Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Paul Ryan’s New Clothes
Wishful Thinking About Natural Gas




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar
Lessons in Disaster

Lessons in Disaster

By Gordon M. Goldstein
$16.50

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 felicity, April 23, 2008 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

Since George Bush wears the pin etc., by your reasoning he does belong in the White House.  Actually, I think George best fits the definition of patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

Can we bet on it? Obama knows someone who has talked to someone who was a Moslem but now are Buddhist.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

Lee said,

“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides,” No of course not, we would never feel that you have taken a side. Such a patriotic person as your self, more so than most, especially in your mind. 

Yes you want a president who loves America, love defined by you seems sanctimonious doesn’t it.

Blind patriotic persons like blind religious persons, are used like fine craftsmen tools by those in empowerment   to guide the ignorant in directions against their own self interests.

Report this

By martinb216, April 23, 2008 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

How much lower can Clinton go?

Report this

By NewPatriot4Reason, April 23, 2008 at 10:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The PA primary illustrates the circus that is American politics. What plays out is how opponents claim to want to bring voters together, while at the same time pushing them back into the corners of the great American salad bowl.   
    Her “obliterate” Iran statement clearly smacked of manipulating voters, in an attempt during the coming down to the wire in PA. Throwing a cheap and dangerous net out to scrape up potential votes Obama might have alienated. She has no integrity or credibility (just like the sniper fire statement), and will undoubtedly try to hehaw and reshape that Iran statement when (or IF) she’s ever questioned about it by a competent media apparatus.
    Talk about more of the same? She’s just like Bill (and GW)—will say whatever it takes to get through the moment—“...I did not have sexual relations with that woman…” Yeah, whatever, you perjerous Rhodes Scholar chick magnet. Anyone remember the Burt Reynolds centerfold hoopla in the ‘70’s? Maybe AARP will aproach Bill with a similar offer, once he’s spread out as First Husband in the Lincoln Bedroom, with his trademark smirk—“We’re back”.
    Back to soccer mom—maybe she’ll blame it on a menopausal hot flash. She’s no better than the war mongering Republicans with that Iran statement. The vote counter in her head must have been ticking for “bubba” and the Jewish population in PA. Like I said—no integrity.
    The power of Obama rests in his ability to see and work towards the rational, in an otherwise emotionally driven and irrational world. That also asks us to look ourselves in the mirror.
    But we often hang ourselves by our own rope and hand, like the “alpha” type women that are on the record saying they’d vote “because she’s a woman”. Or, like the hermetically sealed people that refuse to vote for either because of bigotted and dark age era religious beliefs. I just hope our fledgling democratic empires around the globe are taking notes for the quiz later.

Report this

By Lee, April 23, 2008 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

Obama Explains National Anthem Stance On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 “LTG Bill Ginn” USAF ret forwarded: Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played. According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. “As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides,” Obama said. “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose.” Obama is an apologist who is
neither proud, or patriotic regarding America. He absolutely does not belong in the White House!!!

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

You find it in Hillary’s obliteration comment, in Barack Obama’s speech to AIPAC. Iran must be the new boogie man. Obama speaks of a “new politics” but there is nothing new about this. Whether it is Abul Nidal, Col. Ghadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Carlos the Jackal, Daniel Ortega, or Osama Bin Laden, the United States must have a boogie man. What cowboy angel Bush calls “the evil ones”. And of course a nation that has been raised on television dramas, find these black or white rationalizations to not only be plausible, but downright comforting. This leads to situations where a minister, supposedly comforting the relatives of someone killed in Iraq to say: “if we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here.” Who exactly is they, is never totally made clear. But by gobs it works! If you were made a prisoner of war, after helping to bomb peasants into the stone age, you are considered to be a hero. As the late multi-instrumentalist Rahsann Roland Kirk said:
“Seek! with the boogie man and the boogie woman. You might find the truth, you might find a lie, but you can be sure something will be standing by.”
Peace to one and all, the no longer welcome at the Huffington Post beer doctor.

Report this

By Hank Newhouse, April 23, 2008 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert Scheer I commend you for your article “Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran” and the Editors of the NY Times for your editorial “The Low Road to Victory”. I was appalled by the Clinton add featuring Bin Laden. Further, Mrs Clinton showed just how much of a dangerous loose canon she is with the statement on ABC concerning Iran. What she has displayed with that comment is she has NO LEADERSHIP ABILITY. That comment precisely displays why she must stand down in her run to become the Democratic candidate for President. Her reckless irresponsible actions are damaging not only the Democratic Party but the are damaging the United States image with the World!  A senior and a life long Democrat
— Hank Newhouse, Oregon

Report this

By Aegrus, April 23, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

It wasn’t Hillary’s victory, it was the right-wing smear machine’s victory. The old machine politics victory. Hillary is empty because she expresses no new ideas, and utilizes tactics hypocritically against who she is.

Report this

By jatihoon, April 23, 2008 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

No! Ayatollahs dare messes with Hillary Clinton, lady of doom. She had enough of nuclear bomb, hanging in Bill Clinton pants, unfortunatly she was exposed to raditation and that has affected her judgement.Obama, is lucky so far, knowing that Hillary, if shove come to push and is loosing election is holding back the weapon of self destruction, held by Bill Clinton.Nuclear or not clear, this election sure has been,“NUCLEARLIZED.”

Report this

By The Old Hooligan, April 23, 2008 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

Aka “The writing is on the wall.”

Entirely appropriate, methinks, given our current circumstances in the World…

Report this

By P. T., April 23, 2008 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

To begin with, the question was a stupid one.  Israel, not Iran, is the Mideast country that has nuclear weapons and is expansionist.  Also, Iran has no nuclear weapons program, according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).

It was yet another case of sensationalistic media asking a stupid question.

Report this

By David, April 23, 2008 at 9:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can not believe this is what discourse in the US has devolved to, the first viable female presidential candidate is threatening to destroy a country based upon the insane rantings (Ahmadinijad)of a weak leader who has no military or real political power. 

I admired Clinton but her presidential campaign has been a disaster it has been poorly run and heavily in debt. 

I think Barack Obama is just as much to blame, he is cut from the same cloth as John Kerry and Mike Dukakis.  Where is the gruff street fighters of democratic politics like Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson, they would be a lot less nuanced and delicate?

This is why I believe that even though Clinton is run a horrible campaign and her presidential candidacy is dead in the water but she is right about Obama, inspiration means nothing if you can not fight back effectively and can not win.

Right now our nation sits on the precipace of a catastrophy of electing a man (John McCain) who will continue every single one of Bush’s policies.  The tax cuts which is bankrupting the country, the wars which is slowly destroying our army, and the indifference to the plight of working Americans which is hollowing out the middle class. He doesn’t even have a health care plan.

The democratic party is destroying its chances of winning and the risks for the nation are real and pronounced.

Thanks,

PS. I once thought that the 2 parties are exactly the same but now I realized the democrats would not have invaded Iraq.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

Well BeerDcotor,

All I can say about your banning from the Huffington Post is that you could probably tell them that you’ve been kicked out of BETTER PLACES THAN THAT!

Seriously, I stopped reading the Huffington Post over 2 years ago..maybe longer. Nobody into the ‘truth’ -as you are- is likely to last long on that blog.

So, if I had to guess, that’s why you got kicked off. I don’t see that as a loss for anyone but them though.

Now, if you want me to, I guess I can check out the profile to see what created your exile from the site. Actually, I’ll do it anyway, just to sort of prove my own point to myself. smile

But, just so you know..it could take me a while, because like I said, I never read that site. I heard Arianna Huffington speak about 5 years ago, and she impressed me at the time.

NOT ANY LONGER!! She’s just another political hack, and as much a part of the status quo as the rest of them. Truthdig once posted an interview that she had with Nancy Pelosi. It was a #3 gagger. (as in puke inducing severity).

OK…lemmie check it out beerdoctor. For my part though, I’d rather see you over here. smile

Report this

By Sol Cohen, April 23, 2008 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unless a miracle happens, we will be faced with the Scylla of Bush III/McCain or the Charibdis of Bill Clinton III/Hillary.  Two nuclear cowboys strutting across the political stage.  He is selling out to the evangelicals and she is selling out to AIPAC and its followers.  Either way, we lose.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

It seems to me, Robert Sheer wrote a article a while back unpatronizing Iran, instead he sounded sort of like Hillary?  People of reason change their minds, so I guess Sheer had reservations on his original premise.

Now, I may not change my mind about Hillary, so this means I am not a person of reason.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

Ah Aegrus,

On the most horrific crime of genocide..yep, that’s another component of my on going study. (yes, it’s reasonable to wonder why anyone in the right mind would study torture, genocide and the crimes of war, but somebody has to).

And, based on the comments here, (other than yours and a few others) I don’t think Americans really GET what that is. The article by Mr. Scheer makes it clear enough..the US is the ONLY nation to have ever attacked another country with nuclear weapons, and we saw what that did. Nuclear weapons have one purpose, and one purpose only, which is to obliterate any civilian population to which it is directed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are only just beginning to show minor signs of life growing there again, after 60 years. So, why don’t more of us ‘get this’? Is it because we’ve never experienced such on our own soil, or because we aren’t AWARE of the genocide that kicked off this great nation? Does keeping it out-of-sight allow for it to be ‘out-of-mind’ as well? One might think.

Anyway, here’s an excellent interview that I’ve just come across, that provides and excellent compliment to Mr. Scheers excellent article.

I’ve also just finished editing a much longer pieced that describes US complicity in the Rwanda genocide under the Clinton Admin, as well as the project to cover it up. Additionally, we are now aware of the real reasons for the Clinton interference in the Bosnian genocide, which actually made it far, far worse. So, this being on the perpetrating side of genocide isn’t new to the Clintons.

That is a much longer piece however, so I’ll save it for later. The interview (video) below though, is very helpful to tying together the Iranian question.

Un-“threat”-ing Iran: An Interview With Stephen Kinzer

  By Maya Schenwar
  t r u t h o u t | Interview
  Tuesday 22 April 2008

Author Stephen Kinzer discusses the motivations behind the targeting of Iran, the emotional impulses that fuel American interventions around the world, and the strategy that may finally deliver the US from its “regime change” habit.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042208J.shtml

Report this

By Ivan Hentschel, April 23, 2008 at 8:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We all know we read Truthdig to get the juices flowing and here we are again. I don’t know for sure that “she” said “obliterate” either, but she said enough along those lines to run up the red flag. Many people I know have been warning me that she is a hawk and I should be wary: mostly I think now that she is just greedy for power and doesn’t really have the best interests of the country at heart.She just wants to be the President and will say whatever she thinks will get her the votes, from wherever she can cull them, between now and Denver. ANd if that hasn’t worked, she will turn Denver into a psuedo-idealistic cat and dog fight the party will go on looking divided and stupid and fractious. I agree with almost every on some points, and mostly,when she gets catty and Bill’s mouth runneth over, she comes off as an empty pantsuit.And she is shrill and cold and more calculating than I wish she was, but then again, she ain’t the W guy, either.

But let’s get the MSM out of the way, stop talking about fluff and get down to the real fears and issues facing the American people and make some hard decisions based on something other than some silly emotional hot buttons or hwo can temporarily wear the bluest collar. 

I think we look pretty goofy in the eyes of the world right now, and that is over and above the contempt and disgust we have generated over our callous military actions and failure to promote peace anywhere. The least we can do is stop the schoolyard brawling and get behind someone who can get us out of the myriad messes we are in.

Blather about bombing Iran doesn’t do a damn thing about our economy, doesn’t get us out of Iraq and won’t save a single mortgage or stop the exportation of a single US job. Where did all of our priorities go?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 23, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Quote Robert Scheer: ”...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….... This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan…....”

Interesting points, Scheer, but you forgot that this argument has been SOLD to the American public by the still-incumbent George W Bush - and John McCain is only dutifully following in his footsteps.

Hillary is playing another game entirely…... and it proves conclusivey that the populace of the USA still prefers to nuke’em dead or alive, uhh. This is not hypocrisy but stark REALITY.

Whosoever offers the Iranian ayatollah’s head on a plate to “fellow Americans” is sadly guaranteed to be as popular today as during the oil crisis in the 1970’s. So much for being a Christian country!

That is to say that the USA has indeed given itself the right “to obliterate the population of another… nation” and that today, as with 1945, it IS just as “unacceptably barbaric”. But still,  that IS the USA today!!!

Forget others emulating America. The “fanatics… who believe that might makes right” ARE the citizens of the USA and they will continue to “spend more on (their) military than the rest of the world combined” as long as it gives them the illusion of superiority.

Analysis = White makes right!!! It is the drug of power that they/you/we are UNABLE to relinquish! No use blaming Hillary - she is only being a clever politician, uhh. That’s what you want, isn’t it?

Report this

By HG, April 23, 2008 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

Well there must be ghost in the ‘empty pantsuit’ because it just kicked Obama in the ass.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Cyrenna, as usual you point out the real context for the obliteration talk. And indeed, nothing has changed. Also, on a personal note, for you and all the other truthdiggers out there, the beer doctor has been banned from The Huffington Post! Why this is, I do not know. I do know that it is not for abusive language or personal attack. Anyone who ever reads (or for some, endures) my writings, knows that I am fierce advocate for peace and nonviolence. If anyone cares to, google up my profile on Huffpo, and see which of my remarks caused me to be Banned.

Report this

By HG, April 23, 2008 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

“Peace is a living action.”  Agreed.

But I don’t buy that Barak is above the corporate influence that manipulates world events.  Anyone with his unprecedented monetary support, could never be outside the corporate sphere of influence.

Report this

By Nancy, April 23, 2008 at 8:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Beneath Hillary’s blue suit is a scarlet lining.  She is Republican Lite, and does support the disastrous Free Trade deals, regardless of what she says during her campaign.  She supports (behind the scenes) the criminal Columbian government’s position against union organizers, in which the corrupt Columbian have supported the murder of hundreds and hundreds of opposition voices—with full support of the Bush administration/U.S. monies—all behind the scenes and unreported by our wonderful MSM.  If one looks closely at her ties and voting record on these matters, it’s hard not to see that Hillary Clinton is a war hawk, and never apologized for her vote to invade Iraq until she thought it necessary for her campaign.  But in reality I don’t believe she has changed her support for continuing the ongoing occupation of Iraq one iota.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

Hillary the an opportunist extraordinaries,  has shown a consistent approach to winning.  Moving into the blunt war hawk mode, she may have been one all along, now her vote to go into Iraq makes sense, since she is so experienced. She is attracting the Republican vote which dost not surprise me.

Hillary has not lost her mind, she is one who takes no prisoners, logic reason and truth have no business being in the same room with her, we have seen the spin from her flagship of cronies here on TD.

Only thing is some people who were with her in the beginning have changed their minds, only because she has shown a divisive side that is so sad for this nation, but accepted in Washington politics.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

No Jim H,

Hillary was NOT beginning that. And if you remember not so very long ago, Hillary Clinton chastized Barack Obama as being naive in suggesting dialoge with Iran or anyone else that the hawks have determined to be our ‘enemies’. And, our ‘ememies’ (at least from the Hillary Corps) are anyone who has something that we want. In this case, geopolitical strategic influence and control over the ENTIRE region, and its resources.

If this were a NEW concept or phenomena, then it would be understandable that many Americans would fail to see it. However, IT IS NOT!

The US has been doing this for several decades. So, lets please just have a look at the reality in the big picture. Hillary is NOT interested in coming up with a ‘post-Iraq’ plan. Hillary was in favor of this project to enforce US hegemony in the Middle East when she voted to launch it, and NOTHING HAS CHANGED, (except what she’s now saying on the campaign trail).

Obliterating Iran is no different that what she suggested doing to Iraq, (ahead of her vote to do exactly that) though at least (at the time) she named Saddam specifically. (as if obliterating him wasn’t going to create genocide in Iraq).

McCain and Hillary are ideological twins, and both are hawks. McCain has made no secret that he would bomb Iran, and Hillary has taken it a step further.

She’s lost her f***ing mind!

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 23, 2008 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

Lee, you say that “unlike many on this site, Hillary Clinton wants to put America and American’s welfare as the first priority on her agenda”

Perhaps. But she wants AIPAC money even more.

The rest of your post is just the usual fabrications and recycled propaganda.

Report this

By TrevorAlan, April 23, 2008 at 7:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lee, like you I would not want to live in Iran and would want to head off their hegemony in the region, but you seem to belive things about Iran that aren’t true.  There are forces within the country that do as you say—seek terrible weapons, supply weapons they do have to other terrorists, deny the holocost, etc.  But it is not the type of monolithic dictatorship that Iraq was.  There are fueding factions within Iran and the most anti-American factions benefit the most from our sabre rattling. 

Our threats sound great to our hawks, but they give reasons for supressing internal dissent and any Iranian moderates.

I don’t want to be WEAK on Iran, but have you heard the phrase ‘worker smarter not harder’?  We need to go at Iran in a strong but SMART way, which may seem weak in the short term but brings better results. We can’t just accept them at their word, but can’t assume bullying will always win the day, especially when they know we are tied down in Iraq.

Here’s my ultimate question—You want to be tough and invade Iran? You and what army?  Because Iraq and Afghanistan have ours tied up.  So from our own bad decisions now we are forced to be smart rather than stupidly strong.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

Thank you Leefeller.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

Butcher? Perhaps you do not think that the embargo against Iraq during her husband’s administration was not brutal. You do not have to support Barack Obama, who also has pandered to the same AIPAC lobby, to see the deceitful treachery of such a comment. If only politicians would remember that when they talk about bombing nations, they are talking about bombing people. Peace is not just a word, it is a living action.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 23, 2008 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

... Just because of Hillary’s bellicose attitude and worship of genocide, can we just call all her supporters pro-genocide, or is it too early for such a label?

Report this

By Aegrus, April 23, 2008 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

I think Hillary is an empty pantsuit.

Report this

By dicl, April 23, 2008 at 7:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The Causes of World War Three” are explained, in detail, in Mills’ book, written in 1960. We have the warmongers Condi, Hillary, plus the men, but where are the diplomats and statesmen? The power elite want continuous war and will have it. War is very profitable for them.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, April 23, 2008 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

The surreal scenario of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel wasn’t meant to be taken literally or seriously. It was just another loyalty test such as “Where is your flag lapel?” used by MSM neofascists to test candidates’ reactionary credentials and inure the American public to imminent war crimes against Iran.

Since the chances of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel are nil, even if Iran had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, we need to read between the lines to understand what the ABC journalists were driving at. Rephrased, the real question is: “What will you do if Iran retaliates when attacked by Israel?” The politically correct response: “Murder seventy million innocent Iranians in cold blood.”

The operative phrase here is “when attacked by Israel,” not “if attacked by Israel.” The apartheid regime has made it clear that a US war with Iran is inevitable. If Americans wait too long to attack Israel’s enemy, Israelis will force the US into action by launching their own attack. Of course, it’s taboo in the US media to present Israel as a land-hungry, racist aggressor, so all possible scenarios are always framed within the politically acceptable context of Muslim aggression and Zionist self-defense.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

Warmonger lies and fearmonger mentality got us into Iraq. Since Hillary supported the war she voted for the war I suspect intently with knowledge of what would happen.  Your fear of Iran is unfounded, Hillary and her fear-monger approach appeals to you and you support, so this makes Obama is a paper tiger?

Report this

By kag224, April 23, 2008 at 7:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary wasn’t asked “what would you do if Iran was developing nuclear weapons?” she was asked “what would happen if there was an actual nuclear attack on an ally?” in this case Isreal. She responded as any American supporter of Isreal would.  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.  When asked previously about Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons she has stated she would use diplomacy first if possible to address the issue.  There is a difference between the use of nuclear weapons and the development of nuclear weapons and she sees the difference and responds with the policy of the United States which is to use the deterrent effect of the threat of the use of nuclear weapons.  It has only been the policy of the United States for about 60 years and I would imagine Senator Obama being a mainstream centrist Democrat, supports the policy. 
Oh by the way, the glaring, sexist reference to Hillary being akin to the “kneecapping” Tonya Harding because she dares to run against Obama (who must if we play the story out be the beloved but balling Nancy Kerrigan,) I forgive you.  Sexism sells.

Report this

By HG, April 23, 2008 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

A thoughtful Barak can think about the world as it could be.  The world though is what it is—controlled by a proud, emotional, jealous, and male dominated human societies.

Regarding the notion that Hillary will be a butcher.  Doesn’t that fall under the category of fear mongering?  Isn’t that the same tactic that the right wing uses?

Why does Robert Scheer’s use of scare mongering make it any more acceptable?

Does anybody in their left mind really think Hillary is a butcher?  Only those with the political agenda of advancing Barak’s efforts would advance such an absurd idea.

Report this

By The Old Hooligan, April 23, 2008 at 7:21 am Link to this comment

Somebody once said that World War III won’t determine who’s right, only who’s left.

Works for me.

Report this

By Eric Barth, April 23, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton’s remark was clearly an unnecessary one as any intelligent person knows that Israel has a nuclear arsenal that could essentially do just that. By the way, is Iran the awesome threat that almost everyone claims that it is or could be they obtained some sort of nuclear weapon? Haven’t we been here before? Sabre rattling is the dumbest thing imaginable and is really directed at the control of the domestic population nation making those threats. People who know Iran know that the population at large wants to change their theocracy to a social democracy (not a neoliberal one)without outside interference.

Report this

By Lee, April 23, 2008 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

I agree that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but the real question is what do we do now? There are those of you who focus on how wrong it is for America to come across as tough and strong when dealing with Iran, however perhaps your criticism should be with Iran, who is feverishly building nuclear weapons, supplies weapons to terrorists, has threatened to blow another sovereign nation off the map, denies the holocaust, and has already killed many Americans. As if to say, if we make nice nice with the Iran, they will make nice nice with us, and we will all live happily after. Mr. Scheer says: the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear “deterrent”. I totally disagree with that. I don’t think the ayatollahs need to justify anything. They are proceeding the way they are, no matter what we, or other countries say, or do. I’m not suggesting that we start bombing Iran, but I believe that the only language these people understand and respect is strength. That is why Hillary Clinton is carrying a big stick, while she is walking softly. Unlike many on this site, Hillary Clinton wants to put America and American’s welfare as the first priority on her agenda ... as the President of the United States should. Barack Obama may appear to have the smarts, experience, and guts to deal with these tough opponents, from the safe supportive environment of Truthdig, where he enjoys constant adulation, but in the real world he would merely be a paper tiger.

Report this

By weather, April 23, 2008 at 7:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

PH, Venezuela, N. Korea, the former Iraq and Iran all wish to trade their goods in Euros not Dollars.

Don’t listen to the words just follow the music.

- and thanks for all your posts, you’ve taught me a great deal.

Report this

By Ginny F, April 23, 2008 at 6:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Purple Girl:  “This Loyal voting Dem for 26 yrs WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER should they hand her (Steal) the nomiation.”


Same here. This loyal Democrat for over 35 years will NOT VOTE FOR Hillary should she get the nomination.  She is a (rhymes with chore) and that is obvious to anyone who is sane and has been paying attention.

I’ve completely stopped watching any of the TV networks. I never could stand tabloid, sensationalist, appeal to the ignorant masses “journalism”.

Report this

By Maezeppa, April 23, 2008 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

White male independent semirural and rural voters will look at that ‘vow’ (conditional though it may be) and decided she might not be so bad after all.  They might not turn out to vote for her but they may not turn out to vote against her (almost as good for Clinton).

Report this

By Maezeppa, April 23, 2008 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

White male independend semirural and rural voters will look at that ‘vow’ (conditional though it may be) and decided she might not be so bad after all.  They might not turn out to vote for her but they may not turn out to vote against her (almost as good for Clinton).

Report this

By McCoyDH, April 23, 2008 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

ahh the difference between the Dems and the Repubs.  Choice and taxes.

Report this

By DaveinNorthridge, April 23, 2008 at 6:25 am Link to this comment

Fine.  When McCain nominates the Supreme Court judge who creates a majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, I hope you remember that you wrote this.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, April 23, 2008 at 6:17 am Link to this comment

Mr. Scheer is right, no matter what the outcome of the War in Iraq, Iran wins.

If we win, Iran will have a well functioning ally who we have given billions of dollars. If we loose in Iraq, they will be able to restructure the country in ways that favor them.

It’s a loose, loose situation for us. So lets get out now, why through good money after bad?

Hillary Clinton is trying to act tough, for those that would accuse her of being too weak to be president, because she is a girl.

Intead she’s giving Iran a good reason to develop Nuclear weapons.

Making Peace, is ultimately the only option for the Middle east and that’s not going to be accomplished by trying to bully other nations.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

People of thought are awake and aware of what you are talking about, it seems Hillary is closer to a Republican than Obama, so reason would demand a vote for Obama.

The chance’s Obama will do what he says he will do is slightly more possible, only because Obama does not have the same special interests garbage scow attached yet. Plus the fact he seems less divisive and more inclusive.

Our choices are made for us by the special interest Plutocratic elite.  From what I have perceived here on TD at least two of us know that.

Report this

By ph, April 23, 2008 at 5:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Have we become so jaded as a nation that we cannot see that a throw-away comment by one of our politicians, serving only her immediate needs, might just strike lasting fear into innocent men, women and children in the target nation?  Could anything be more callous and irresponsible?

Report this

By john polifronio, April 23, 2008 at 4:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a bunch of squirming and squealing pigs you all are.  Leave the lady alone.  Let her do her thing.  Let Hillary be Hillary.  Stop pretending that your skinny rookie is Jesus incarnate or Abe Lincoln.  You’re not going to bring Hillary down, not the combined forces of all the Hillary haters in the country could do that.  You’re composed, 1/2, of plain malcontents, and, 1/2, women-haters.  Hillary is shooting her very intelligent mouth off, for those Americans frightened of what will happen to them.  But, there is virtually no chance any of it will happen.  If it does, Hillary almost certainly will have had little or no control over it’s happening, though she would no doubt be blamed for it.  She’s a Clinton after all, and everyone knows they’re responsible for everything.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 23, 2008 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

Remember, she’s pandering to the base because it’s primary season.  This is as “liberal” as she’s going to get.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, April 23, 2008 at 4:15 am Link to this comment

Seh is as insane as Nixon, as Senile as Reagan, as complicite as HW and as much of a meglomaniac as W.
She is NO DEM, Not even an Real Republican- Seh is one of many Covert operatives for the Shadow party “Corporationists’, Their founder is Cheney who has been working to seize and Control this country for Decades- Control the energy resources, the money the media and the 3 branches of Gov’t.
Hillary is His Girl. The more she Talks the more she confirms this Undeniable Truth.
I am dismayed by females who are unable to really look at where even Womans rights are - only making about 2 cents more than in the ‘70’s , Roe v Wade on the Ropes, and War is her answer to everything- Nuke Iran to protect isreal, the SAUDI’s AND the UAE????
Seh is Dick in Drag.
This Loyal voting Dem for 26 yrs WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER should they hand her (Steal) the nomiation. Seh makes my Skin Crawl Like cheney did when he Stepped out of the Shadows!

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, April 23, 2008 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

Seh is as insane as Nixon, as Senile as Reagan, as complicite as HW and as much of a meglomaniac as W.
She is NO DEM, Not even an Real Republican- Seh is one of many Covert operatives for the Shadow party “Corporationists’, Their founder is Cheney who has been working to seize and Control this country for Decades- Control the energy resources, the money the media and the 3 branches of Gov’t.
Hillary is His Girl. The more she Talks the more she confirms this Undeniable Truth.
I am dismayed by females who are unable to really look at where even Womans rights are - only making about 2 cents more than in the ‘70’s , Roe v Wade on the Ropes, and War is her answer to everything- Nuke Iran to protect zisreal, the SAUDI’s AND the UAE????
Seh is Dick in Drag.
This Loyal voting Dem for 26 yrs WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER should they hand her (Steal) the nomiation. Seh makes my Skin Crawl Like cheney did when he Stepped out of the Shadows!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 23, 2008 at 3:25 am Link to this comment

Hillary’s ramped up rhetoric on behalf of Israel’s purported victimhood makes me wanna puke.

Report this

By McCoyDH, April 23, 2008 at 1:58 am Link to this comment

This is an unfair question.  Its like asking someone “if you were physically abusing your spouse would you seek counseling?”  I’m tired of seeing progressives attacking clinton and pretending like obama is a progressive.  Clinton and obama and almost all of the Democratic party are like Lieberman.  Obama is no different.  He lies about accepting money from lobbyists.  This material isn’t hard to find, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/?page=1  .  Yet you guys let him get away with lying.  He didn’t vote against kyl/lieberman.  He said the same empire rhetoric that clinton and mccain used about Hamas and the recent invasion of ecuador.  He admits he could have voted like clinton if he was a senator towards the iraq war.  And is it ok that he keeps funding the war with no stipulations?  He sits on the foreign relations committee and doesn’t show up to vote or propose legislation to end the wars.  He won’t support impeachment.  He doesn’t do his job like the constitution orders.  Progressives need to attack Obama just like they are attacking Clinton.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, April 23, 2008 at 12:46 am Link to this comment

This is an article everybody should read. Talking about obliterating Iran reveals the vicious abstract notions that politicians construct to hide the fact that what they are talking about is the slaughter of fellow human beings. Such warmonger pandering is disgusting to say the least. That is the darkness reaching out to the darkness. Peace.

Report this

By Jim H, April 23, 2008 at 12:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Did we obliterate the Soviets? No. I believe the Russian people, and all their dependencies and satellites, are still there. We lived through a much scarier series of decades and emerged more or less unscathed. That was the work, largely, of Truman and Eisenhower. Understand, the “perpetual warfare” of the Bushies is ridiculous and aggressive. If the Iranians have stopped nuclear development, fine. They have nothing to worry about. If they don’t threaten us, or Europe, or, yes, Israel, then it’s live and let live. All I heard here, I’m sorry, was some strategic thinking about the Middle East in the post-Bush era. When we pull out of Iraq, what will be the diplomatic, political and military reality we emerge to? If we simply withdraw, will Iran become a formidable adversary? Will it make a bid to dominate the Middle East? I think we’ll have to sit down and talk very soberly about what we do after withdrawal. Hillary was beginning that. Lord, am I becoming a Scoop Jackson Democrat? I hope not. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong about the next president making lots of gestures for peace, and to specify some ‘what ifs’.

Report this

By independent, April 23, 2008 at 12:21 am Link to this comment

Hillary is the favorite with weapons contractors.  Apparently the lobbyists think she’s a better bet than 100-years war McCain.

Report this

Page 3 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