Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


The Missing Women of Afghanistan






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran

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

Posted on Apr 22, 2008
Clinton
flickr.com/photos/philgarlic

By Robert Scheer

How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton’s eminently sensible and centrist—to a fault—opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.

On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.

Shouldn’t the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.

Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran’s developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?

If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region’s key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.

To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States—which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and “usable” nuclear weapons)—as both their enemy and an example to emulate.

What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear “deterrent” than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration? 

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: McCainomics

Next item: Pennsylvania and the Persistence of the Race Chasm



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.

By tdbach, May 9, 2008 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

Nice to have you on my side for a change! We really do agree on most everything - except on primary candidate and a few tangential issues therefrom. A lot of emotions seem to bubble from this campaign.

Of course, I don’t think I’ve been the least bit hysterical in any of my posts. I’m the very picture of calm and thoughtfulness. Really!

Report this

By cyrena, May 8, 2008 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Well, I at least agree with you here tdbach.

How do you manage to be reasonable (like in this post) and reference the reality, and then come up with hysterical accusations like Iran threatening Israel or anybody else?

Very odd.

Report this

By tdbach, May 8, 2008 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

You miht be suprised to learn that I mostly agree with you on this, CofD.

Cheers,

Report this

By The Charters Of Dreams, May 8, 2008 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

“I may send you that email, but I’m not sure I have the time or inclination to get into a one-on-one argument. To be honest – and don’t take this as an insult; I’m sure you’re a nice guy – I’m really not very interested in what you have to say, because it’s an old, old song. So I’ll answer here.”

Thanks for your response below Tom.

- Cheers,
    Christopher

Report this

By tdbach, May 8, 2008 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

I may send you that email, but I’m not sure I have the time or inclination to get into a one-on-one argument. To be honest – and don’t take this as an insult; I’m sure you’re a nice guy – I’m really not very interested in what you have to say, because it’s an old, old song. So I’ll answer here.

The phrasing of your response sparkles with loaded words, which you have conveniently put in quotes. Let’s pick these little adornments off and see what’s left.

Most people indeed are ordinary; it’s the very definition of the word. That isn’t to say alike, by any stretch; the gradations are virtually infinite. Nor is it to suggest that ordinary people are incapable of doing something extraordinary - they are just incapable of leading extraordinarily successful lives. That takes sustained extraordinary effort, focus, luck - ambition.

Dreaming big should be encouraged in every child, in everyone so inclined. How else can you really discover what you are capable of? Where the Left parts ways with the right is that we don’t mistake dreams for reality. I don’t think most thinking people on the Right are really as confused on this as they pretend to be either, if you push back a little. They know everyone can’t rise to CEO, but they endorse the dream because, well, because it puffs themselves up (“Look at me and what I’ve accomplished!”) and conveniently blames the suffering of those whom the steam-engine of the marketplace has used up, run over, or shoved aside in its relentless quest for profit on the sufferers: they could have been riding in first class if they had only worked harder and believed in themselves!

And now, to fall happily into that old liberal trap, I agree that everyone is special, which is why society needs to treat all its members with dignity, and not insult them by suggesting that the only difference between an out-of-work auto assemblyman and George W. Bush is that Bush works harder and smarter. That really is a fairy tale.

Our system - really any system - simply cannot function with all chiefs and no Indians. An architect doesn’t build a house, a builder does. And a builder can’t build the house alone, either. He needs carpenters and plumbers and electricians. He also needs grunts to carry the lumber up to the roof and move gravel and dirt into place. And when his market dries up, or when he foolishly overestimates the market, he needs to lay off some grunts and maybe some of his tradesmen.

But if he’s a conservative, he doesn’t want to sustain his castaways with unemployment and food stamps until he or a smarter builder needs them. He doesn’t want to spend his hard-earned dollars on taxes to retrain them for work in more stable, prospering markets. That’s their tough luck. If only they had dreamed…

Tom

Report this

By The Charters Of Dreams, May 7, 2008 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

So—most people are “ordinary,” not really capable of extra-ordinary acts and actions. Is that your basic position?

Dreaming “Big” is really for children—if not outright fools—who are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Not everyone is “special.” Is that your position?  Everyone wants things, great things, but there’s only very few individuals that that can achieve these things. Most will fail. The right just spins this “fairytale” so they can place the blame for failure on the individual, not on the “system” or wider factors. Is that that your position?

I’m genuinely interested in what you think. If you want, please write me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Thanks tdbach

Report this

By tdbach, May 7, 2008 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

This is one of those feel-good stories that true believers latch onto with the ardor of children clutching their favorite stuffed bunny. And with even a casual look you can see it’s made of cotton, not flesh and bones.

Sure, Bob Beamon came from nothing and made something of himself. So did Nikita Khrushchev. It’s not about a magical land of opportunity. It’s about some people just having something special inside them, a super-ambition that overcomes virtually every obstacle. They are the exception, not the rule, in all societies, rich or pore, free market or communist. Yes, our system provides many more opportunities than a closed, totalitarian system. And that’s a good thing. But to suggest that every one of us, if we just would get off our lazy asses can become an Olympic record-breaker -or even a McDonald’s franchise owner- is patently nonsense. It’s the wet dream of the right, the grand rationale for hording what they have earned (or inherited). It confuses equal opportunity for equal possibility, it ignores the reality that we are not created equal and equality of opportunity in LAW is not the same thing as actual equality of opportunity in LIFE. And what really irks me is when people like GWB and William Kristol (and you?) spout this BS, when in fact, if they were born in poverty and raised in the circumscribed world of the ‘hood, they would be one of the vast majority of those people who would never be able to escape. Because they don’t have that very rare something that Beamon had.

In other words, it’s a ruse. And the tip-off is when they say things like “Bob Beamon offers people something the Left never has—he believes.” An inane and vacuous statement if ever there was one. And the proof is this gem: “The Bob Beamon’s of the world have done more good for more people than any radical leftest agenda.” Ok, let’s do the math, shall we, oh great educator? You’ve got one guy on Beamon’s done-good list. For the sake of argument, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say there are a hundred more – or let’s really go out on a limb and say a thousand. How many do you think benefited from Affirmative Action? Let’s start counting, beginning with Justice Thomas…

Report this

By The Charters Of Dreams, May 6, 2008 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

Mr Abdallah, please listen—and learn:

“Bob Beamon didn’t get a lot of encouragement as a child. Raised by his grandmother, his mother died of tuberculosis when he was 11 months old, and he never knew his father. He struggled with doubt, thinking he was unwanted, for many of his early years. In high school, a coach offered a glimmer of hope, saying he had the talent to go to the Olympics if he kept working hard. And he did.

It’s been 40 years since Beamon literally walked on air, obliterating world and Olympic records with a long jump of 29 feet 2½ inches at the Summer Olympics in Mexico City.

Eloquent and thought-provoking, Beamon has become a sought-after public speaker. “I have a few messages, but education is the main thing,” he says. “It’s to get kids to deal with reality. Many of them become involved in drugs or something else, and it’s a dirty world when they get into drugs.”

Beamon compares the situations of stuggling inner-city youths to those in Third World countries, hoping to awaken a sense of appreciativeness and esteem.

“You know, overseas in the little villages of Africa, for example, there is no hope,” he says. “The children are dying of diseases and hunger and they can’t get medicine. Our kids here are throwing away food. We are really blessed over here, and I tell them that. I tell them, ‘I don’t care what color your skin is, what nationality you are or what religion you preach, there is opportunity here.’ ”

A few years ago, at a Manhattan hotel where he was a guest, the hotel’s assistant manager approached him. “Remember me, Mr. Beamon?” the young man asked. Beamon smiled but shook his head. “One day you gave an incredible speech at our school,” the young man told him. “I just followed what you said and tried to make something of myself. I just wanted to thank you for it.”

For Beamon, those experiences are the payoff and motivator behind his success, and the success of those he inspires.”

The Lesson:

The Bob Beamon’s of world will do far far more good than your proposals ever will—because Bob Beamon life is a living testament to the hope and power and promise of America.  Perhaps, Mr. Abdallah, you see yourself and others as helpless victims, destined to be nothing in this world. If so, you do a profound disservice to yourself and those others.  The Bob Beamon’s of the world have done more good for more people than any radical leftest agenda:

‘I don’t care what color your skin is, what nationality you are or what religion you preach, there is opportunity here.’ ”

Bob Beamon is a living proof of the truth of that statement.  Bob Beamon offers people something the Left never has—he believes.

Report this

By Peter RV, May 6, 2008 at 4:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Charters of Dreams:

“The liberal blogsphere has largely accused HRC of being a Neo-Con, but Neo-Cons generally believe that Iran cannot be rationally deterred and that leaves the U.S. and it’s allies no choice but to launch a pre-emptive war with the goal of regime change”

  Insanity of warmongers is reaching alarming proportions.

  I think it would be much cheaper to change the regime in Tel-Aviv, but if you are gang-ho with your preventive war on Iran, I propose using Israeli infantery to meet the Revolutionary Guards on the battlefield. A good hand-to-hand combat could have a sobering effect on our over- belligerant darling ally.

Report this

By The Charters Of Dreams, May 5, 2008 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

The liberal blogsphere has largely accused HRC of being a Neo-Con, but Neo-Cons generally believe that Iran cannot be rationally deterred and that leaves the U.S. and it’s allies no choice but to launch a pre-emptive war with the goal of regime change.

HRC, instead, is arguing for deterrence, probably because she understands that this neo-con position is the real incentive for Iran to build nuclear weapons.

For a fuller discussion, see

Deterrence Works you Silly Little Liberal Nimrods.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 4, 2008 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

The irony of life:

Prior to the Jewish holocaust there was another caused by jews which directly relates to this nation, America.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Walter.White/Who.Brought.the.Slaves.to.America.htm

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, May 4, 2008 at 2:56 am Link to this comment

Of course, Jeremiah Wright is three quarters white anyway. That does make it rather difficult for him…. and also for others like Carla Coco-Boutte, Disabled Airline worker - see video (scroll down) http://www.workingtv.com/rxexpress.html

I really don’t know how they reconcile this “black” thingy, uhh. Perhaps that’s why they are always complaining? If anyone ever really wakes up to them, its over. Carl is also a fanatical Code Pink volunteer…....

Sadly, though, the big problem now is that the white supremacists have gotten hold of all this and are ready to beat it up into something none of us want to see. It will be a testing time soon for Americans as to whether whites have really learned to assimilate themselves.

As with the Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan issue, the supremacists are also militarists and they love to use terms like “Haji” in a derogatory manner even though they might not know what it means. But then that was the same in Vietnam when “slopes and gooks” were their favorite terms.

Denigrating peopel before attacking them is their game and the psyops and propagandists use them as a tool. Scratch a white person and you’ll most likely find a Nazi. The problem today is that you all fear them as much as they use fear to manipulate others….. and you will not discuss any of it objectively.

Soon it will be too late. Here they are now using truth to their own advantage - “twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”, uhh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LnE08gAL4c

Report this

By cyrena, May 4, 2008 at 2:16 am Link to this comment

Part 1 of 2 response to Fadel

This is a great plan Fadel. It has the same components of the Truth and Reconciliation Plans that have actually been successful in other nations devastated by fascism and ethnic struggles resulting in these various Holocausts. 

I’d like to have some hope that it could happen one day, but I don’t know. I’m convinced that the truth part of it..just the acknowledgement of what everyone already knows, would have to come first, if that could be managed at all.

That was one of the most important realizations to come out of the Aspen Institute Conference back in 1988. When “a group of academics, lawyers, clerics, and activists from countries as varied as Uganda, Argentina, South Korea, Chile, South Africa, Brazil, the Philippines, Guatemala and Haiti” gathered there, it was to ‘try to puzzle through one of the most complicated issues facing the polities all over the world, as they tried to move from dictatorial to democratic systems of government—- the question of what to do with the former tortures still in their midst”

Now you might say that’s not what you’re addressing here, but in reality, it’s pretty much the same. There was just what now seems like a brief moment in time, (like just before you joined us 30 years ago) when there was some hope of resolving what has been a history of social and economic injustice founded on racism. That came from those efforts of Martin Luther King, and the hundreds of thousands of people who assisted in that movement. But, it was short lived, and has been in a decline ever since. And what we have now are the equivalent of tortures still in our midst. In fact, they haven’t even been banished from the controlling regime yet, which at least was the case in these other societies that were finally attempting to move from the dictatorial system of government to a democratic system. (The dictators had been removed, but their security and military apparatuses still retained enormous power, and were not about to allow for any ‘settling of accounts’)

Such as it remains here, and overwhelmingly, the very ones (the Corptocracy) that HAVE all the money and power, aren’t about to give up a dime of it. Can you imagine of Murdoch, or any of the others ever even being willing to pay their own fair share of taxes, let alone any sort of reconciliation expenses that might balance things out in our system?

To be contd.

Report this

By cyrena, May 4, 2008 at 2:14 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2 response to Fadel

That’s not to say that it isn’t a wonderful idea, but I think we might have to first settle for just an awareness (by ALL) and the open and formal acknowledgement of what has been perpetrated against these groups for nearly 300 years. That is at least what came from that conference. After much deliberation, it was obvious that the GOALS involved an intertwined demand for Truth AND Justice. In the end, they realized that the truth (and it’s formal acknowledgement) was the more doable of the two, at least for starters.

So maybe that’s what we can and should make a short term goal. This reminds me of a question that came up in the first election debates..the question of reparations for African-Americans. Among all of the candidates, (all democrats) Dennis Kucinich was the only one who supported a system of such cash reparations for African-Americans. (over a century after being promised that 40 acres and a mule). Native Americans of course had agreements and treaties that were long ago violated, and they’ve yet to recover much of anything at all, though a handful of tribes are finally realizing SOME use of the .000000001 fraction land that they were able to salvage.

Obama’s response was probably more realistic, since it involved a matter of FINALLY funding schools and all of the other much needed infrastructure and bureaucracy required to make education and a everything else related to an upgraded standard of living available to those groups that have been historically oppressed, exploited and marginalized. Realistically speaking, that’s far more doable than getting the oppressors to part with enough money to hand out to those who can be so identified as belonging to those groups.

And Fadel, as for Chalmers, I have a feeling that when you say that you usually see eye-to-eye, you’ve missed a huge percentage of his posts. Chalmers is the essence of perfidy personified, and his inappropriate response to your post, (about wanting to run all white people out of America, and the fact that Farrakhan and Wright would love it) speaks directly to his mental dysfunction. Believe me, if you’d followed his stuff, you’d see the bi-polar/schizophrenic nature of it.

So, I wouldn’t expect much in terms of any reasonable response from him, and it would probably save you some grief to disregard him entirely. He’s fine with obliterating Iran anyway. If Hillary says it’s the thing to do, then Chalmers is all for it. If you don’t agree, he’ll accuse you of being racist toward white people.

(As if all white people are ever gonna leave the US. Right…as soon as the moon falls out of the Universe).

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, May 4, 2008 at 12:47 am Link to this comment

Would have to go to Ethiopia to find “semites” unless you want to accept all of the Arab Palestinians, Lebanese, etc etc etc as “Semites” too, bozhidar bob balkas.

But, even then, Ethiopia is only a Greek name and it is not what those people use to refer to themselves. They have their own major tribal groups….. and on and on it goes.

Perhaps that IS where Yahweh is - and maybe always was???

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, May 4, 2008 at 12:38 am Link to this comment

Uhh, Fadel Abdallah, again you have missed the point entirely - by focussing on yourself instead of what I said….....

.......after all, what’s wrong with “get rid of white people from America”? Louis Fararkan and Jeremiah Wright would love it, ha ha!

Report this

By Noaman. A, April 30, 2008 at 1:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you wish to go into ancestral origin of the current Jews, you may reffer to Shlomo Sand’s book,“Why and When the Jewish People were Invented”.In it, you will find some answers as to where the Khazars who were converted to Judiasm on the 8th century, had gone after the demise of their empire in the 13th century.The auther further explains the origins of the current Sphardeims,Eastern Jews, and where they actualy came from, only to show how foolish the world was to believe the Zionist narrative on how these Khazarians are the true descendents of Ibraham and Moses, nor there was a promise to return to the holly land, simply because there was no exile to begin with.In his answer to the question as to who are the true descendents of old Judiasm, the auther admits that Palestinians are more likely to be the ones whom we can call the true descendents of the Tura’s eara.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 29, 2008 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

Douglas Chalmers,

I am shocked at your interpreting my post as an “agenda to get rid of white people.” I am shocked because most of the time we see eye-to-eye and we write in support of justice, truth, the oppressed and disadvantaged people and against Zionism, neocons and the military-industrial complex.

I would really appreciate if you can explain to me how and why you read this into my post. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 29, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

we do not know what hap’d to israelites after their kingdom was destroyed by assyrians 728?bc. it seems that some were slain and some taken captives as a useful property.
in time some may have escaped northwards and much later westwards. it seems they were forbidden to couple up with anyone who wouldn’t accept judaism.
as to how many khazars, slavs, germans, et al israelites have married, perhaps nobody knows.
it is puzzling to me how/when/why this new nation became known as jews.
the new nation or people had very scant connection to judeans or even any semitic people. perhaps, the new people began acquiring the name “jews” after jesus’ death because they shared with the judeans same religion.
i’ve met a few jews who look polish: blueeyed, round slav faces, lightskinned; possibly with not a drop of semitic blood.
how abt we name this admixture of many ethnoses something else than jews? how abt KHASH? kh for khazars, s for slavs, and h for hebrews.
shephardim, on the other hand, being pure semites, we may continue to call “jews”.
since yahweh was of darker tincture than Khash, even he must be mad at this mad people.
it also seems that most Khash didn’t go to palestine.  now their dream of a zionist state (not yet obtained) is becoming jewish nightmare; it appears to me, jews are used as cannon fodder for more wars. more can be said. thank u.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 29, 2008 at 3:32 am Link to this comment

Sounds like an agenda to get rid of white people from America,  Fadel Abdallah. As I said, its a pity that the Chinese didn’t take the opportunity 500 or so years ago when Cheng Ho was sailing the Pacific…...

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 28, 2008 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

My Alternative Plan to Hillary’s Obliterating Iran

First, a publicity campaign comparing the Jewish Holocaust that will never be forgotten with the Afro-American and Native Americans Holocausts that should not be forgotten either. Rev. J. Wright is the most qualified and most eloquent to lead this campaign; he has already started.

Second, a financial plan for reparations should be prepared, with every family of these two victimized groups receiving at least one million dollars, so they can be financially uplifted and they can build businesses and create dignified jobs.

Third, a similar economic uplifting plan for poor Americans, of all backgrounds should be devised and implemented.

Fourth, outlaw all racial and ethnic census and classifications. Just one nation of all nations.

Fifth, all this compensation for both groups should be borne by well-to-do Americans, not as charity, but as an overdue duty, especially the wealthy ones. And the cost of this reparation plan can be easily born by the government at less than one year cost of the Iraqi war. So, it’s doable.

Sixth, two huge memorials should be built to commemorate the victims of the Native Americans and the Afro-Americans.

Seventh, a formal apology by the U.S. Congress and Government should be issued to both these groups.

My sense of justice tells me that this is the minimum that can be done to heal the wounds of the past, and to start this nation on the path of healing and rebirth. Though I do not belong to one of these two victimized groups, nor I am a victimizer, being a recent immigrant myself (30 years), I am willing to accept a special tax to help finance this plan if necessary. However, I think the financial aspect of the project is the least problematic. The problem will remain with creating a noble political and social good will and sincerity to attempt to right great historical wrongs.

Finally, unless and until a plan of this nature will be enacted, with good faith and sincerity, America will continue its downward movement towards destruction; all the signs are already there!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 28, 2008 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

How much of the OT is thus really Khazar history supplanted into the fake state of Israel and re-written? The Khazar fortress at Sarkel, the Ashina clan were considered to be the chosen… and the kaghan was the incarnation of… the sky-god….., etc etc, on and on, blah blah…...

Report this

By tdbach, April 28, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

We are obviously never going to agree entirely. Zionists - at least a majority of Zionists - have no ambitions of occupying and controlling the greater Middle East. Their aim is a completely safe, stable Jewish homeland, and they will stop at nothing to ensure that. They are advocates of pre-emptive military incursions, and I would agree that the current administration has bought into that philosophy. The reason they have gone in and out of favor among Jews, both in Israel and abroad, is that most Jews agree with the Zionist aim, they just feel alternately appalled at (when they feel peace is attainable through negotiated settlement) and grateful for (when they are under siege from terrorists and explicitly threatened by neighboring states) their methods and resolve. For better or worse, since the formation of the modern Israel under UN/British force, we have committed ourselves to that same aim, of a safe Jewish homeland. What we have failed to do is be as strongly committed to a safe and prosperous Palestinian homeland. ( I personally see only one possible, lasting solution: a dual federacy of Palestinian and Jewish rule over the same territory, with representation based not on geographical entities but ethnic/religious alignment, with Jerusalem as the capital. )

As I’ve said, Palestinian freedom fighters and blowhards like Ahmadinejad do themselves no favor by threatening the very existence of Israel. They only strengthen the Zionists’ hand both internally in Israeli politics and among allies abroad. And to demonize Zionists as more powerful and evil than they really are, as you and many other here do, does the same thing. Zionists need to be made obsolete as a military and political force in the region and relegated to cult status, like the polygamist groups here. But, in my opinion, you are only delaying that prospect. Your mileage may vary.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 28, 2008 at 5:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

nobody in her right mind would accept an admixure of euro-khazaro-semitic people still living in 4000 bc.
and what’s worse, not being an usual nation, khazars latched onto judaism.
the IT, the judaism/zionism, die grosste SCHREKENHEIT der alles zeiten, became their nationalism?
and israel, ooh, weh, sooo tiny.
danke schoen!

Report this

By finished last in my class, April 28, 2008 at 4:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

hi folks! i got some good news for u: i finished last in my class. and now i give u even better news: the crooks never got to me. now, if that doesn’t cheer u up, i don’t know what will!!
should we flog a blind horse for eating some dung along some weeds, and a few straws?
we canadians and americans have been eating that stuff for at least two centuries.
hey, said a little girl, But emperor has no clothes on? thank u.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 28, 2008 at 4:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

at least 5bn people wish jewish state be destroyed.
it will be destroyed and 10bn of us will be jubilant.
when a zionist quotes ahmadi or any nonzionist, i do not evaluate as true.
ahmad; oh ah mad!? u’d have to be stupid or moronic to threaten or attack israel.
in any case u said the truth that most of us would rejoice when that cancer is eradicated.
please ahmad don’t talk. we know what we need to know.
u know, there is a maker. ahmad, thank u.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 27, 2008 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

I believe through their proxies in the media in the U.S. they are the ones enflaming the discourse by making mountains out of molehills via soundbites and the continuous rehashing of meaningless issues.

Report this

By Ashish, April 27, 2008 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

She is such a hyprocite. She has no clear conviction. She says what the audience wants to hear.

1. On one hand, she criticize Bush for Iraq war, but she voted in favor of it. Now she says she would not have voted “yes”, if she knew that the evidence were lies.

2. But, last year she repeated her own accepted mistake by voting to band the Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. 

3. She says to end the war, but then her withdrawl plan (of troops) calls for leaving about 50,000 soldiers on bases in Iraq indefinitely.

4. She is so vehement in her opposition to the war, but did not make a single statement in support of the anti-war demontrators, let alone go alongside them.

She contradicts herself so much that it is unbelievable how she is among the frontrunners.

Unfortunately, Obama is not much different either. Except for the fact that he has opposed the Iraq war from the begining.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 27, 2008 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

Douglas Chalmers is correct when he states it is the insanity of the ego. Jessie Carter’s comment about colonized people deluded into subservience is completely on the mark. In fact it is the fury of that delusion that is so perilous. The reason the Middle East’s continuous conflicts are never solved is because the very foundation was built on the rotten brick of robbery. Not only the catastrophe that befell the Palestinians from the formation of Israel, but even further back, when the western colonial powers carved out the land and resources to suit their needs: Great Britain, France, and finally the United States. Such cavalier treatment of other peoples and cultures created conflicts where none had existed before. After what the CIA did to Iran in over throwing their legitimate government back in the early 1950’s, it is not surprising their is animosity towards the United States. But also should be remembered that the hostage crisis of !979 ended with all of the embassy persons safely returned. Adding insult to injury, the United States assisted Saddam when Iraq started a war with Iran. At one point the propaganda was such that the United States attempted to blame Iran for Saddam’s use of poison gas. And no one seems to remember when the US Navy shot down an Iranian passenger airplane.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 27, 2008 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

Hillary is a war-monger at heart. Her voting for the Iraq war is a clear proof of that; her false declared regrets about that not withstanding.

Obliterating a nation of 70 million for the sake of Israel should be reason enough to automatically disqualify her from running for the highest office in this sad country of ours.

But who cares any how?! For after 8 years of war-mongering by the neocons without being challenged in any serious way by the people, one can be justified to say that most Americans are either war-mongers at heart or are willing accomplices through their silence. And if you hope to get elected, then Hillary, the evil opportunist, has to play the winning card of war-mongering! Sad!

Report this

By Peter RV, April 27, 2008 at 6:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Non Credo,
If Barack does that he has lost me, for sure.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 27, 2008 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

Frank, you don’t keep up on international news so much, do you?  The Iranian parliamentary elections happened not long ago, and most of the opposition candidates were disqualified before anyone could even vote for them.

Of course, the same thing happens here, just with more subtlety.  It works out well, our political system gets the end result it’s looking for AND our leaders/media can castigate other countries for their lack of democracy.

And what about Americans holding their leaders accountable…then or now?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 27, 2008 at 5:20 am Link to this comment

Its quite simple, really. You just ahve to want to stop.

The real problem is that people want to continue….... its the insanity of the ego.

Report this

By Jessie Carter, April 26, 2008 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Hillary Clinton’s comments about bombing Iran sound irresponsible that is not an oddity in a country that supports a continuous position of being the world’s policemen.  The sacrificing of US lives and bounty for the supposed idea of EMPIRE seems to be a folly that has been the centerpiece of most of our recent governments. Mrs. Clinton’s diatribe suggests a continuation of not only a policy toward Israel, but a commitment that finds the United States as a dupe for a world that conveniently puts up with the silly verbiage spewed from the lips of every American leader.  Now why do you think these “America speaks” rants are tolerated by the world?  Is it fear of the US military might or fear of American financial power or the rightness of America’s convictions? I think we need to go beyond so closely examining each word spoken about military actions and start looking at the very basis of these acts by people seeking to keep the United States embroiled in military conflicts.  Did we not sacrifice our manufacturing capabilities during the 1940s in order to supply military material for Europe?  Does anyone not see this sacrifice as the beginning of the end of our COMMERCIAL manufacturing capabilities?  Did we not gladly fight proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam?  Should we not ask ourselves as a nation for whom were we proxy?  Currently are we not fighting intractable wars for which the preceding question could be a concurring qualifier?  May I suggest that during this election cycle that we take the time to quietly examine our juvenile ravings over power and carefully look at how the aftermath of being a colony has exemplified itself in this nations twentieth and twenty-first century military actions.  No EMPIRE sacrifices its very existence.  Only colonized people deluded into subservience by praise that is meant to keep them in that position could see themselves in such a false light. The tragedy is how do we fight the urge to pretend that we are something that we are not.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 26, 2008 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

Whoopsy, this post was meant as a reply to one of tdbach’s posts below. grrr….

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

Wildness of my claims? Huh? Israel’s apartheid regime has long plotted the destruction of Iraq and Iran to eliminate obstacles to Israeli expansion. What you are seeing in Palestine is a small taste of what Israel has planned for the rest of the ME. Right now Israel and its powerful US lobby, including Christian Zionists, are howling for our current thug leaders to attack Iran. Big Oil and the MIC aren’t seeking to destroy Iran. Zionists are, and they’ve never denied it. The Zionists are much more dangerous to us than the Iranians. Stop deluding yourself and others.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 26, 2008 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

Sorry Frank. but Ahmadinejad doesn’t quite fulfill your US boogie man test. Grant that he is a dumb misinformed Tehran local, but what you don’t seem to realize that he is not charge of his country. In a theocratic state, the grand council of clerics is in charge. So all of his rhetoric may make you feel it is justified to attack a nation that is not a threat to this country, but this is folly. As far as denying holocausts, I notice that the United States government has cordial relations with Turkey, a nation that has never admitted to the holocaust committed against the Armenian people in 1916.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 26, 2008 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

HRC’s “obliteration” rhetoric could be disregarded as posturing intended to deter Iran from attacking Israel, but her comments seem more sinister in conjunction with her prior endorsements of war crimes against both Iraq and Iran. Why the need to deter Iran? The Iranians, including Ahmadinejad, have never threatened to attack anyone. In contrast, Israel has a large nuclear stockpile and advanced weapons delivery systems, plus every intention of attacking its neighbors, including Iran, in furtherance of its Zionist, expansionist agenda. So if HRC merely wanted to prevent war, she would have threatened to obliterate Israel if it attacked Iran. Her comments and voting record seem less designed to deter war than set the stage for the cold-blooded murder of millions of innocent Iranians.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 26, 2008 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment

Actually, Doug, i agree that it is too late for the shell games…which doesn’t mean that they won’t be played.

By the way, have you ever read the theory that The Prince was a satire?  If that is the case, the irony would be as sticky as honey: so much of our politics being based on a spoof.

Report this

By tdbach, April 26, 2008 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

I don’t defend what Zionists are doing in the occupied territories - or anywhere else in and around Israel. The are indeed racist and ruthless. Hamas has played right into their hands by firing rockets into Jewish communities and committing other acts of terror, creating a sense of fear and anxiety that Likud has used to stay in power.

But they exercise their racist program by encroaching on Palestinian territory and segregating and subjecting palestinians to humiliating limitations on freedom and mobility - all in the name of protecting Israel. It is South African-style aphartide which the added intensity of ongoing conflict. But it is a far cry from ethnic cleansing like they had in Rhuwanda or Bosnia - or even in Bagdad the past 4 years.

We’re closer to agreeing than you think. But I believe we do the Palestinian cause a disservice if we exaggerate the crimes of the ruling party in Israel. It only weakens what should be a strong case. It makes it easy for AIPAC to point to critics of Israel and say, “See how hysterical they are? See the lies they tell about us? We are not only under attack from Arab terrorists, we’re under seige from anti-Semites throughout the world! We need your help!”

I wasn’t saying your an anti-Semite. I’m saying it’s awfully easy to make the case that you are, just by the shear wildness of your claims.

Hey, if you don’t agree with me, Amigo, so be it. But that’s the cautionary tale I’m trying to tell.

Report this

By Frank, April 26, 2008 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

“Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable”

 

What a crock of ‘scheer’  BS.  It should read “Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now had the will or courage to hold their leaders accountable”.

Iran has elections which reflect the complicity of the populace. Whether by ballot or by revolution, they could change the regime if they really wanted to.

What Hillary expressed so ineloquently was the US cold war doctrine of deterrence called Mutually Assured Destruction which prevented such a nuclear exchange from ever happening between the US and the USSR. Making it clear to Iran what the consequences of such an attack on Israel would be is just a reiteration of long standing doctrine on nuclear war.

Non-Credo, what Ahmadinejad has said about the holocaust and Israel:

“They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.”

“We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them.”

“The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless.”

“The West claims that more than six million Jews were killed in World War II and to compensate for that they established and support Israel. If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be established in the East, in Palestine?”

“If you have burned the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime”

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

“Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”

“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

“If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”

“Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”

“Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 26, 2008 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Not quite, savage jackpine, the point is that it is rather late to play the old game of distraction and deception.

People may “notice recession and food crises a little less if we go off and bomb Iran” but not for long as you we are all already being overtaken by those other imperatives.

The old Machiavellian ways are a path to failure. That has been conclusively so since Hurricane Katrina and the Indian Ocean tsunami. But people still haven’t woken up…....

Soon it could be too late and the next topic will not be about bombing Iran back to the stone age but how we are going to survive the stone age ourselves! The time to choose is NOW

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 26, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

yes…i think.

I think that the point is that people will notice recession and food crises a little less if we go off and bomb Iran.

I’m not sure if when you wrote “you” in your third paragraph if you were referring to me or to my country.  Hopefully it was the latter.  Unfortunately, i’m not one of those who can separate my country’s actions from my own.  I know full well that if the US bombs Iran, the guilt for that lays on my head as well.

You’re spot on about global co-operation, but we won’t see it with the US as the world leader…neither now nor after Jan 2009.  Global co-operation to the US means, “You do what we want you to do and we won’t threaten you militarily.”

And the quandary of the disappearing bees isn’t hardly over; this season could well be far worse than last (especially considering that beekeepers already borrowed millions to replace stock last year)

So we’re in agreement, Doug (i think)

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 26, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

jackpine savage, April 26: “If we wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons, we might start by decommissioning ours….”

As long as people still think that aggressive posturing is clever and that building nuclear umbrellas or whatever is good for employment, it is impossible to achieve any real or lasting progress never mind peace.

But supporting the military-industrial complex is no kind of answer to the needed solutions for global warming and climate change. Here we are with the economic recession and the food crisis and the GREAT USA FUCKWIT wants to go off and bomb Iran!!!

The writing is on the wall that the wrong kinds of expenditures are leading to disaster. Now you want to add nuclear contamination and mass murder as well??? So too do the unthinking Neocons in France and even still in Britain…....

The quandary of the disappearing bees which left crops unpollinated in America recently will be nothing to what comnes next if this military madness is allowed to continue as the excuse for solutions which really need global CO-OPERATION!!!

Report this

By TDoff, April 26, 2008 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

No wonder Bill disdained intercourse with Hillary.

They’re both Democrats, and rubbing two dicks together in the dead of night is more a republican kind of thing to do.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 26, 2008 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

Racist supremacist Zionists have had a free ride until now, but enough is enough when they inflame the entire ME with their persecution of Palestinians and drag us into unwinnable wars in Iraq and Iran. Sure, US evangelicals and garden-variety fascists are also to blame, but it’s foolhardy to underestimate the wealth and influence of the Israel lobby in the US Congress. Non Credo, your comment is spot-on because until now, all Zionists had to do to silence their critics was accuse them of being “anti-Semites” (Nazis) or “self-hating Jews.” Westerners’ collective guilt made the ad hominem smear tactics effective. Tdbach just tried it on me, but it won’t work anymore. Zionists are fanatical racist ideologues and should be treated accordingly, regardless of their baggage of Nazi persecution.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 26, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

What are you lost in this time, Leefeller? Alice in Wonderland, Alice’s Restaurant - or A.L.I.C.E. (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity)???

The axis of evil IS the coalition of the willing (Neocons), uhh!

You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant
Excepting Alice
You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant
Walk right in it’s around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 26, 2008 at 6:56 am Link to this comment

Peace the words of weak wimps, as the Queen of hearts says “off with their heads”

Iran is from what I can tell is a beautiful country with a rich history and a people of all kinds who want to live in peace.  Demonizing a country as Bush did when he listed Iran in his axis of evil speech set the mood for the morons, non thinking simple flag pin folks who would obliterate a county of evil only on the word of a fellow moron.  Like Iraq our country has been meddling in Iran for years, when puppets do not follow orders or direction take action.  Who the hell do these countries think they are dealing with? Wave the flag.  America always knows best.

Hillary voted to take action against Iraq on the made to order list of lies sponsored by one of the greatest hero’s in American History, George Bush.
Why would someone want to talk, talk to an axis of evil?  How naive and simplistic, Obama is,  we should just blow them off the map. This country who dumped our appointed puppet government, so you cannot ever talk to them, like Casto, we must make them suffer for they must be under our control our thumb make them do as we want.  Let the axis of evil know who the boss is, in the new world order. 

Just like we did in Iraq, we need to go in and kick ass and take names.  Hillary is showing something I never knew she had, the insane madness of Bush or the great decision making abilities of the Queen of Hearts.  “Off with their heads”

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 26, 2008 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

and observations which may or may not have been published in TD:
1) nationalism is dying; in some countries at a faster rate than others.
2)from this observation,  a corrollary arises that america and canada are also dying. or no more?
3)US’ structure of governance by far ‘best’; i.e, most efficient in controling domestic and foreign pops.
4)planet getting daily poorer; ergo, unprecendented militaristic frenzy.
5)plutocratic/olligarchic rulers on warpath for what’s left of the goodies.
6)their grip on us tightening, tightening; getting ever more brutal.

unless, either russia or china develops a counterpunch that could seriously hurt plutocrats everywhere, they’l also have to cry “uncle”.

enough crying. i got good news for us, Hell’s been around so long, it has by now cooled down sufficiently to suit everybody. now, can anyone top such verrrrry good news? thank u

I conclude that not just palestinians, amers, canadians but also all the untermenschen will either succumb or perish.

succumb and remain an underclass. but, what’s new? heven’t most of us been an underclass for at least 15000 yrs? thank u
PS. i messed this post somewhat; i’m 96 and eager for HELL.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 26, 2008 at 6:16 am Link to this comment

Yes Roger Lafontaine you are correct. Peace is for the people. People could solve their differences without the interference of governments and their hidden agenda. Peace is a living action that is too important to be left in the hands of so-called leaders who still turn to militaristic violence as a solution, when clearly it is not.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 26, 2008 at 5:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

hear. hear ya ostrogoth
i only add that all aspects of w’jewry-pals coflict are vastly asymetrical; i.e., in favor of US/IOF

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 26, 2008 at 5:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe you have not been in the US long enough to realize that nearly everyone here is “treated like dirt.” The native people who were here before invading Europeans, The offspring Black African slaves who helped build this nation, Anyone with slanted eyes (must be Chinese right?) People who (no matter their color) work with their hands. people who have the bad luck to be unemployed, People who live in the worn-out old mill towns from where “hope” has been exported.

Up here in White White White Eastern Maine, I have the privilege of acquaintance with one US Iranian citizen, she is Nima Moghaddas a podiatrist in Machias. Without her, we would have to drive over 200 miles to get the service she delivers.. I wouldn’t trade her for gold!!!

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 26, 2008 at 5:00 am Link to this comment

Bert,  one of the most important things in international affairs and diplomacy is to speak carefully.  Moreover, the field is full of code words.

Everything that Sen Clinton said is already well known.  The Carter Doctrine spelled it out concerning outside nations (aside from us) meddling in the ME.

“Massive Retaliation” is code for nuclear…or at least complete and wanton destruction of civilian targets.  Realistically, we’re fighting a nuclear war in Iraq right now.  Depleted Uranium munitions are nothing but dirty bombs, and we’ve discharged tons of them in Iraq.

A nuclear umbrella is not a “peacekeeping plan”, because it is predicated on fear.  Moreover, it need not be stated because our stock piles (and the fact that we’re the only country to have used a nuclear device) make it self evident.

How many times in modern history has one ME nation invaded another?  Iraq invaded Kuwait, and they paid for it…dearly.  The ME country that is mostly likely to attack/invade another nation is Israel, yet Sen Clinton says that they need protection.

We are certainly worried about Iran’s role as a regional power; we long have been.  It was this situation that led us to support Saddam Hussein (partially) in the first place.  Then we went and removed the counterweight to Iran and now we’re worried that there is no counterweight to Iran.  Did any of these politicians who dreamed up/planned/supported the invasion of Iraq think that far ahead?

I’m sure that Iran would like to have a nuclear device too.  Look at the kid gloves we treat the DPRK with compared to how we treated Iraq.  There is a degree of safety from US bullying in owning a nuke or two.

The larger question becomes how we can reason that it is ok for us and Israel to have them, but not Iran.  Domestically, the argument may wash.  But internationally it does not look like anything other than the United States trying to keep an obscene advantage.

To accept the argument requires believing that the US doesn’t wrong, that it is benevolent.  But we aren’t.  And in the wider world, what gets sold as “peace” and “defense” domestically is known to be no such thing.  For example, the missile defense shield.  That is not a defensive weapon.  By virtue of design and operation, it would be hard pressed to intercept a single device.  It would also be unable to stop a full assault from the Russian arsenal.  But if we were to launch a first strike, it would be able to stop just about everything that came from a reduced, return volley. (assuming that it worked)

Others recognize these types of things while we don’t.  Years of hearing the Department of War called the Department of Defense have clouded our ability to decipher meanings correctly.  The DoD is not structured to protect the United States; it is structured to wage offensive war.  “Peace” is the same as US hegemony.

If we wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons, we might start by decommissioning ours.

By the way, Obama would not simply meet Iranian leaders face to face.  That is never how diplomacy works.  The legwork is always done by lower levels first.  In some rare circumstances, like the Reykjavik Summit between Reagan and Gorbachev, things happen spontaneously.  The difference is that diplomacy first can result in dialog, while “diplomacy” under the shadow of unveiled threats is nothing more than coercion.

Report this

By Roger Lafontaine, April 26, 2008 at 1:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Which is more precious? The life of 75 million Iranians or the ‘right’ of 250,000 settlers to steal Palestinian land and resources? Because I tell you that if Israel returned all the land that was taken in 1967 and 73 to the Palestinian people peace would break out all over the Middle East. The Arab nations are dying to make peace with Israel and get over all this conflict. They have already made this offer and it was rejected. Israel-America sees more power and opportunity in continuing war. War is profit and power whereas Peace is for the people.

Report this

By bert, April 25, 2008 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

‘ignore’ & ‘nothing’ were poor word choices. In terms of engaging in any type of dialogue (formal or informal) or diplomacy he does nothing. His adminitration just engages in ratching ip the rhetoric.

I do not believe that Iran has nuclear weapons. But I think they want them. And they are doing something with nuclear ,aterilas wheather, as they say, energy, or not. Whether that is a ruse for weapons I am not sure. But the NIE has indicated that even if they had all the material they need it is still at least ten years away. But I do belive they want them.

What do you think a nuclear umbrella is? I did not hear nuclear umbrella. I heard that what Clinton wanted to do was include as many MS countries under the same umbrella as Israel. That is, if anyone attacks them, we would be there to help them. It is apeace keepong plan, not a war mongering plan.

You also write:  “As an aside, why is it ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons but Iran is not allowed?  And if Israel is our “ally”, what do we get from the relationship?”

Those are very hard questions to answer. And I need time to think and formulate answers. I am not a diplomat and have no ready answers for those, except for saying that I believe Israel has a right to exist.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 25, 2008 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

Bush’s Iran policy is “ignore, nothing”?  Now, bert, you’re going way, way too far.  This is the man who’s administration has consistently (and publicly) accused Iran of killing US military personnel in Iraq.  The Kyl-Lieberman designation of a branch of the Iranian military as “terrorist” hardly counts as “nothing”.  Two carrier task forces patrolling around Iranian waters simultaneously is not “ignoring” (in fact, two carrier groups in the same place at the same time is highly unusual).  And we already declared economic war on Iran as of 3/20/08.

Of course, your premise stands well if you (like the Bush administration) ignore the NIE on Iran and it’s nuclear program…i.e. that they don’t really have one.  Gee, that sounds familiar, trumping up a threat that doesn’t exist to provoke a war.

You can’t spin this away, bert.  It was an irresponsible statement.  For one, it goes without saying that if Israel were attacked then we would retaliate with/for them.  Moreover, her statement was not just about Israel.  It clearly implied a nuclear umbrella over the whole region…a region that can be stretched as far East as Pakistan.

This is history repeating itself.  We relied on our nuclear arsenal during the Cold War because we knew that defeating the Soviet Union in a conventional war on their soil would be next to impossible.  Iraq has shown that we are not capable of invading/occupying a Mid-East nation…so we are left with threatening nuclear war.

Furthermore, it will be difficult to engage Iran when we have troops on two of its borders and carrier groups patrolling its waters while our politicians talk about “obliterating” the country.  There is no carrot there…only stick.

She parroted Bush leading up to Iraq, and she’s carrying his water in regards to Iran. 

As an aside, why is it ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons but Iran is not allowed?  And if Israel is our “ally”, what do we get from the relationship?

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 25, 2008 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Um, i don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the Saudis are pretty good friends with the Clintons too.  Bill has spent some of his free time doing consulting in the Gulf, etc.

They are not as close to the Clintons as they are to the Bushes, but Bill and H.W. have gotten to be pretty close over the last seven years.

It’s not that they don’t want Hillary in the Oval Office, it’s more that they’re not all that excited about us dropping nukes in their neighborhood and/or further destabilizing the area.  The Saudis would probably be happier with Clinton than Obama; if nothing else, she is a known quantity.

Not everything is about taking sides in US politics.  And i was never fooled by the talk about the Bush administration.  Your condescending statement belies the high road that you’ve proclaimed for yourself.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

“First of all, AIPAC isn’t the richest lobby in the country - by a long shot.”

Actually, I said the Israel lobby, including AIPAC, was the richest. Reread my post. No, I don’t have the dollar figures because they depend on how you define the Israel lobby. It would have been safer if I had said, “one of the richest.” My bad. Humble apologies, etc, etc.

“Bin Laden’s grievance isn’t our support for ‘Zionist ethnic cleansing’ as you say. For one thing, that’s a gross misrepresentation of an already bad situation.”

If I understand you right, you’re saying that “Zionist ethnic cleansing” is a gross misrepresentation of what the Zionists are doing in Palestine. You cannot possibly be so naive, if that’s what you meant.

“[In reference to an Israeli attack on Iran] But if we do indeed give them the green light (and believe me, they won’t do more than a quick air strike without our assurance of backing them)...”

Exactly why should I believe you?

“While you may claim not to be an anti-Semite -hell, you may actually be a Jew- it’s awfully hard not to think anti-Semitism of some fashion is fueling such far-reaching flights of imagination.”

You just couldn’t resist, could you? From behind the thin veneer of rationality, out comes the vicious, de rigor smear when facts fail you. And what far-reaching flights of imagination do you mean, amigo? What the Israel lobby and Zionists are promoting and doing, in the West Bank and Gaza, at US taxpayer expense, is no flight of the imagination. Perhaps you think the Jewish Holocaust is merely a flight of the imagination? I defend the Palestinians in their struggle, just as I would have defended Jews against Nazi persecution. You want to play smear games? Zionists are subjecting the Palestinians to a murderous hell, similar to the Nazi ghettos of WWII. They’re committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and those who help promote them, or defend them, by either word or deed, make themselves accomplices to those crimes.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Report this

By tdbach, April 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

“Conspiratorial nonsense? Yeah, right. Tell that to the Palestinians, amigo. The Israel lobby, including AIPAC, is the richest and most powerful lobby in the country”

First of all, AIPAC isn’t the richest lobby in the country - by a long shot. Pharma, insurance dwarf it. Even the NRA is bigger. That said, it is very influential, primarily because it has so many voters attached to it (unlike corporate lobbies which just have a ton of cash) - or at least they’ve been pretty successful in convincing politician they have the Jewish vote at their beck and call. (They don’t, because a majority of Jews aren’t Zionist, and AIPAC is. But Politicians are a cautious bunch when it comes to risking votes.) Anyway, yes, the Palestinians have born the brunt of AIPAC’s influence, I won’t deny that. But that influence drops off dramatically the further you get from the West Bank.

Bin Laden’s grievance isn’t our support for “Zionist ethnic cleansing” as you say. For one thing, that’s a gross misrepresentation of an already bad situation. Apartheid fits, and that’s bad enough. Don’t oversell your view, it only undermines your credibility. For another, Bin Laden only uses the plight of Palestinians as a recruitment talking point. What did Russia have to do with supporting Israel? But there was Osama, fighting them in Afghanistan. No, his beef is part religious, part Arab nationalist (and part, like Bush, Freudian).

“And when Israel attacks Iran to draw America into another unwinnable war, it won’t be to steal Iran’s oil.” Well, that’s probably true. But if we do indeed give them the green light (and believe me, they won’t do more than a quick air strike without our assurance of backing them) with a wink and a nod, it most assuredly will be because of oil (not necessarily to “steal” it, but to protect our hegemony in that oil-rich region).

You have a grandiose, paranoid sense of AIPAC and Zionists. While you may claim not to be an anti-Semite -hell, you may actually be a Jew- it’s awfully hard not to think anti-Semitism of some fashion is fueling such far-reaching flights of imagination.

Report this

By Peter RV, April 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena,
There are very few people in this World who seek the truth, in fact, most of them are simply ignorant (and glad to stay that way)some of them are such sworn enemies of the truth, they are only interested in it so as to be able to subvert it.
Why do they do it?
Well, they had committed crimes (Bush, Cheney,Clinton, all Israeli generals etc)and have vested interest in keeping the public confused about it, or, they had applauded long time to these bestialities out of some tribal herd instincts. The latter cathegory is where, I suspect, Lee and Bert belong.
  They know perfectly well that a lie is a deadly weapon which can delay the truth long enough to render it impotent. Their main problem is that the events keep continuing to present us with new horrors to be spun, which forces some of them to become sort of Goebbelsian professionals.
  Just read these words of Lee’s, almost every single one has a lie attached to it:

“His (Ahmadinejad’s) kinship with Hugo Chavez, whose extreme anti-American rhetoric and anti-democratic efforts to nationalize Venezuelan industries, control free speech, eliminate his term limits, and have his troops fire on demonstrating students doesn’t show a high degree of civilization either”.

  I am sure that Lee and Bert know the following facts:
-Hugo Chavez is the man who sends cheap petrol to the Americans whose Government and the filthy reach oil companies have abandoned to their fate.
-Hugo Chavez is the man elected by over 60% of Venezuelans)our Government tried (usuccessfully) and is still trying to overthrow.
-Hugo Chavez is the man who has paid indemnization in cash, for the properties of Venezuelan People , owned (or stolen) by foreign multinationals.
-Hugo Chavez is the man who alows a complete free expression to his opposition, in the press and the TV.
  -Hugo Chavez is the man who has democratically accepted the defeat of his proposal for the constitutional change.
  -Hugo Chavez is the man who has never ordered his troups to fire on his people
  -Hugo Chavez is the man who has always denounced American and Israeli concentration camps.

  For them, the truth is there only to be smothered because it is deadly for their wishes.
  Now that their Hillary has come out in the open with her desire to make her own Holocaust in Iran, what do we hear from our Tribalists?
  Speak louder we can’t hear you.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 25, 2008 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

Perhaps one day it will be discovered that the homicidally insane Jewish Zionists also had an incurable disease as was postulated with Leefeller’s “the Hatfields vs the McCoys” feuding families - the baccillus itself, uhh (see above)? http://www.dogflu.ca/04062007/08/disease_may_explain_hatfields_vs_mccoy_feud

But it is the USA which is obsessed by fear - and once you take an aggressive posture, one must be forever watchful. That is an anathema to peaceful co-operation. It is the trap which empires always fall into as a result of their own unconscionable actions. They thus endlessly fear that others will then do the same to them!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 25, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

America hasn’t had a problem with that since 1945. Demented Cold War warrior who wanted to bomb every city in China! http://www.geocities.com/lemaycurtis/

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 25, 2008 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

Well, how do you top GWB’s threatening to “start WW3” except by coming to the debate “battle ready”. In a country with a predatory eagle as its emblem, hawks are still preferred to doves.

Further, going to war becomes seemingly natural once one lies compulsively about peace. Now Americans, lacking in spirituality are not flying in the blue sky but crawling in the slime with the crocodiles!!!

War has become the USA’s religion and it must inevitably also “die by the sword” as much as it is decaying and falling apart with its mismanaged economy and its millstone of debt. A rotting carcass…...

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 25, 2008 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

Not a “Greater Israel” so much as a duplication of Byzantium,the Eastern Roman empire, uhh.

Pity that it was all underpinned not by the military so much as by the Jews on Wall Street. Soon, pulling the plug on other peoples’ countries will not be so easy as before….......

The possibility of FREEDOM for individual ststes will then emerge out of the Zionist-American slime of the past few decades. Pity the citizens of the USA, though, in their darkness!

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 25, 2008 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

IIf you care to go to this:
http://www.streetalker.com/

Report this

By Dara, April 25, 2008 at 10:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ARE YOU KIDDING??

Stop trying to defend Clinton’s idiotic comments. I’m Iranian American and I hate the government of Iran, but what Clinton said shows complete disregard for innocent Iranian lives. She freely threatens genocide against millions of Iranians just to get some redneck votes and more contributions from the giant pro-Israel lobby machine.

Us Iranians are treated like dirt anyway thanks to constant negative stereotyping, but this one takes the cake! It’s now perfectly fine for a presidential candidate to talk about committing genocide against us without anyone batting an eye and people like you actually defending her. It’s disgusting…

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 25, 2008 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

Conspiratorial nonsense? Yeah, right. Tell that to the Palestinians, amigo. The Israel lobby, including AIPAC, is the richest and most powerful lobby in the country, as well as one of the most subversive. AIPAC is like a car’s windshield wipers? Fraid not. AIPAC is more analogous to the seven litre V8 under the hood. Besides, no one’s blaming AIPAC for all our troubles in the ME. Christian Zionists and the MIC are partly to blame. But Israel and its lobby are the most important players with respect to our self-defeating and counterproductive foreign policy in the ME. Bin Laden’s major grievance was US support for Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, although US interventions in the ME, both overt and covert, were obviously factors. The US didn’t have to destroy Iraq’s culture and infrastructure, and murder a million Iraqis, to secure access to Iraqi oil. That was part of the Zionist agenda, and necessary only to further their project of Eretz Israel. And when Israel attacks Iran to draw America into another unwinnable war, it won’t be to steal Iran’s oil, because the astronomical political and economic costs of an all-out regional war and occupation of Iran far outweigh the benefits of direct physical control of Iranian oil resources. The impending Israeli attack will be to destroy an obstacle to Israeli apartheid and expansion. Remember, we’re talking about religious/racist fanatics, including Christian Zionists, setting our foreign policy in the ME based on Biblical superstition and racism, not US national security interests.

Report this

By Kamran Ramyar, April 25, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In 2003 Hillary voted for an unjust war based on faulty intelligence and therefore is guilty of genocide.  When baby Bush and Dick Cheney are finally put on trial for crimes against humanity, Hillary must join them on the defendant’s stand!  Any other scenario will solidify the fact that America is not a true democracy.  Hillary was stupid for falling to neocons war rhetoric back in 03’ and continues to display her very limited intelligence today by promising to obliterate 72 million people in order to garner a few Zionist votes and get the presidency.  She is an imbecile and those who are going to vote for her are just plain stupid.

Report this

By bert, April 25, 2008 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

“Oops. Thanks. (Sorry, bert!)”

LOL Not a problem. smile

Report this

By bert, April 25, 2008 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

Reply to tdbach

Again another excellent, reasoned, and well thought out post. In my previous reply to rtl3 I purposefully ignored the AIPAC issue because I wasn’t quite sure how to word my position. You said it perfectly for me, “I agree that AIPAC has disproportionate and sometimes troubling influence in American politics, including among Democrats.”

Report this

By bert, April 25, 2008 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

Hillary has never said the U.S. should not talk with Iran. Her position has more nuance and is in keeping with international diplomatic processes.

She is trying to seek a balance between Bush’s Iran policy (ignore, nothing)and Obama’s straight out of the starting gate direct, and quite frankly naive, face-to-face talks with Ahmadinejad.

Hillary has said, “The approach that the Bush administration has taken toward Iran has been a loser. It has neither changed behaviors or produced results.”

Hillary’s policy on Iran is a “carrot and stick,” one aimed at creating “the beginning of lower levels (not the President at this point) of diplomatic engagement, some ongoing process.” If Ahmadinejad responds positively to this, then direct face to face talks with the President of the U.S. would be forthcoming.

The talk about obliterating had to do with Ahmadinejad/Iran attacking one of our strongest allies Isreal. If we can engage Ahmadinejad/Iran BEFORE they develop nuclear weapons that scenario is null and void.

Report this

By tdbach, April 25, 2008 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

I agree that AIPAC has disproportionate and sometimes troubling influence in American politics, including among Democrats. I also agree that Hillary’s response to a hypothetical nuclear attack on Israel from Iran was poor. Not, by the way, because she said we would obliterate them if they did – that was bluster that may be problematic coming from a sitting president but not from a candidate for that office – especially one who has only the slenderest chances of winning. Hyperbole is the order of the day on the campaign trail. Where she dropped the ball was in her description of an “umbrella” of protection, which she suggested would cover all peaceful countries in the region, while continuing to suggest that Iran would never be one of those peaceful nations. She should have said that even Iran, if it should abandon nuclear ambitions, would be protected. She should have said that unilateral aggression by one state against another, whether it is Iran or Syria -or even Israel- and whether it was nuclear or conventional, would be not tolerated by the world community, and the US would take the lead in responding with corresponding measure. But she didn’t. What gives me hope with Hillary, as opposed to Bush, is that she’s not an idiot and she’s open to learning and adapting to ground realities and better ideas.

As far as blaming AIPAC for all our troubles in the Middle East, well, that is so much conspiratorial nonsense. If Afghanistan weren’t harboring Bin Laden, we wouldn’t have overthrown the Taliban. And if Iraq weren’t sitting on one of the biggest oil reserves in the world, we wouldn’t have ousted Saddam either, no matter how hard AIPAC pushed us. And if Iran weren’t also floating on oil and looking to spread anti-American influence around that cesspool of petroleum knows as the ME, we wouldn’t be threatening them, either. If you think this is about the Jewish vote and the influence of a few neocon Zionists, you probably think a car is powered by the windshield wipers.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 25, 2008 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

Actually, it is foreign politics as a domestic political ploy. Even tho Bush is not running again, the RPG’s still are.

Keep playin’em, sucker…..... the “madhouse” IS the US electorate, uhh!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 25, 2008 at 6:16 am Link to this comment

Our nation of misfits will continue it’s self defeating march down the road of no return following the lemmings off the cliff.  Such a heinous history, (glorified for some) taking what we want, when we want it seems to be in full gear.  Only today we have Hillary pandering to the war-fear mongers, beating the drums to not have dialog, but instead beating her chest to show the simple minded folks, look at me I can talk tougher than a man. 

Having to endure a sicking Republican debate, were the contestants had animated discussion on which kind of torture was better or most effective, was in itself a millstone in macabre. How discussion and comments like this can be accepted by the people duped by the Mass Media and not be questioned?  We really know why. Such disturbing discussion would seem appropriate coming from some Talaban war lord, but not in our political debates, now Hillary and McCain have shown to be worthy warlords.

We (our country) has sunk lower than our lowest common denominator, in search of a continuing Hatfields vs the McCoys self destruction?  Every time our leaders set up a so called Democracy, and when it gets overthrown, we hold a ready made to order grudge after the slap in the face. The insulted flag pin mental morons will always flock and rally their blind support for elitist imperialistic economic wars.  For war, in some minds is only a chess game.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 25, 2008 at 6:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

4 yrs ago i said to the host of a vancouver radio show, Antijudaism is not antisemitism. the moment i said that, the host hung up on me.
well, it seems that much of the media in vancouver is owned by asper family.
this family is an awowed supporter of all crimes perpetrated by IOF.
actually, one can’t be even antisemitic; one can be only against what jews do or don’t do. thank u

Report this

By tdbach, April 25, 2008 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

Oops. Thanks. (Sorry, bert!)

Report this

By tdbach, April 25, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

I take that as a good sign. The friends and allies of the Bush/Cheney cartel don’t want Hillary in the Oval office. (Don’t let the disparaging talk about the Bush administration fool you.)

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 25, 2008 at 5:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jewish Defense League… My mother has been a contributing member since it’s founding. 

Not necessarily linked to Zionism, any more than the Panthers were linked to Black mainstream.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 25, 2008 at 12:19 am Link to this comment

As independently thinking person (perhaps that is the most dangerous of all), I try through writing to get everyone to examine matters more carefully. As the late Saul Bellow once said: “you can make a racket out of pessimism, the same as optimism.” Maybe that is the ultimate explanation for being banned from The Huffington Post.

Report this

By cyrena, April 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Peter RV,

Ya know, I was just thinking, (not long before I read your message addressed to “Mr.” Lee) that we don’t really know for sure if Lee is a man or a woman. I may not have given it much thought, except of course I made that mistake with bert, (assuming that was the screen ID of a male) and was quickly corrected by bert herself.

This comes to mind because in reading so many of the postings from “Lee” S/he sounds so much like ‘bert’, that well…we can’t be sure. Still, it was very decent of you to include the title, because it indicates a level of respect that we should all have for each other, but is so difficult to maintain in the face of so much spin, and so many outright lies and distortions.

I has always been my sort of ‘philosophy’ that people are mostly good at the core, and that most people PREFER honesty. So, one would expect that when any of us are properly INFORMED, (as an example…your explanation for what Ahmadinejad REALLY said) then they will be able to draw the correct conclusions. The same goes for the basic facts of…Israel HAS nuclear weapons, (and has for over 20 years now), and Iran does NOT. (and Iran has said many times that they have no desire for nuclear weapons…would that the US and other nuclear nation states would give theirs up as well.)

So, it seems simple enough to believe that when people know the TRUTH, they can and will obtain a more beneficial and productive outlook. Sadly though, this is not always the outcome. All too often, (because I’ve seen it many times in my life) people will continue to deny, (until the day they die) anything that does not support what they CHOOSE to believe, as determined by things we can’t always know. Lee, (among others) has proven to be one of them.

Another example that I’ve used before, (if only because most people can relate to it) is the OJ Simpson crime. There are in fact some folks (though I’m sure not many) would continue to reject that OJ Simpson committed the crimes that he did, even if HE told these people, face to face, and in his own words and voice…I DID DO those crimes! Yes, there are a few who would respond with…NO YOU DID NOT! I know that it is totally illogical, and there is really no explaining it.

Still, it is what it is.

That said, I also believe that your information IS very helpful to others that may not know the truth, (because of the ‘myth’ of the so-called ‘denial’ and ‘wiped off the map’ comments) and are more willing to and open to the knowledge of the truth.

I should also add something else that is not widely known here in our own population, which is the fact that the current Iranian administration has made multiple attempts to meet with the current US administration, and has been rudely rejected each and every time. The Iranians, (and others on their behalf) have even attempted to set up some arrangements via the Swiss, and countless others. Anything to make diplomatic contact, and put all truths to light, and even to make concessions. All of these attempts have first, REMAINED SECRET…and never allowed to get beyond people like Condi Rice, and of course have always been rejected. Because of course, the entire objective is to make Iran look as evil as possible, rather than anxious to cooperate in the interest of peace.

Just something else to consider.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 24, 2008 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment

Tdbach,

Psst, fyi,  Bert is a women

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 24, 2008 at 9:55 pm Link to this comment

Bert, you comments always seem far right to me so when you comment on the left it seems like I am listening to Russ Limbaugh.  When we mention the war, you ignore the issue, this article is about what Hillary said, you do not stick on the issue, because it is uncomfortable or unacceptable in your mind.  So attack the left as you see it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 24, 2008 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment

Realfish,

Your comments on Hillary seems fair and could be right.  Hillary does seem to have a solipsist view, her comments and actions seem to support this.  I am more scared of her than McCain, seems we have a choice between death and destruction.

Report this

By rtl3, April 24, 2008 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment

I love how Hillary criticized Obama for saying he would talk to Ahmadinejad. The MSM jumped on it too repeating the naive bull along with the repubs. They and Hillary apparently have no problem with threatening to obliterate millions of innocent people. why talk when you can kill right?
http://blog.oneiledwards.com/

Report this

By cyrena, April 24, 2008 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

Amen to ALL of this very excellent essay Ostrogoth, and by the way, AIPAC is certainly NOT any more ‘respectable’ than the Nazis or the KKK.

Speaking of which, does anybody know anything about this group called the Jewish Defense Organization, or something similar? They kept showing up all over the place on the list of Hate Groups/Organizations tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I guess I should go back and double check the name, but I remember that at the time, I couldn’t find out much about them, (or anything really) and the name (like most other Hate Organizations) doesn’t necessarily convey what they are really about.

Report this

By Ron Ranft, April 24, 2008 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No, it is you who are silly by trying to discredit a very knowledgable, and forthright article by Robert by attaching labels whose intent is to dismiss the truth of what was written. Perhaps it is borne of anti-American hysteria that seems to plague conservatative dogma?

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 24, 2008 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

Both Democratic candidates pander shamelessly to the Zionist lobby, and that should trouble all of us, across the political spectrum. But our exceptionalist, dispensationalist, fundamentalist electorate, disconnected from reality and the rest of the world, remains blissfully unaware that the interests of AIPAC and US national security are antithetical. AIPAC, more than any other lobby, is responsible for US entrapment and war crimes in Iraq; now AIPAC endeavors relentlessly to ensnare us in an apocalyptic conflict with Iran. Exactly how is AIPAC more respectable than the Nazi Party or the KKK, racist supremacists all?

HRC’s recent comment about obliterating Iran, if it were an isolated outburst, could be dismissed as posturing and rhetorical hype. But her comment takes on troubling resonance when viewed in conjunction with her prior endorsements of war crimes against Iraq and Iran.

Zionist fanatics make no secret of their intention of drawing the US into war with Iran. HRC could have pointed out that Iran has no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons program, but Israel has. She could have mentioned that Iran has no territorial ambitions, but Israel has. She could have noted that Iranian fanatics, radicalized and empowered by the violent US overthrow of Iran’s elected government in 1954, have never adopted an aggressively racist agenda, but Israeli fanatics have. She could have said that given those political and historical dynamics, an Israeli attack on Iran is the most likely scenario, and she could have used the opportunity to strengthen Israeli domestic opposition to war by extending US protection to Iran as well as Israel. Instead, she took a balanced, rational, pragmatic US foreign policy off the table and tightened the noose of another catastrophic, illegal, immoral, and unwinnable war around all our necks.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 24, 2008 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

Great Hillary folks, just threaten the world anyone who does not believe as you do, and do the he said, she said routine until you are blue in the face, with the flag up your ass. Hillary has no integrity or common sense and you will follow her with the zombie look of a Nazi SS trooper.  While you are at it sign up with “Bigots are us” you will enjoy the company, they are right up your Republican ally. ziggy hail.

Report this

By Peter RV, April 24, 2008 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr.Lee,
  your thinking:
-“I don’t think Ahmadinejad’s continual denial of the holocaust, plus his bellicose statements about blowing Israel off the map, plus his despicable anti-Semitic cartoon contest exhibits a high degree of civilized thinking”-
  is based on some flagrant fallacies.
1. Ahmadinejad hasn’t denied the jewish ‘holocaust’
  he has just pointed out that even if it is true
  what happened to the Jews in Germany, that doesn
  justify the present Palestinian ‘holocaust’ in
  Israel.
2. He has never said he was going to blow Israel off
  the map. What he did say was that the Zionist
  Regime will fall from the pages of History (like
  the Soviet).
Speaking of civilized behaviour, Mr.Lee,you are forgeting the disgraceful reception Ahmadinejad has received recently at one of our most prestigious universities.
    Hillary was sending a message to Ahmadinejad who doesn’t have nuclear arms (Israel does!)as a deterrant that, if he attacks Israel, she will obliterate Iranian nation. And you don’t notice an agressive bullying, instead?
    Mr. Lee, when it comes to civility, Ahmadinejad is far superior to your Hillary (and her husband)

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

You write:    “...Republicans rarely compromise on central issues when campaigning, and in fact appeal to their core to win.”

The R’s appeal strictly to their core to win the primary. In a general election they move to the center. The R’s core is about 30% of the electorate. Not enough to win an election. So R’s appeal to and win over a majority of the swing voters when they win un the General. As do Democrats. It is just that we win so seldom.

Report this

By lester ness, April 24, 2008 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why kill all the other iranians, just because you don’t like Ahmedinedjad’s rhetoric?  Somehow that makes no sense.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 24, 2008 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Learn your history.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

More Israel inspired jewist media hype. Iran and Venezuela have every reason to dispise the Bush dynasty as I do. 

Its red flag comments like Hillary’s “Obliterate” which will get sane voters off their ass to keep her out of office.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day.

This from The Arab News, paid for by the Saudi government…and generally not stepping very far out of line.  It ends:

Faced with defeat in her bid for the Democrat nomination, she is prepared to up her already dirty political tactics by threatening with destruction another state in the Middle East that poses no threat to the US. This is a person who is barely fit to run for office, let along sit behind the most powerful desk in the world.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=109267&d=24&m=4&y=2008

Report this

By kath cantarella, April 24, 2008 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama still has the momentum: he was never going to win Penn, and he has done well to cut Hill’s lead in the polls to around 10 points. The unreasoned panicked reaction to this loss may give the Clinton campaign even more of a funding boost, so take care.

Report this

By oddlyamerican, April 24, 2008 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

If your defintion of ‘a politician playing the game’ includes voting on foreign policy like a neo-con, causing disastrous consequences for both our democracy at home and civilians abroad, then we really are losing fundamental values for the sake of winning.

Bert asserts that winning is more important than advancing values, but I would argue that when core values are compromised the resulting win is meaningless. It contributes to an administration of constant electioneering at the expense of real governance because what mandate is there to effect change?

At which point in the progressive agenda is it okay to say no, we can’t let this one go? On foreign policy, Clinton seems to be happy to obliterate them all if it means she gets into the Oval Office.

In addition, Bert steers us toward the Republican model of electioneering. It would do us well to remember that Republicans rarely compromise on central issues when campaigning, and in fact appeal to their core to win.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i’ll avoid to label, labels do not elucidate what’s going on.
can we please alight on earth and ask following questions?
1)was there a prez that did not wage a war or wars?
does it matter if he had been ultra left, left, right, centrist, christian, etc?
are we going forever to argue ab. someones stance and eschew the review of facts and what they portend?
2)was there ever a prez since ‘48 that did not approbate zionists crimes against palestinians?
3)was there a prez who campaigned for health care?
4)how many elected politicians support zionism? is it all? how ab. kucinic?
i don’t know US history that well to give answers to these questions. any imput?
how many politicos who oppose now the occupation of iraq do that on any panhumanely recognizable principle? it seems to me only nader and kucinic oppose that war on a principle.
how many amers think that bombing of hironaga was justifiable? is it 95%, 97% or 99.99%.?
this alone presages more bestiality by zionists!

and this portending more wars not fewer?

Report this

By Lee, April 24, 2008 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

RE: AREN HAICH

I don’t think Ahmadinejad’s continual denial of the holocaust, plus his bellicose statements about blowing Israel off the map, plus his despicable anti-Semitic cartoon contest exhibits a high degree of civilized thinking. His kinship with Hugo Chavez, whose extreme anti-American rhetoric and anti-democratic efforts to nationalize Venezuelan industries, control free speech, eliminate his term limits, and have his troops fire on demonstrating students doesn’t show a high degree of civilization either. Although Hillary Clinton may have used a poor choice of words, I think she was simply sending a message to Ahmadinejad, as a deterrent, that if you ever think of using an atomic bomb on Israel, or the United Emerites, the consequences will be dire.

Report this

By Nicole, April 24, 2008 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unfortunately, it is not taken that far out of context. I saw the interview on Good Morning America, and I wanted to throw my television out the window after she said this. It might be fractionally exaggerated, but she did threaten that she would take highly forceful military action against Iran if the admin there attacked Israel. It was a situational question. Very disturbing.

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

Reply to Palaver. According to FactCheck.org this assertion is inaccurate:

Q:  Did 10 percent of Hillary’s votes come from “Limbaugh Democrats” in the Ohio and Texas primaries?
On the “far right” radio talk shows there has been discussion about how 10 percent of the votes for Hillary were created by Republican crossover votes in both Texas and Ohio. I know that Republicans have been doing this for many years, but a 10 percent crossover is a very substantial quantity of votes. Is this a true fact?
A:  According to exit polls, she didn’t get that many of her votes from Republicans, and it’s hard to know how many of those she did get were the result of Rush Limbaugh’s exhortations.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh began suggesting weeks before the March 4 primaries that Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton, because she would be easier than Barack Obama for the GOP nominee to beat in November. Good numbers are hard to come by, though, and we’d take what you’re hearing with a grain of salt. The Ohio Secretary of State has requested data from each county to try to assess how frequently members of either party crossed over and plans to issue a report, but at this point we’ll have to content ourselves with exit poll data and anecdotal evidence.

In Ohio, according to exit polling conducted by CNN, about 9 percent of the Democratic vote came from Republicans. They split their votes, 49 percent going to Clinton and the same percentage to Obama. Since Clinton received 1.208 million votes in that state, that means about 8 percent of her votes came from Republicans. On the other hand, about 10 percent of Obama’s 979,000 votes in that state were from Republicans.

There’s little doubt that turnout in Ohio, some of it due to Republican crossover voting, was high. Some polling stations in Ohio experienced repeated shortages of Democratic ballots due to heavy demand, creating long waits for would-be voters, some of whom gave up. In heavily Republican Clermont County, nearly twice as many people voted in the Democratic primary as there are registered Democrats in the county. Warren County has only 12,440 registered Democrats, but 27,855 Democratic ballots were cast. In Cuyahoga County, 16,000-plus Republicans switched parties when they voted in the primary, some of them adding to their ballot words like “for one day only” or “I don’t believe in abortion.” Some Republicans who voted for Clinton freely admitted to reporters that they were doing so to throw a wrench in the Democratic primary process.

Overall in Ohio, the number of voters who chose Democratic ballots increased 76 percent over 2004, while the number picking Republican ballots was up only 11 percent. Other factors, such as the lack of a competitive GOP race in early March, could account for some of the difference.

Poll workers in Ohio are supposed to enforce a rather unwieldy law in connection with election-day party-switchers. If a voter requests a ballot from one party but has voted with a different party in recent elections, poll workers are supposed to make the voter sign a pledge promising to uphold the values of his or her new party. If the majority of poll workers at a precinct doubt the voter’s sincerity, the voter can only cast a provisional ballot. Indications are that the law was widely ignored on March 4, however.

We’ve seen fewer stories out of Texas that deal with this phenomenon, but Republican pollster Mike Baselice has said that a 9 percent to 15 percent crossover vote is typical in that state. That’s what exit polls showed there: Only 9 percent of those who voted on Democratic ballots identified themselves as Republicans. But they didn’t seem to follow Limbaugh’s prescription. According to the exit polls, Republicans preferred Obama over Clinton, 53 percent to 46 percent. Our calculations show that, as in Ohio, about 8 percent of Clinton’s votes in Texas came from Republicans; for Obama, the figure was about 10 percent.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
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