had been asked if he there were any countries which he would consider using nuclear weapons against if he became president? His answer was “Not yet!”. That is hardly a genuine pacifist posture and Kucinich’s opportunistic slagging of Hillary in the Truthdig interview over a non-existent and deliberately misconstrued issue was dishonest too. After he has been unable to deliver on his NAFTA and WTO promises, etc etc, Kucinich as president would hardly be any different in reality than many other candidates.

I think that you will find that Hillary is really at least as keen as any of the serious contenders in the Democrats to steer the world and the USA away from any future nuclear/WMD conflict - or even the tactical use of smaller versions of such weapons. Realistically, the Neocon imperialist age is already over and climate-change agendas are now pre-occupying the minds of corporate investors looking for long-term assured profits. A large military is no longer a sustainable option for the USA except as far as having to ensure security as a new administration cleans up the Bush-Cheney mess over the next decade.

Report this

By Fools on the Hill, August 12, 2007 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sound bite nonsense.

If Iran said, their building nuclear weapons but not putting them on the table, it would mean nothing.

Until a candidate is willing to commit to destroying our nuclear stockpile, talk is cheap.

Report this

By nf, August 12, 2007 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment

You don’t have to worry about Hillary getting elected. No male that I know would ever vote for a woman, much less one that wants to raise our taxes. She was able to get elected here in New York largely because of the huge public employee/liberal/democrat populace, name recognition and lack of legitimate competition. Obama is a different story.  He is intelligent and appeals to a wide range of voters. Unfortunately he has to overcome the racial bias that still exists in this country. His liberal politics although appealing to the east/west coast will be lost on the huge working class who will perceive him as a wealth transferring tax raising democrat with no plan for economic growth.

Kucinich is not much more than a footnote.  This should be a walk in the park for republicans.

Report this

By Bill Abernathy, August 12, 2007 at 4:45 pm Link to this comment

#94324 by atheo on 8/12 at 3:31 pm

Nawww, he’s just preaching to a non-existent choir…doesn’t hear a word anyone says. Probably a low-level bureaucrat leashed to the Fascist in the country.

Report this

By bluejeanne, August 12, 2007 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis Kucinich and Dr. Helen Caldicott should run on the same ticket. Is Dr. Caldicott, Australian, though ?  I heard her speak eloquently in the late 70’s in opposition to nuclear armament. A physician who actually grasps the enormous danger nuclear weapons pose.

On the-other-hand the bravado which Kasia Anderson detects coming across in Hillary’s attitude towards being prepared to “nuke our enemies” is distressing.  Why is it that our Planet seems to be more destabilized and threatened than ever. How can a woman sound so aggressive and expect other women to trust her.  Hillary is sounding more and more like (Dr.) Condaleezza Rice—a first class war-monger. Is this the best that “feminism” could produce?  Male-wanna-bes ?  We’re back to Freud, I suppose; and the penis-envy manifests itself in the desire for power and aggression as presented in phalic symbols in the form of missiles, bullets and bombs.  Way-to-go ladies.

Report this

By atheo, August 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

lilmanzer needs to take an esl course or at least work on his comprehension capacity before wasting anymore of our time

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook