Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 18, 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!


Go West, Young Han
Weather Extremes Rise as Planet Gets Hotter and Colder






Truthdig Bazaar
Beyond the Revolution

Beyond the Revolution

By William H. Goetzmann
$23.10

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 jackpine savage, April 24, 2008 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

The great chasm of this Democratic nomination is that you must be for or against, beerdoctor.  If you dislike Clinton…either for her positions or her husband’s actions (which she calls “experience”) then you must be a crazed Obamabot. 

There are no shades of grey.  You must choose sides and fight to the death.  And if you choose not to decide, others will decide your choice for you.  If you are not with them, then you are against them…

We’re talking good and evil here, apparently the only two concepts that Americans have any tolerance for anymore…even if they fail to understand the or their relationship to each other.

When the bus is without brakes, careening headlong towards a cliff, the most important thing is to argue about who will get to drive.

Report this

By tdbach, April 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

Yes, your bizarre statement really does need clarification - or rather documentation. Care to point us to the site they have Clinton saying she plans to attack Iran in the next ten years?

Report this

By tdbach, April 24, 2008 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

I acknowledge that there are a lot of critics of Clinton who think their criticism is warranted based on what an awful, ruthless politician she is. But really, most of this comes from the lense of advocacy, not flaws paculiar to Clinton. Part of buying the Obama program is to believe that it is zepher floating above “politics as usual.” Which seems to make everyone on board especially sesitive to Clinton’s pretty standard-issue use of leverage of every possible vulnerabilty gain votes (ah, the old kitchen sink!), but also blind to Obama doing the same thing (ridiculing the Bosnia hyperbole, amplifying the old meme against Clinton that she’ll do or say anything to win). Sure, he doesn’t do it as much as Clinton, but then he has to be careful that he doesn’t undermine his “new kind of politics” theme. But make no mistake, he (and his surrogates) are doing it. In fact, with the Left blogs doing all the really dirty heavy lifting for him, he doesn’t have to do all that much.

But I really love your retort to Bert’s assersion that this ultra-left intolerance for anythng that smacks of compromise (he called it nuance). You describe a politician playing the political game she thinks she needs to play to get elected (and getting elected is the only way I know of to actually advance a progressive agenda in a democratic system), and call it “[compromising Democratic]values for political capital.” Then you lay down the hammer: “This is not what I want in a president let alone one who purports to be a Democrat.”

I think you made Bert’s case for him.

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

Your comments are well taken tdbach. And I don’t mind ‘arguing’, or debate as I like to call it. Good debate can help you learn and broaden one’s thinking.

As for Democratic nominees, they may have been moderates, though I am not conceeding most of them were, I will add that the right managed to make them look far more left than they were in theur TV ads. Another reason for that was the Democratic Platform they were running on.

Everything else in your post I agree with. No argument.

You are completely correct when you say, “The anonymity frees us to express ourselves far more stridently and fearlessly than we would in person or even letters to the editor.”

And you are also correct saying, “.... our temperaments are not so well suited to what goes on here…”

If we could talk with each other instaed of “post,’ we would have an interesting conversation about “...every candidate the Democratic party has nominated for the general election -both winners and losers- has be relatively centrist….” Dukakoa was a very reasonable candidate. But he was painted as soft on crimne with Willy Horton ads. And sad part is, he didn’t let Willie out. But explain his position and what really occured in a 30 second sound bite with video. Progressive liberals have never learned how to do that.

Report this

By oddlyamerican, April 24, 2008 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

bert,

Lets have a little clarity here. When you say that Clinton is disliked because many progressives(or the ultra-left as you refer to them), disagree with her policy positions this is disingenuous.You and I and everybody else knows that this only partly accounts for why there is such an aversion to her candidacy.

Much of the reason for why she is disliked is because of how she has conducted herself on the campaign. Now, this is not a question of an assertive female ruffling some feathers, it’s about a Democratic candidate who is inconsistent on her positions, appeals to irrational fears, and uses the ‘kitchen sink’ to win the nomination.

Unlike Clinton supporters I don’t believe that so-called scrappiness is a desirable quality in a president, especially when that scrappiness involves attacking your opponent for using a few words his friend had used, or equivocating when asked whether or not her opponent is Muslim.

Also, you say

“...if you diverge in any way from their agenda you don’t even belong in the White House at all. No nuance of opinion or belief tolerated.”

Clinton has taken positions where nuance is difficult to find. Her votes on Iraq (where she didn’t bother to reader the National Intelligence Estimate), Kyl-Lieberman and flag-burning are absolute and morever, extremely worrying. And they are not only worrying because they utterly contradict fundamental Democratic values but they are demonstrative of how willing she is to compromise those values for political capital. This is not what I want in a president let alone one who purports to be a Democrat.

So lets accept that much of the animosity directed Clinton’s way, like Scheer’s latest article, is justified and rational and not the result of extreme ideological influences or sexism.

Report this

By Aren Haich, April 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

*** One has to wonder why the interviewer of Hillary Clinton did not come up with some follow-up questions when her OBLITERATE remark was made.
Why did the interviewer not stop her there and then and demand some explanation for her wish to totally obliterate Iran.
How is she going to do that?
Would it be done with nuclear weapons?
Was it her intention to kill off 70 million Iranians in one go?
Or would she suffice to obliterate all the large and medium-sized cities in Iran?

The fact that the likely future American president can allow herself to make such a remark and fear no adverse public reaction goes to show how corrupt the Western media have become.

The manner in which Western news media have conspired against Iran to blacken and smear its international reputation is blatant and shameful.

When president Ahmadinejad says the Zionist regime should vanish from the map, Western media fed it to their public as if Iran was going to obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons.

Western media keeps repeating this absurd claim even when the Iranian president has repeatedly explained that the Jewish state should vanish from the earth the same way Soviet Union disappeared from view and now is no longer to be found on the maps.
The Iranian president has further added that the ideal solution to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict is equality and democratic rights for all Jews and Arabs of Palestine under a new constitution in a single state. This vision for a future Palestine is despite decades of humiliation and hardship that Arabs have suffered in the hands of the Jews.

Western public should think for itself. Whom will they choose as the more civilized public figure? Hillary Clinton or Mahmud Ahmadinejad?

Report this

By tdbach, April 24, 2008 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

You and I are birds of a feather, Bert, so I take no pleasure in arguing with you. While your analysis has a certain logical appeal, I don’t think it holds up to the light of facts.

With the possible exception of McGovern, every candidate the Democratic party has nominated for the general election -both winners and losers- has be relatively centrist. Humphrey, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. And our two finalists are, too. Kucinich is a purist, and look how far he got?

No, this election has something else going on. The vague and arch-theme quality of Obama’s campaign has given a home the hare-core left, even if his politics is actually much more pragmatic than theirs. So we’re seeing the full force of their furry among his advocates, because they really haven’t had a candidate they felt comfortable getting behind who was viable in a national election.

I think the biggest single difference between this campaign and all previous ones is the Internet and the explosion of blogs. There’s something both liberating and isolating about blogs. The anonymity frees us to express ourselves far more stridently and fearlessly than we would in person or even letters to the editor. The excitement of unbridled advocacy tends to drive us toward like-minded opinion enclaves, which can further radicalize our thinking.

You and I come here to TD (among other blogs) because we are progressives drawn to progressive discussion. But it appears our temperaments are not so well suited to what goes on here - at least in the comment strings. This venue is far better suited to the hard-core purists.

Still, we keep coming back.

Report this

By debbieS, April 24, 2008 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is the same kind of talk that has been going on since Reagan.This country has turned into imperialism and it is reenforced through brutal economics or state terror.Clinton represents neoliberalism.Read “disaster Capitalism” by Naomi Klein.Also “failed States” by Noam Chomsky and “The
Sorrows of Empires” by Chalmers Johnson.The Clinton adminisration in the 90’s stated publicly that the bombing and sanctioning of Iraq in the 90’s that killed 500,000 people(mostly children)was one of the most brutal acts in 20 century and should be admired.We have 700 military bases, number one seller of arnaments and have had a foreign policy that has supported state terror for 50 years.They also now have private security firms that are unaccountable to congress,The politicians are ( not all but a lot of them)  kept in office year after year by the same big business interests.The Military now does not have any accountability with civil society by thier promotion of torture and the FBI even though they knew of the torture being done by the CIA and Defence department, did nothing.Their is a investigative committee in two weeks about this. Write mainstream media and demand extensive coverage.There is a big gap between what American citizens accept and are concerned about than what corporate politicians want.There are men and women in congress and senate who listen to people and care about having a just and peaceful society.To name a few are Bernie Saunders, Robert Wexler, Barbara Boxer,Lynn Woolsey, and Cynthia Mckinney and there is more.The Supreme court is making good and just decesions about the environment that the Bush administration continues to ignore.There has to be Clean campaign elections in all states and more than a two party system based on money. What Clinton said is callous and irresponsible beyond description.It shows the obscene egotistical mindset of what she represents.

Report this

By OH, April 24, 2008 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Clintons statement is bizarre, it needs follow-up questioning, it needs clarification.  Literally, she said that she wants to attack Iran sometime in the next 10 years and if during this attack Iran should retaliate against Israel then in that case Clinton wants to really really really kill some people.  You have to bend what Clinton actually said, to arrive at the conclusion that she only said she would attack Iran if Israel was first attacked.

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

Nice thing to say about your fellow Americans. Knuckelheads?????? Disagree if you will, but do so without the unkind name calling and worse yet, sterotyping.

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

Reply to tdbach

I have never seen anything like this campaign. I have never seen the left be so divisive and mean spirited. They have turned on their own.

This election cycle has been a real eye opener for me. And I must say it has left me depressed about the future of the Dem Party and the progressive agenda. I can begin on some level to see why O’Reilly calls the left hate mongers. I certainly do not agree with him. But I have seen a different side to the left this year.

It appears to me that the ultra left wing faction of the Dem Party is more interested in PURGING the Party of anyone who does not totally and completely agree with them on certain key issues rather than find and nominate someone who is electable.

You aren’t Democratic enough if you do not pass their test. They are more interested in beating down those who disagree with them than in winning the White House. In fact, if you diverge in any way from their agenda you don’t even belong in the White House at all. No nuance of opinion or belief tolerated. In fact, they are not tolerant at all of anyone who does not toe the ultra left wing position one-hundred percent.

But the ultra left wing of the party is a very small minority of the people who call themselves or register and most important, who VOTE Democrat. Many Americans who used to be traditional Democrats (FDR and JFK Democrats) over the course of several years came to believe that the ultra left wing Democrat nominees for President did not really represent them and their agenda. Sometimes that group has been called ‘Reagan Democrats.’ And Democratic nominees have been losing those Democrats for years.

But the ultra left wing are the activists in the Party and have the money to support candidates in the primary, and thereby influence who is nominated.

And therein lays the rub. Since about 1972, maybe a bit earlier if you include Stevenson, the Party activists have been nominating candidates who meet the ultra left wings ‘right on the issues’ test. And so, the Democratic Party has been nominating losers for decades.

In previous years this part of the Democratic Party has been able to get their chosen candidate nominated early in the process. But not so this year.  An uppity candidate, and worse yet, an uppity WOMAN candidate, has challenged the ultra left wingers and their chosen one.

And so this fight between traditional FDR and JFK style Democrats (who were pushed out of and marginalized by the Party in the 1972 McGovern Commission that changed how Democrats nominate Presidential candidates and led to proportionate delegates instead of winner take all) and the ultra left wing Democrats has become public and very nasty.

The ultra left wing of the party sees elections as a way to transform America.
And to change it the way they want, you have to be right on their issues. And many of those issues are social issues that many old time and traditional Democrats disagree with.

Republicans and right wingers however, see elections as a way to get and keep power and so instead of running campaigns to change America they run a campaign as a business to win. It matters less who is nominated and what their positions are. You just have to be electable. Republicans win elections this way and then try to impose their values once someone is in the White House and the Congress.

Personally, I prefer winning and I would prefer that the Democratic Party again be the Party of FDR and JFK. Then we could start winning again and then move the progressive agenda along. Being right on the issues is not enough if you aren’t in the halls of power. And to get in the halls of power you sometimes have to compromise on whom the nominee is. But the ultra left wing seems incapable of compromising.

So the Democrats keep on losing.

Report this

By kevin99999, April 24, 2008 at 11:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Scheer, I respect you but this is a totally silly post, perhaps borne of anti-Hillary hysteria that seems to plague liberal blogs.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 24, 2008 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i start my analyses of US foreign policy- its aspects being part of all expansionisms- from well known facts:
1) US has in its short history invaded many lands.  US has waged ab. 165 wars/skirmishes/battles/invasions. this excludes numerous acts of terror by the biggest terrorist org. we’ve had to endure to date.
when these facts- and i have not even mentioned hiro and naga or what these events portended: more evil not less- are taken in view, conclusion or a question arises, does it matter at all whether al-bushi lied or told the truth about iraq? does sit matter at all whether invasion of iraq is perceived as failure?
Failure to whom? not to SD (state dep’t) which, along with pentagon, represents the ruling class. from what its spokespeople say, i educe, that to the rulers invasion of iraq is a brilliant ‘succsess’ 
what’s mere 4000 deaths to super and very rich people? what would be even 50000 deaths to the ruling class and its hired guns/mouths: editors, commentators, generals, politicos, most clergy, journalist, hollywood?
US policy is to expand by any means whatsoever. and hironaga not only shows this clearly but also proves it.
by any means, means that a hobo, a housewife, a laborer will have to also cry “uncle” and not just palestinians but also all nonzionists.
zionism now partially rules the world. and if china or russia would not be able to seriouly challenge or hurt zionists, zionists will destroy all other isms and socialism with special relish. thank u.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 24, 2008 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

Maybe Hillary was doing more than just being nice to people on her visit to Bosnia…... perhaps in a Yugoslav “Ustasha” training camp???

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 24, 2008 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

No tdbach, I am not in the Obama fold. I have written some positive stuff, but I also have pointed his hypocrisy out too.
http://beerdoctor-beerdoctor.blogspot.com/

Report this

By tdbach, April 24, 2008 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

I used to think that TD was a good place to get into some intelligent arguments about the nuances of policy and politics. Not anymore. As this interminable campaign has run on and on, the discourse has grown more divisive and irrational. Since it’s hard to find a liberal blog that isn’t squarely (and viciously) in the Obama fold, it’s no surprise that TD is too. But the hang-Hillary crowd here (and HuffPo and Firedog and…) is in full pitchforks-and-torches mode, so reasonable dialog is unthinkable. I’m beginning to think that we progressives don’t deserve to win control of the government. We’re so dysfunctional as a group, so bifurcated and self-loathing (when you hate Clinton or Obama, you really are hating aspects of yourself), I can’t imagine the “cutting” will stop once the general election begins.

Report this

By ntc, April 24, 2008 at 9:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And with this statement - Clinton has lost all credibility.  Clearly, her judgement is suspect and she has NO business being president.  Clinton supporters need to get behind Obama now - unless they would prefer McCain in office…

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 24, 2008 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

Realfish, your Machiavell analysis of Senator Clinton seems quite accurate. But this does not change the fact that all of us are put in peril by this reckless disregard for truth. Just imagine how the folks in Iran, or all of the Middle East thought of that statement. And for those who think this was taken out of context, here it is:
When asked by Chris Cuomo on GMA, that should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons, Mrs. Clinton said: “I want the Iranians to know if I’m the president, we will attack Iran…In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to obliterate them.”
Notice she said obliterate, not defeat. The dehumanization of that remark can not be overlooked.

Report this

By Peter RV, April 24, 2008 at 8:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Non Credo:
  So, we have now along with,a ‘bomb,bomb, Iran’ Candidate, who promises us a ‘hundred year war, another candidate which promises us to ‘obliterate’ the same nation of sixty million people. All for the love (or fear)of Israel and AIPAC? And they’ both’ never miss calling our spineless Nation -great!
  How the hell did we sink down to this gutter?
  BTW, why don’t we think of ‘obliterating’ Clintons and McCains ,instead,now that Bushes will be out to the trashcan of History?
  It would save millions of lives, litterally.

Report this

By Potassium, April 24, 2008 at 7:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Could it have been possible for her to rise above that level of idiocy and blatant land theft.

Report this

By TheRealFish, April 24, 2008 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

beerdoctor, leefeller, and friends:

I don’t believe that anti-Zionist talk promotes Mid-East peace prospects any more than does talk about obliterating Iranian common folk. Such talk only pits one extreme against the other (you know, politics of division and all that?).

I believe Hillary’s position is much more base, much more simple than that. She appears to have no party loyalty or few scruples that can withstand her very evident lust for power.

If she really thinks she can beat “the maverick” John McCain, were reality to slip 90 degrees out of phase in the Democratic race and somehow losing the race wins her the nomination, she is probably making the cold political calculation that she must demonstrate some appeal to the more neocon swing voting independents where McCain has a large draw.

After all, she has been consulting with the godfather of the “vast Right Wing Conspiracy” himself, Scaife. Most of her attacks against Obama show such clear triangulation with McCain and GOP tactics as to be taken as dictation from the lips of Rove.

Any Democrat looking at the fact that 67% of her followers swear they would vote Republican *when* Obama is named Democratic nominee, without seeing the direct relationship to both her and her husband’s weeks of promoting McCain as the only other viable candidate than her, should be deeply offended if s/he considers herself/himself loyal to the party.

The fact she is totally committed to a scorched-earth campaign leads me to believe she wants the person she has, on so many occasions, called her close friend (McCain) to win in the fall, since she obviously can not.

If that makes people who feel themselves to be loyal Democrats to react with skepticism, I offer my most recent thoughts:

If McCain wins in the fall, in a time when Democrats have such a clear, stark advantage, reason, and obligation to rescuing our country by winning, how could she or any other Democrat possibly win the presidency in 2012?

I do not believe it would be possible. I do not believe *she* thinks it would be possible. I would also not be the least bit surprised if she ran, in 2012, either as an independent (a la Lieberman) or as a Republican. Just look at her belonging to a religious organization called The Fellowship, who claims members such as Rick Santorum, George “Macacca” Allen, Sam Brownback, et. al, her recent ties to Scaife, the fact that Rupert Murdoch has contributed to her campaign, and on and on.

Her killing what might be the last best chance for the Democrats to rescue this country from solidifying into the neo-conservative, neo-fascist state it is already two-thirds of the way toward being (just look into how many services of the federal government are now outsourced to corporations and look up the dictionary definition of “fascism” to see that last point) is just the first step in a possible political calculation to ascend to an already-imperial presidency as a Republican or neo-con independent.

At least, when I connect the dots now on display, this theory seems far more plausible than any who say that if Obama survives she will (to use their talking points) go all “kumbaya” in supporting him.

Not one of her actions to date point in that direction, where most of them point toward my recent pet theory on what she is attempting to accomplish.

Just a thought.

Report this

By DennisD, April 24, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Will she be obliterating Iran under sniper fire?

Report this

By Potassium, April 24, 2008 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

it takes awareness to realise anything.

Dont know about Nazi Germany But the Americans are Blissfully Ignorant since Ages & the aware are not even putting the word out, I mean I am sure you all only talk here & not to your in-person friends & acquaintances AND then not on other webpages either.

Report this

By Potassium, April 24, 2008 at 7:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

An AIPAC stooge contender for the American Presidency!

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 24, 2008 at 6:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

here’s another analyses, among many, of the US-israeli relationship:
zionists rule israel and US. zionists worldover also have a share of rule of Isrsael. these zionists partially rule not only US but also canada, UK, germany, and many other lands.
it’s not israelis who have any effective share of the rule even in israel let alone in US.
the darkies, shephardis are, as far as i can make out, mere cannon fodder for spread of one of the evilest isms that woman- or mankind had to face to date.
to me, anyone who approbates, even a single crime of these evil people, is a zionist.
zionists latest sport is child-, woman-, and manhunting but is not yet an officially declared olympic sport. thank u

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 24, 2008 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

You know your arguments always seemed bigoted to me, but they are beginning to make sense, especially now and how the money popped in after her comment on Iran.

Why doesn’t Saudi Arabia give money to Obama, forgot they do not like Iran either. 

There was supposed to be a big flap on Obama today according to one Hillary poster, so I am waiting.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 24, 2008 at 6:19 am Link to this comment

Are you guys sure it was not taken out of context?  Like what they did to Wright and just about everything Obama said or does?

If true, Hillary actually exceeds Bush in being a war monger.  Boy when we said she offered the same we did not know it was marching the imperial troops through Evernever land. 

You know Bush emulates 1930 Germany, but I would have never thought Hillary was going to march right in and grab the swastika.  Sleeping with special interests, but this is much worse. 

Please, tell me she did not say this!

Report this

By Expat, April 24, 2008 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

^ and this bothers me.  Having lived in Portland, Oregon just before leaving the U.S.  I would like to know the meaning of what you said about; “this old Indian heard from a friend recently that the Tiyospaye Way has come up through the pavement cracks out in Portland, Oregon.  Now there’s some REAL “....shelter from the storm.”
Can you post a reply independent from the original?  It will appear at the top.  Anyway, you have posted comments I find valuable……keep ‘em coming!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 24, 2008 at 6:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hill-the-business-shill has NEVER done one thing on this earth which was not totally dedicated to advancing her primary cause… herself

If her efforts were so great on behalf of children, WHY has Marian Wright Edelman never endorsed her?  Oh, yeah, I remember, that is because the corporate whore sold out the CDF for political expediency… BTW her time on the CDF board amounted to less than one year.. She spend better than 8 years on Walmart’s board.

The “obliterate Iran” comment which is the discussion on this thread is just more evidence that the business shill equals Bush in a pant suit.

hate the carpet-bagging NY Senator…. You bet!

Because she is a woman… not hardly!

Report this

By Expat, April 24, 2008 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

Yup!

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 24, 2008 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

Reading these posts gives me hope. I am encouraged by the fact that so many have picked up on the utterly vicious remark about “obliteration”. Someone who can make such a remark publicly, and so cavalierly, needs psychiatry, not the presidency. If ever there was a time to put truth to power, this is it. This is not some debating point. The monstrous forces who believe that violence and greed are solutions to this world’s problems, need to be exposed as the shallow frauds they are. Since the news media goes along with the charade, then every person of conscience needs to keep asking the questions the media refuses to ask, given every and any opportunity.

Report this

By Noaman. A, April 24, 2008 at 4:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It was said, that every time a National Anthem is played,all brains migrate to the stick that holds the flag, and men are turned into mules.

Report this

By Noaman. A, April 24, 2008 at 4:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Luis Motero; If you ask a Palestinian;What would,” justice for all”, means to him, what reply would you expect.Nevermind this, how would an Iraqi interpret,”..with liberty and .....for all”???.There are so many halls permeating those words where true meanings could hardly fit the words. When patriotism fails to attract power of criticism,it exhibits the purest form of Fascism

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 24, 2008 at 3:47 am Link to this comment

Sort of like the frog in the steadily warming water, who will stay in blissfully until it’s boiled.

Report this

By Expat, April 24, 2008 at 3:35 am Link to this comment

^ Says; “This only brings up the old rhetorical question: Did the people in Nazi Germany realize they were living in Nazi Germany?”

It’s not rhetorical: That is one of the most important questions facing us today.  I can’t believe no other poster picked up on this critical reality of our blindness to our very relevant, present position.  Either we get it or we don’t.

Report this

By Noaman. A, April 24, 2008 at 3:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There was a time when she thought of heself, as the first lady, entitled to suggest a two state solution.And it was then when the Zionist wrath came falling on her little neet head.It took her years of humiliation and negation by Zionist cabal and more than one trip to Israel bleeding for forgivness before accepting her repentance.It was also understood that she would never again say or do anything that may effect the Zionist scheme.So,if you need further explanations as to why she had to thunder her threats agaist Iran, it would certainly be in the lesson learned while being the so-called first lady.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 11:23 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, you’ve read my mind. (again). I’ve been thinking about Mike Mid-Cities, and for some reason, even more today.

I miss him too. So Mike, if you’re out there and can get to us, drop a line to say you’re fine. Otherwise, we might have to send a search and rescue team for you.

Report this

By tres, April 23, 2008 at 11:21 pm Link to this comment

“This country has to get off the war habit, has to figure out how it’s going to deal with the world food crisis and, especially, how its going to gently tell third world countries that they haven’t the right to wreck the world becoming industrialized the way we did for the last 150 years.”

What you are talking about? The people who use almost all the world resources should tell people using 1/100th of the resources to slow down, so you could have it easy?

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment

I’ve been missing Mike Mid Cities myself, and it’s like you read my mind Leefeller, because he’s been on my mind all day.

Hey Mike, if you’re out there, can you drop us a line, just to let us know you are?

Meantime, the Hillary crowd is saying nothing beyond Lee’s pathetic attempts to call Hillary a ‘winner’...what a farce.

Why haven’t they tried to explain her DIRECT quote on totally obliterating Iran?

And of course bert long ago said that the war wasn’t the issue anyway. She specifically said..

“It’s not the war, it’s the ECONOMY!” Later, (having been shown to be totally ignornant to the fact that the war has been a primary (not the only) CAUSE of the depressed economy, she claimed she could ‘forgive’ Hillary for her war vote, though I don’t recall what pathetic excuse she made for that.

No, I doubt you’ll be hearing much more from the Clintonistas. They’ve been called out and shown for what they are, just like Hillary has.

For some of them WAR is their answer. For the more ignorant among them, they don’t really care about the war, because it’s not their blood.

All they care about is what they’re stupid enough to believe is ‘winning’ and Hillary isn’t even doing that.

Report this

By Dorothy Knight, April 23, 2008 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Are you a cretin?  I believe Hillary will work out the situation in Iraq. Were we in War before? I, also, believe she will be able to pull this country BACK out of its depression.  I do believe she is strong and creative enough to do it.  Have a good day

Report this

By republicanSScareme, April 23, 2008 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Exploiting her reputation as a hard-drinking bowler, Hillary won the small town knucklehead vote.

Report this

By Dorothy B. Oliver, April 23, 2008 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Excerpt:  She is indicating her “Empire” goals In her foreign policy aims.  As her BIG nuclear umbrella unfolds In the “Middle East” war games. She is helping war hawks in control Of the Main Stream Media line.  In their claim of success and all the rest That makes more wars seem fine.

Report this

By Palaver, April 23, 2008 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

Where is the public exposure of this outrage? Die-Hard Republicans switching to the Democratic Party so they can vote for the candidate they know they can beat.  This vast right-wing conspiracy needs to be exposed.  This time Hillary is part of it and she is smiling all the way to the bank.

Report this

By Rockytonker, April 23, 2008 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment

Don’t count on Hillary to preserve Roe v. Wade.  She voted for the protection for pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescriptions (morning-after pill) that violate their religious beliefs.  And then her campaign claimed Obama was “soft” on reproductive rights - anytime she makes an accusation, look to see where she is vulnerable on the same issue.  Right out of the Karl Rove playbook.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

Here, here, hope you’re fine, MMC.

Report this

By dasm, April 23, 2008 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anyone who threatens to “obliterate” another country has no right to be president.  Obliterate means killing all innocent civilians- children, babies, women, men, all innocents.  What kind of demon can even voice such an idea?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment

Some interesting comments, the Hillary crowd has not said anything, or did i miss it?  The idea that Hillary voted to attack Iraq seems to have been her plan, especially when you look at her war monger fear monger attitude that has risen to the top of the stew lately. 

Hillary folks, Mid Mike City who used to post on TD with untiring calls of calling attention to Hillary voting for the a preemptive war against Iraq, listening to the moron that is our president, he questioned you on the war, you were silent, you are still silent. Is war you answer?

Mid Mike City, I miss your direct calling on the issue, hope you are well?

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

Her hubbies admin actually SUPPORTED the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. I guess the same could be said about Palestine.

Yep…they SUPPORTED the genocidal regimes of all three!

No doubt Hillary would claim that she had no idea.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

Thank you jackpine savage, if you have not seen the graphic edition of A People’s History of American Empire, there is a panel which Madeline Albright (or is that all dim?) tells 60 minutes that despite the half million child deaths in Iraq, it was “worth it”.

Report this

By starlit, April 23, 2008 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dead on!

Report this

By Dick Fitzgerald, April 23, 2008 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As usual, Scheer will not criticize the Zionist cabal running Clinton’s campaign. He knows full well she has always been a Lobby puppet.

Report this

By bert, April 23, 2008 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

Didn’t know you would miss me jps. It’s nice to be missed. LOL Been out of town for three days. I’m here, reading, but have no desire to respond to some of the nonsense I have read on this thread and a few others since I got home. But never fear, when I have something to say, you all know I am not shy.

Report this

By Don Stivers, April 23, 2008 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

I copied this from my comments about Buzzkill.  Our press corps.  Hopeless.

Oh Lord.  Heaven help us.  The same people who fell for someone who could not put two sentences together are out there voting.  All you have to do to turn on an American voter is strut around and talk tough and bob you head.  I am amazed at the bull shit people believe.

Talking tough got our tit in a ringer called Iraq.  And it seems there is no reverse.  And a travesty of Justice too.  “We would be able to totally obliterate them.” As if all of the people of Iran deserved something like that.  I can understand a stupid drunk blurting that out, but a so called leader?  Maybe, retch, even a president?  God forbid.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

bert has been quiet lately…

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

Now, Mr. BeerDoctor, we all know that those 500,000 Iraqi children were “worth it”.  Of course, we were never told what we accomplished killing those children…but we must have accomplished something.  Maybe it was the ability to kill that many people without firing a shot or losing an American service member.

And say it ain’t so…not Al ‘greenwash’ Gore.

Now if you’ll excuse me, my pitchfork is rusty and i need to buy some kerosene for my torch before the price goes up…again.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment

Two words: Margaret Thatcher.

I know that there are others out there who felt/feel the same on Clinton and war as me, but it has been so very unfashionable to actually say it.  And her apologists spin it so much that it’s hard to get it to stick if you do say it.

She’s entitled to her opinion, but it disgusts me to watch “liberals” who claim to be anti-war beating the drum for her.  Granted, liberal Democrats have started more wars than Republicans over the course of American history…so maybe it should come as no surprise.

Indeed, our fear of the UN is laughable.  We barely even pay our dues, and we mostly treat it as a rubber stamp organization.

But our power is waning.  We retain our ability to bomb people back to the stone age, but our real power is almost gone.  I’m not sure that Sen Clinton knows it yet.

As an aside, how come there hasn’t been a single Truthdig article about the food crises running rampant through the world today?  Even The Economist is putting the story on its cover.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

And i agree with your take on states’ rights.  Every time a state tries to do something innovative, the feds usually step in with taking away highway funds.

Centralized power is dangerous power…but you might not want to listen to much to me, i’m a libertarian.  I don’t think, however, that i’m the only one.  And i now firmly believe that libertarians of the left, center, and right varieties should come together.  We have more in common with each other than the two parties that we hold our noses and vote for.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee., April 23, 2008 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Pitchforks and torches are just not fashionable anymore…”


Maybe a fad we should resurrect, and tar and feathers too!

Up here in New England, there are stories of towing miscreants out into the ocean in small boats (without oars) and leaving them to their own devices… so to speak.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment

Jackpine Savage,

You’ve spoken and written my own thoughts as well or better than I could. I’ve never for a moment believed that Hillary Clinton wasn’t as much in favor of attacking Iraq as Dick Bush was. (Matter of fact, I don’t know why she didn’t force Bill to go along with it when the neocons were demanding it back in 1997).

So no, I never expected her to apologize, though I hadn’t been aware of the comment that you quoted from an earlier debate. (I must have missed it).

I would only add that Hillary’s reference to the UN speaks to a misinterpreted understanding (a typical neo-con imperialist interpretation) of what I believe the UN to be, at least in terms of how it have evolved from what was once the League of Nations.

In short, NO nation is required to be subservient to the UN or any other body. The whole premise of international laws and treaties are based on voluntary agreement. And, in all honesty, the UN has been subservient to the US and Israel, not the other way around.

So, for Hillary to make such a comment only shows her basic propensity to RULE via tyranny. I don’t know why anyone believes that dictatorships are reserved for men, because we really should know better. (which is why I gag when I hear posters here claim that the White House needs a ‘woman’s touch.”)

Neither have I ever been under any illusions that Hillary would withdraw from Iraq..not troops….not ever. So, I guess that means I can’t bid on the palm studded beach in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Oh well…at least for now the palms are still standing on our beach here. It’s windy though.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 23, 2008 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

Yale.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 23, 2008 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

JPS,

You said ” Note: i don’t think US sovereignty should be subsumed to the UN either”

I agree, I also believe individual states should have some autonomy and have to cave into the federal governments demands and mandates.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 23, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

I am just curious to know in what camps did Hillary received all this military terrorism training! Besides the Zionist camps, I can’t also think about neocons’s camps of Bush and gang!

Are there any other camps besides the ones listed above?!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

And get drafted like men.

Report this

By Rockytonker, April 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

Stupid and utterly unnecessary.  Stupid because it makes her seem reactionary rather than cautious and reasonable.  Unnecessary because Israel is quite capable of nuclear retaliation herself.  Which is the reason her neighbors have not attacked since the mid-70’s.

A sensible response to Ademinijad’s threatening words against Israel last year would have been, ” Oh, don’t be silly.  You’re just talking trash.”  Instead of looking strong and bold to his constituents, he would have looked like a fool, and that would have been the last such bluster by him or anyone else in the region.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Lee says it’s just the New York Times saying ‘nasty things about her.”

I’m sure bert will say she didn’t really mean it, or that it’s what’s required to be the nuclyator-in-chief, ready on day one.

And, if you are criticizing Hillary for threatening nuclear genocide, then you must just be a sexist. After all, Hillary’s the reason all little girls will now be able to say that they plan to be the president when they grow up.

Report this

By Thanks Pennsylvania!, April 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You’ve just handed the Republicans eight years in the White House.

Report this

By calibpatriot, April 23, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unless HRC retracts her threat to nuke Iran I will definitely NOT vote for her in November if she is the Democratic candidate.  I really wonder if there would be any difference between her and McCain.  This stupid and immoral act would set off a disasterous chain of events that would be impossible to control.  Russia and China have nuclear armed missiles that could devastate this country.

Anyone who would seriously contemplate a nuclear attack meant to annihilate a country has to be mad!

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

What else can you do?  Pitchforks and torches are just not fashionable anymore…

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

For a long time now, i’ve been saying that Clinton’s AUMF in Iraq vote was NOT triangulation or posturing to be “tough on defense” for her presidential run.  It was what she wanted; she knew what it meant and she was all for it.

First, if she was triangulating (which is a defensive tactic) then she would have voted for the Levin amendment.  She could know that it would fail, but having voted for it would look good in the Dem primaries if the invasion didn’t go swimmingly.  She then let the cat out of the bag in one of the debates when she said that she didn’t vote for it because she doesn’t think that an America President should be constrained by the U.N. (or anyone else).

Note: i don’t think US sovereignty should be subsumed to the UN either, but it was a special case designed to put a roadblock in front of Bush…it wasn’t permanent.

After these Iran comments, do any of you still think that she was “misled” before the AUMF vote?  Do any of you still think that she was posturing?  Now go back and read the history of the Clinton administration; in the principles meetings they were very hawkish…they just didn’t have guts to follow through with their hawkishness.

She won’t apologize for the AUMF because she doesn’t think she has anything to apologize for…because she thinks it was the right thing to do.

And if you still think that she’ll withdraw American troops from Iraq, well, i’ve got a palm studded beach in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to sell you…i’ll even let it go pretty cheap.

Report this

By patricia cross, April 23, 2008 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There was a time when I absolutely worship you Mr. sheer as a writer.  But now, I can hardly bring myself to read your columns which over and over bash and denegrate Senator Hillary Clinton.

I guess there is no hope for you to criticize fairly and reach down in the cockles of your heart and see a woman who is both intelligent and empathetic…..a woman who has dedicated herself to public service and to children and a woman who has the guts and gusto to fight and run for president of the highest position in the world.  Does she deserve no credit?

Frankly, I am ashamed of you Mr. Sheer and I must admit that I see a chauvinistic pattern in your criticisms.  You are probably unaware that you are chauvinistic as are so many men and even women in this country. That is what is sad, so many are unaware about their attitude about women.  You might consider checking this out with a few of your close friends.  I have observed and have been the recipient of this attitude long before I was a Hillary supporter. And I am neither a feminist nor a buttercup.

patsynow

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 23, 2008 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment

I realize writing a congress person is weak.  But it’s one thing I do often, I don’t mince words, and I’m planning to do more. This shit has to be stopped.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 23, 2008 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

The only appropriate response to a nukyouler (GW dig) threat is already too late. Smart leaders with the welfare and interest of their citizens their top priority would never let a nukyouler threat germinate. If they would, they should be drawn and 1/4er. The US is playing with our lives and those of many of the world’s inocent citizens and we’re prepared to continue that status quo?  Wake up Workers.

This country has to get off the war habit, has to figure out how it’s going to deal with the world food crisis and, especially, how its going to gently tell third world countries that they haven’t the right to wreck the world becoming industrialized the way we did for the last 150 years.  Already, the competition for energy is throwing us into recession and no amount of conservation nor alternative sources is going to make a timely difference here.  We can profusely thank our politicians for so expertly diverting our attention with their base stupidity and arrogance. 

They can’t think beyond their next cigar, shot and croney bull session and don’t have to because we don’t expect them to.  Bully for us.

One more thing, Vote Nader.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

Conservative Yankee, the message is: slaves embrace your chains. The Hill-Bill Clinton Crime Family are, we have been told, friends of black people, unions and the poor. Never mind that they embrace the draconian war on drug laws, which have resulted in a record number of incarcerations. Never mind the championing of nafta, and do not forget Al Gore on this too. Never mind the Iraq embargo which killed a half a million Iraqui children, Hillary is a champion of children causes. Just never you mind!

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

This only brings up the old rhetorical question: Did the people in Nazi Germany realize they were living in Nazi Germany?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

Not the red button Hillary wants to push.

This should serve as a warning to all who would vote for her and McCain.  Her Freudian slip may just be pandering to AIPAC, however, with nuclear weapons there isn’t room for error.

Besides the jewists supporting Israel, who would applaud this evil, provocative banter.

Hillary really stepped in it this time.  Her apoligists don’t seem to want to touch this….Bert.

Report this

By john polifronio, April 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama “says” he’s just as pro-war, as Hillary “says” she is.  You’re delusional.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

Cy to your question…

“Folks here often berate voters for choosing republican, thereby voting counter to their own interests. So tell me, is this just a partisan rant? Or are these same workers voting against their interests by selecting Hill the corporate whore?

I don’t know if this part about a partisan rant was rhetorical or not, but I agree 1000% that Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, and those in Massachusettes DID vote against their own self interests.

And nope…I don’t know why, aside from the standard racism that that’s been around for centuries. OR..they just don’t KNOW any better. Of course when I say THAT, I’ll be immediately accused of being an ‘elitist’ or an ‘intellectual snob’ (uppity black chick), despite the fact that you’ve pointed out the very same, in far simpler terms, as in STUPID!

I don’t know why workers in ANY of these states would vote for the person responsible for the loss of their jobs. And of course I’ve said that before.

I have to agree that the Democratic party selected the business shill long ago, though it was more like she selected herself…(she’s been working on this for years now) and they ‘accepted’ it.

Not sure the voters are though. Matter of fact, it would appear that the voters have decided against her.

We’ll see what other tricks she comes out with. Karl Rove must be into triple time pay by now. (probably why she can’t pay any of her other bills).

Running a scorched earth campaign ain’t cheap. But then, destruction is NEVER cheap. Look at how much it’s costing to destroy Iraq.

Report this

By Luis A. Montero, April 23, 2008 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Pledge of Allegiance is not an expression of fascism.  If you consider the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, we are pledging allegiance to “one nation, under God…with liberty and justice for all.”  This is clearly in opposition to fascism, in which civil liberties are curtailed or obliterated by a dictatorial power.  President Bush is a far cry from Benito Mussolini.

—Luis A. Montero
7th Grade Civics Teacher
Miami, Florida

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

Heavyrunner,

Your friend witnessed something, (as a non-American) that American’s don’t even realize themselves, about ourselves.

That is the nature of fascism. Most of the people living under fascist rule don’t even know it.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 23, 2008 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

Ditto

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 23, 2008 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

I believe thats the shortest post I have ever seen from you.

Report this

By UpCraigCreek, April 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Robert Sheer:  This is in regard to “Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran.”  I read a quote of what she said in the online version of the Manchester Guardian.  What that quote cited didn’t really sound so much like a serious threat as hyperbole: we would be able to totally obliterate them.  Note the use of the subjunctive.  What would “totally obliterate” mean—kill every living thing within the Iranian borders?  This was not something to interpret literally. 

As far as kneecapping Mr. Obama is concerned, he seems to be standing up pretty well.  Let me suggest you save your bashing for the Republicans, because if they win in the fall, their selfish, destructive policies may obliterate much of the planet.  Pardon the hyperbole.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

Yes Louise, you point out what so many overlook. Here is something to consider, a kind of “evil of two lesser” argument: if Clinton takes away Obama’s nomination (as a “dream deferred” if you will) then, the only recourse could be to not vote at all. Because ask yourself, what is the bloody difference between McCain and Clinton? Both believe that Israel is sacrosanct, and both believe that violence is a solution to this world’s problems. Both of these candidates are unconscious, old school politicians who still believe that might makes right. Enough of that! Here and now let us begin a new way, even before it breaks from the bud, can you not perceive it?

Report this

By ocjim, April 23, 2008 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Hillary is bound to the low road until the end: of the Democratic Party, the end of Obama, or the ascension of Bush III?

She doesn’t really care which. Her only concern is getting the nomination—a nomination she feels entitled to.

The chasm of fear, the chasm of racism, the chasm of smear—I thought those were the tools of Karl Rove.

I am beginning to wonder if he isn’t on her election campaign. Karl has indicated in the past that he wants to see Hillary run as the Democrat candidate because she has more negatives and will be much easier to beat.

Her scorched earth campaigning, her heightened fear-mongering, and her increasing appeal to primitive forces in people indicate a willingness to use Rove / Machiavellian strategies.

The neocons are famous for their “my way or the highway” mentality, their willingness to destroy the good to forward their distorted agenda.

If Hillary gets her way, it will either be an unprincipled woman in the White House or Bush III, for she would obviously rather see grandpa McCain win than Obama.

Report this

By sophrosyne, April 23, 2008 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary has marginalized Obama as a black, anti-semitic candidate.  She appears to be getting away with it.  Naturally, Israel and its surrogates in America will not permit the nomination or election of any person who dares to question their own ethnic cleansing or domination of Congress and the media.  Can’t we have a president for once who can do what isin America’s interest?

Report this

By Hoang, April 23, 2008 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After i heard Clinton say that, i said “Ha? What?” I could not believe what i heard. Apparently, perhaps due to blind ambition and the tremendous self-imposed pressure to win, Clinton has lost her mind, making such a terribly irresponsible statement that clearly plays into the hands of the fanatics. Not only that, it shows that she is ready and willing to kiss ass, any ass, and say anything in order to return to the White House. Perhaps Clinton feverishly believes that she is entitled to the presidency and will stop at NOTHING to get there. There are already many lunatics in Washington, we don’t want another, especically a lunatic-in-chief. I am afraid that the endless and brutal campaign has taken a toll on her sanity. Watch out.

Report this

By Louise, April 23, 2008 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

I want a president who loves the UNITED STATES of America. And one who loves the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED SATES. And one who KNOWS and RESPECTS the Constitution of the United States. And one who hasn’t hesitated on MANY occasions to point out we need to RETURN to Constitutional Law. And one who has PROMISED to restore Habeas Corpus, and all the other rules and laws this administration and their republican congress have done away with in an effort to DESTROY the UNITED STATES and DESTROY the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES!

And you cant recognize that in pins or mud throwing or lying or typical republican guns and god claptrap. But you can clearly see, every time Barrack Obama stands and speaks, that’s EXACTLY what he wants too!

I’m still waiting for the Hillary to even mention doing away with a unitary presidency. Probably because she sees herself real comfortable in that position.

And finally, being a woman who does love the United States and the Constitution of the United States and the future of my country’s children and grand children, I have to say ... I am ASHAMED that Hillary has decided she must represent ME and MINE as the first woman president, because she does not stand for what I, as a woman would stand for. Not in any way!

And I also believe those woman who doggedly support her under the notion that it’s THEIR turn to have a woman in the White House have thrown their brains out with the garbage. Because if they stopped for a moment and really thought about it they would realize ... just because she’s the right sex, doesn’t mean she’s the right woman for the job!

If someone asked me to characterize how she’s handled the last few issues I would have to say ... I can remember when George W. Bush promised on the campaign trail he recognized the threat of global warming and would put forth a new energy law that would reign in the excesses of the energy producers and set new standards.

I also remember a few months later when he gave his energy secretary instructions to ignore his campaign promise, because he didn’t mean it.

And what’s that got to do with the Hillary? Just this. Some people will say anything, promise anything to get elected. But when that same person engages in mud-slinging and negative, fear creating campaigning, I am reminded of George W. Bush. And that’s enough for me to decide.

NO, this woman does not belong in the White House!

Report this

By heavyrunner, April 23, 2008 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

I have a friend who is a researcher at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center in Seattle.  He has a medical degree and two PhDs.  He is from Spain.  Shortly after coming to the United States he attended a basketball game of the Seattle Supersonics, the Seattle NBA team.

“What is going on?  Is this Fascist Germany?  Suddenly everyone is standing up and singing and saluting the flag in unison!  This is crazy - like fascism!  What is going on?  I thought the U.S. was supposed to be a free country!  I have never seen such a thing in my home country.  This is crazy!”  he exclaimed upon witnessing the ritual of the singing of the National Anthem at the start of the game.

I personally have not participated in this ritual since the Viet Nam genocide.

Report this
JohannG's avatar

By JohannG, April 23, 2008 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

Spineless panderer with history of bad judgment calls makes another one. Excitement abounds. Who could have expected this? Hillary chose to take low road. Let’s see where she bottoms out.

Report this

By patsy6, April 23, 2008 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

Lee, first of all, how does your comment relate to the article to which it’s attached?  I don’t see the connection.

Second, have you ever been to a sporting event where the national anthem is played?  People stand, but I’ll bet that 95% of those in attendance do not place their right hands over their hearts.  That is no reflection whatsoever on their feelings about this country or, indeed, their ability to be president of this country. The same goes for wearing or not wearing a flag lapel pin. 

And I agree with Obama’s comments on the national anthem, though I would submit that the poem “The Star Spangled Banner,” though war-like, is not necessarily pro-war. It was written as a story of our military response and survival as a country after a vicious assault on our capital city and environs by a foreign invader.  Hmm, maybe it’s something like the poetry the Iraqis might have written had they won the battle for Baghdad back in 2003.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

Truth would be nice, especially if it came from our president.  Peace a concept which has some merit in living together on this small globe would be helpful.  Compassion from a president who would not wish death on those who do not agree with our great suck the world dry Corporate mentality.  Integrity from our president is something that could be a new concept from politics in general.  Would it be asking to much, if our president presented some moral guidance in how he leads his or her life?  Talking to the people instead of down to them would be refreshing coming from our president.. 
How important is it that our President wear a flag pin to show some sort of phony loyalty. Ignorance blinding the people who only need to focus on nothing more and nothing less, for we have a flag pen in Bush a patriotic symbol above all others.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 23, 2008 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

martinb216, April 23 at 9:18 am asks:
“How much lower can Clinton go? “

Don’t touch that limbo bar, you’ll be a limbo star….

You ain’t seen the depths of Clintonian sleeze yet… BUT give her time, she’ll show you.

Stupid Pennsylvania votes for the woman who was cheer-leader for the folks exporting Pennsylvania jobs. Stupid Ohio voters voted for the the business shill who says “we need many more worker visas than we have now. Stupid Massachusetts voters gave the nod to Gate’s chief lobbyist who would allow Microsoft to import as many cheap laborers as they can (wonder what that will do to the 128 loop??)

Folks here often berate voters for choosing republican, thereby voting counter to their own interests. So tell me, is this just a partisan rant? Or are these same workers voting against their interests by selecting Hill the corporate whore?

Frankly, I do not believe the Democratic party gives a rat’s ass about “the vote” They selected the business shill way back when.. Her slogan should be:
She’s more of the same, She’s paid for, and she’s in our pocket!

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

Don’t be surprised if the Senator New York does just that. Yes yankee doodle doodley! When it comes down to winning, she’ll strip mine her soul.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 23, 2008 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

If you want a president who loves America, your best bet is Barack Obama because the other candidates only love money and power. You’re being screwed daily by those who sell you a smile and self-righteousness for the small price of our democracy, your Constitutional rights and your common welfare. Wake up, Lee.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

“.. I believe with more than a few allies we have treaties which call for the overwhelming use of force including the use of nuclear weapons if an ally is attacked with nuclear weapons…”

I believe you are DEAD wrong about any ‘treaties’ with ANYBODY, that call for any overwhelming use of force, INCLUDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS, blah, blah blah.

Matter of fact, I KNOW you are!!

This is dangerous bullshit to be posting when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

Figures you’d be an unregistered troll…

Report this

By Serginho, April 23, 2008 at 11:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ll stand however I damn well please, thank you very much, regardless of whether the national anthem is being played or any other song.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Ah…but P.T..this question was posed very, very, intentionally, as part of the drumbeat to demonize Iran, and people fall for it.

We KNOW that Iran has NO nuclear weapons program, nor does it have any desire for one, because that’s been stated over and over again by the Iranians. (The whole concept of nuclear weapons is a gross violation of the tenets of Islam, and the Iranians are religious if nothing else).

But, for those who don’t believe them when they say that, there are years’ (really decades now) worth of documents on file with the UN and the IAEA, that also make this clear. (most would rather not bother with those facts).

And, if that’s not enough, there’s the NIE that you just mentioned, from our own intelligence communities, and recently.

And how did Dick Bush react to that recent release? (since they couldn’t keep it covered up)

Just totally disregarded it, and continued to say that Iran is a threat. Now THAT is perfectly typical of any dictator/fascist/totalitarian regime who relies on propaganda to build up the ‘objective enemy’ so as to give a reason (for the people) when we later attack this created enemy.

So, it was only a stupid question to those of us who know better, but it was a very cleverly used tactic to continue the goal of establishing a reason to attack Iran, and that’s as much on Hillary’s agenda as it has been on the agenda of Dick Bush, John McCain, and all of the other republicans.

Sometimes we forget (because of the cloak of party affiliations) that the Clintons ARE repuglicans. Call ‘em neo-liberal if you want, (as opposed to neocons,) but they’re still all the same. A war hawk from the Military Industrial Complex is still a war hawk from the Military Industrial Complex. Doesn’t matter what color they’re wearing, and the MSM is their primary propaganda machine.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

For those who care about flag pins…wonder why Hillary doesn’t wear one…

Report this

By TAO Walker, April 23, 2008 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

“They” say there’s three kinds of fools….no-, just plain-, and damned-.  So which variety is it wants to put up a “nuclear umbrella” in the face of what is shaping-up to be the very grandaddy of perfect SHITstorms?

On the other hand, this old Indian heard from a friend recently that the Tiyospaye Way has come up through the pavement cracks out in Portland, Oregon.  Now there’s some REAL “....shelter from the storm.”

Us surviving Primitive Savages’ve always known a fourth kind of fool….Holy (Even the domesticated peoples used to recognize the pure fool, like Parsifal). The Lakotas call’em Heyokas, and there’s is known as the most difficult of Visions to live out. 

So, Sisters and Brothers, maybe the ONLY worthwhile question to be asking yourselves here in these latter days is “What kind of fool am I?”.  Because those who would rule you (They of course prefer “lead.”) are sure making no bones about the kind they are….innit?

Hokahey!

Report this

By Jo Taylor, April 23, 2008 at 10:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The AIPAC money must be rolling in to Clinton’s war chest.

If she is going to take credit for peace in Northern Ireland, she has to take credit for ignoring genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia and Palestine as well.

You couldn’t pay me to vote for her.

Report this

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

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

Like Truthdig on Facebook