See other Editorial Articles
Title: Who Wants To Bomb Iran? Democrats, Not Republicans, Says Seymour Hersh
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 4, 2007
Author: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener
Post Date: 2007-10-04 21:41:34 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 349
Comments: 33
Who Wants To Bomb Iran? Democrats, Not Republicans, Says Seymour Hersh Posted October 4, 2007 | 06:36 PM (EST) The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08. When George Bush and Dick Cheney talk about their plans to bomb Iran, they are told "You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated"--that's what a Republican former intelligence official told legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "But," the former official went on, "Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President." I recently spoke with Hersh, whose new piece, "Target Iran," is featured in The New Yorker this week. When I asked Hersh who wants to bomb Iran, he said, "Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it - Israeli and Jewish input." He added the obvious: "a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns" from Jewish contributors. But while Democrats argue that we must "do something" about an Iranian nuclear threat, Hersh says the White House has concluded their own effort to convince Americans that Iran poses an imminent threat has "failed." Apparently the public that bought the story of WMD in Iraq is now singing the classic Who song, "Won't be Fooled Again." Moreover, Hersh reports, "the general consensus of the American intelligence community is that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb" - so the public is right to be skeptical. As a result, according to Hersh, the focus of the plans to bomb Iran has shifted from an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities to an emphasis on the famed "surgical strikes" on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere. The White House hopes it can win public support for this kind of campaign by arguing that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq. Why don't Bush and Cheney "give a rat's ass" about getting Republicans reelected to the Senate and the House in 2008? "Of course that was hyperbole to make a point," Hersh said. "When it comes to choice between bombing Iran and taking some political heat, the president will do what he wants. Look, no decision has been made, no order has been given, I've never said it's going to happen. But I had breakfast this morning in Washington with somebody who's close to a lot of military people, and there's a sense among them that the president is essentially messianic about this. He sees this as his mission. It could be because God is telling him to do it. It could be because his daddy didn't do it. It could be because it's step 13 in a 12-step program he was in. I just don't know." The biggest problem in US relations with Iran, Hersh said, is that Bush refuses to "talk to people he doesn't like. . . . We dealt with China, we dealt with the Soviet Union in those bad days of Stalin and Mao. But there is no pressure whatsoever" coming from the leading Democratic presidential candidates demanding that Bush negotiate with the Iranians rather than bombing them. Read more OffTheBus coverage here. * Email * Print * Comment
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tom007 (#0)
Yeah, sure. Seymour, go take a pill. The Repukes are the ones who are trying to nuke Iran. WTF?
Those who blame the Democrats are half-right. Those who blame the GOP are half- right. A pox on both of their houses. Anyone who thinks that we'd a more sane foreign policy with Hillary than with Rudy or any of the other GOP neocons is an idiot and a half (and vice-versa for those who want to vote for the GOP "lesser evil").
The Dems were the enablers with regards to the Iraq invasion. However, the Dems are as vocal if not more vocal about leading the charge on Iran. AIPAC is an equal opportunity foreign policy puppeteer. In a poll taken in spring of 2007, over 70% of Israelis wanted America to attack Iran - from their mouths to AIPAC's ears.
Simplistic. The Dems have been against the war since the git go. You want the Bushies to stay in power? We were FAR FAR FAR better off under Clinton. I can get you the charts, but you probably won't even look at them. The idea that both parties are the same is insane, you know.
Either way, he's seriously loony.
No, I don't want the Bushies to be in power, I'm just not naive enough to think that the Democrats are any better. Hillary supported the war in Iraq just like the Republicans did. She may want her supporters to THINK that she was against the war all along, but she wasn't. Like her sleazy husband, Hillary's views change by 180 degrees depending on what audience she talks to and what the polls say. And the economic charts that show us how much better off we were under Clinton - well, I have news for you. The economy goes through cycles. Whether we have a Democrat, a Republican, or Alfred E. Newman in the White House doesn't matter. It's just that when the economy does well, an incumbent gets the credit. When it's on a downswing, the incumbent suffers. Not much more to it than that.
On ME foreign policy both parties are the same. With regards to "indebtedness" to campaign contributions from Jewish donors, Dem Presidential candidates get as much as 60% for their war chest from such donors ( Mearsheimer and Walt)- and yes, strings are attached, what do you think? www.forward.com/articles/...orite-in-race-for-jewish- donations/ "Hillary the Favorite in Race for Jewish Donations" "...The haul is important: Strategists say that serious candidates will need to raise at least $50 million — and probably more like $100 million — by the end of the year. They say that money from Jewish donors constitutes about half the donations given to national Democratic candidates (an extremely large pot of gelt long coveted by the GOP). Clinton will get most of the Jewish community’s money, “first, because she’s going to receive the lion’s share of all [Democratic] political money, and second, because she and her husband are enormously popular with the Jewish community,” said Democratic strategist Steve Rabinowitz, a Clinton supporter. Rabinowitz, who also “has been helpful” to former North Carolina senator John Edwards, said that “sexy guy” Illinois Senator Barack Obama and Delaware Senator Joseph Biden — “an extremely well-known quantity” to Jews — among others, would get “a piece” of Jewish largesse. But “it just won’t compare to what she gets.” Clinton, he said, “has personally proved herself to the Jewish community on Israel, on which she was once questioned.” Among the top Jewish fundraisers who political hands expect to line up with Clinton’s campaign is New Jersey lawyer Lionel Kaplan, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who raised money for the former first lady’s 2006 Senate race. Also expected to turn up in Clinton’s camp is Massachusetts businessman Steve Grossman, another former Aipac president who chaired the Democratic National Committee in the late 1990s. Grossman told the Forward that he’s “not formally committed,” but he added that “everyone knows I’m close to the Clintons.”...
It's professional wrestling with suits and ties. There might be some jockeying of egos among the middle management, but after the cameras are turned off the ones in charge of both sides hang out at the same bars and slap each other on their backs about fooling the rubes. For fuck sake, the Bushes and Clintons vacation together. At the end of the day, they agree on one thing: it's "us" and "them." And the line isn't between political parties, it's between rulers and ruled.
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price." Vir Cotto, Babylon 5
Uh, Hillary is the only Dem? I support Obama and he opposed it from the beginning. And her husband threw the only war perfect game. Zero dead. And he ran a surplus that the Repukes then said was dangerous and turned into a HUGE deficit. If you like wasting money on bullshit, vote Repuke. Otherwise, just stop saying they're the same. You may disagree with both, but they are in no way similar. It's a stupid, comfortable lie.
And to their credit, more than half of the House Dems voted against the Iraq war powers.
do people have to keep dying because of one crazy person?
The only Democratic candidates with solid anti-war credentials are "fringe" candidates like Kucinich and Gravel. The only reason Clinton's war against Serbia was casualty free is that the Serbs surrendered after air strikes and the Iraqis did not, so don't give sleazy Bill credit for Iraqis having more fight in them than Yugoslavs. And speaking of the war in the Balkans, Clinton attacked another country with even less justification and provocation than Shrub's invasion of Iraq. And when it comes to mideast policy, scrapper is right: both parties are firmly in the back pocket of AIPAC. They just use different gimmicks and rhetoric to peddle the same garbage.
I'm sure our 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded will be relieved that Clinton is the same as Bush.
However most of the Dem Pres candidates - Hilary and Edwards and Kerry, to name a few off the top of my head, voted for the resolution - Obama was not a DC critter at the time. With regards to giving Bush free reign to impose sanctions on companies who do business with Iran, most Dems voted yes. With regards to labelling the Iranian Rev. Guard a "terrorist organization" most Dems voted yes. With regards to cheering on Israel to bombard Lebanon for 30 days and 30 nights, most Dems voted yes. With regards to giving Bush the same type of authority to attack Iran as he had with Iraq, most Dems voted yes. With regards to defunding the Iraq War, most Dems did not keep their promise. So tell me again - where's the difference between the 2 parties with regards to foreign policy? Postscript: what's even more embaressing for Dems is that candidates like Obama who started out sounding "progressive" and "balanced" immediately did an about face once their Jewish voting block called him on it - web.israelinsid er.com/Articles/Diplomacy/10834.htm "US Presidential hopeful Obama addresses AIPAC, clarifies views on Israel" 03/05/07 "...45-year-old Obama is surging in the polls and is considered a serious candidate despite his age and inexperience. There are reports that his previous more "progressive" (pro-Palestinian) views have been modified in response to the need to curry favor with liberal Jewish donors in the Democratic Party. Obama and other candidates will also be present at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington later in mid-March, hosting a reception there. Since being voted into the Senate, Obama has backed the Palestinian anti- terrorism bill, defended Israel during last summer's war and supported the foreign aid bill. Dan Shapiro, Obama's Middle East advisor, told YnetNews that his speech in Chicago will answer everyone's questions. "They will find out," explained Shapiro, "that his views are mainstream on the security dilemmas and how to solve them. Like everybody he is a supporter of the Two State Solution but he realizes that if you don't have a legitimate Palestinian partner who can meet the conditions of the Quartet and deliver on the agreements, you are not going to get there." His stance on the Iranian nuclear issue has been firm, implying that war is an option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. While he has expressed willingness to engage Iran in discussions about Iraq, he has said he is unwilling to compromise over nuclear weapons, supporting heavy sanctions "even if the Russians and Chinese do not comply." ...
Once again, what does the fact that Iraqis fight harder and resist longer than Serbs have to do with whether there's a Democrat or a Republican in office? And BTW, people in the military tend to vote GOP by a wide margin.
It was under Clinton that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed, "the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement" and became a significant factor cited by dubya for promoting the resolution that justified the use of military force against Iraq. Furthermore, Clinton did not have a 9/11 event happen on his watch - who knows what Clinton would have been prodded to do if it had happened? Recall that Clinton defended Bush for invading Iraq, saying he himself believed that Saddam had WMD.
Do you think Clinton would have sent troops to Iraq? I have no doubt he would have kicked Taliban ass, but unlike the Repukes, his money doesn't come from Halliburton and Hunt and the other people who were pushing for invading Iraq. And if you think the Neocons had influence with him, check out the letter in 1998, signed by Cheney, Pipes, Wolfowitz, et al. He laughed and pissed all over it. He's lucky he's alive. Wake up.
False. OFFICERS tend to vote GOP by a wide margin. Enlisted men are about 50/50. But I doubt that will hold next year. In either category.
That's what it looks like to me. Glad you pointed it out.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
And the lesson Mrs. Clinton learned from Bill's "pissing all over" stuff is....play ball with IsraelFirsters or your sexual indiscretions will be paraded 24/7 on teevee. AIPAC and American Jews and Israelis want Iran attacked by America. If dubya won't do it, you can bet pressure will be brought to bear on the next President. Dubya went into Iraq mainly due to AIPAC - Haliburton and oil industry were secondary compadres. Dubya was a Rapture nutter - AIPAC got lucky. The next President will be brow beaten to attack Iran, mainly due to AIPAC. What is the most solid vocal generous voting block for the Dems?
With regards to defunding the Iraq War, most Dems did not keep their promise. So tell me again - where's the difference between the 2 parties with regards to foreign policy? As for the majority of House Dems who voted against the Iraq war resolution, they should be given credit for standing up for the right action. As for the Dems who voted for the war powers or vote for funding, the difference between Bush and them is the difference between giving the order for a disastrous policy, and simply going along with it for venal political reasons. Hillary and a lot of the other Democrats who voted for the war did so based on political calculations -- they thought it would hurt them to vote against it in the face of the war fever in 2002, and later if it went successfully like Gulf War I. In fact, Bush counted on this by having the war vote scheduled right before the 2002 elections. So they were guilty of inexcusable political venality, but that's not the same as giving the order to invade Iraq as Bush did. And it's not just a Dem/Repub thing. I think if just about anyone else had been president, there would have been no imvasion of Iraq. That doesn't mean they'd have a good policy regarding Israel or the other issues in the Middle East, but they wouldn't have invaded Iraq and we'd be a lot better off.
I doubt anyone disagrees that giving that psychopath a blank check, then acting surprised when he cashed it, is stupid. Being lame is not the same thing as being actively evil. It's bad, but not like Bush and Cheney are. Make sure to tune in to the first Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/
I'll just ignore the Clinton stuff. I do not love Hillary, but Bill was a good president, and no one can factually claim he wasn't. As for the rest, yeah. But that is why I support Obama. He owes nothing to AIPAC. Unlike a certain female candidate.
You and Mekons4 are deluding yourselves. You both think you are special to your party. You are not. You are agents to keep them in power just as goper voters are to the Pubies. Do you have any idea how much $ is required to run for office? Alot and no matter how many $100 bills we can afford to send to political parties it's PEANUTS as compared to the amount of $ a smaller number of well heeled donors can come up with. Democrat politicians are beholden to their Jewish donor/voter block - it's that simple. Israel is important to congresscritters and to the Prez, not you or me. Dubya has been reported as giving tips to Hillary on how to run a Prez campaign. What does that tell us? Vote Ron Paul because he's the only unbuyable and unbribeable in the bunch. As for congresscritters, vote against the incumbent - that's the only way to throw a wrench in an election that others believe has already been decided. The Dems - the Loyal Opposition - fell into line with the GOPers after Bibi BoomBoom Netanyahu rolled into town and delivered a speech from Knesset and Sharon - regime change and you start with Saddam. Bibi gave his speech on 09/12/02. The congresscritters voted to give the green light to invade Iraq one month later. End of story. Bush is as much as a bribe-able tool as the critters. The Masters of our foreign policy and the reason why we are involving ourselves with Iraq, Iran, and Syria are not because of the gopers or dubya - think again.
I've been an independent for decades. I only registered as a Dem because I moved to Chicago, where if you don't vote in the primaries, you don't vote. Don't assume we're Dems. But I have voted for few Republicans, and while I hope Paul wins the nomination, I doubt I could vote for someone who wants to eliminate my SS check, if I live that long, or who wants to shut down public schools or whatever else is in his mind. I agree with some of his stuff, like getting out of Iraq and ending the war on drugs, but I have deep, personal reasons for opposing other things he stands for. My vote still counts, thank god, and mine is going to Obama.
b. As for the rest, yeah. But that is why I support Obama. He owes nothing to AIPAC. Unlike a certain female candidate. a. What's to ignore - did I insult Clinton? No, I didn't. All I did was bring to your attention that Clinton's fall from grace was an object lesson to Mrs. Clinton and other politicians. Support Israel or this can happen to you. I liked Clinton. He was a centrist Prez. He did good things for our economy by not sticking his nose in it and micro managing it with regs and rules. I'm on the same page with regards to Bill Clinton as you. b. Wrong. You obviously did not read the link I provided to an israel Insider article earlier. Obama has been brought to heel. Don't let your desire to have universal health care through Dems winning 2008 blind you to the Evil that lies behind them. web.israelinsid er.com/Articles/Diplomacy/10834.htm "US Presidential hopeful Obama addresses AIPAC, clarifies views on Israel" 03/05/07 "...45-year-old Obama is surging in the polls and is considered a serious candidate despite his age and inexperience. There are reports that his previous more "progressive" (pro-Palestinian) views have been modified in response to the need to curry favor with liberal Jewish donors in the Democratic Party. Obama and other candidates will also be present at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington later in mid-March, hosting a reception there. Since being voted into the Senate, Obama has backed the Palestinian anti- terrorism bill, defended Israel during last summer's war and supported the foreign aid bill. Dan Shapiro, Obama's Middle East advisor, told YnetNews that his speech in Chicago will answer everyone's questions. "They will find out," explained Shapiro, "that his views are mainstream on the security dilemmas and how to solve them. Like everybody he is a supporter of the Two State Solution but he realizes that if you don't have a legitimate Palestinian partner who can meet the conditions of the Quartet and deliver on the agreements, you are not going to get there." His stance on the Iranian nuclear issue has been firm, implying that war is an option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. While he has expressed willingness to engage Iran in discussions about Iraq, he has said he is unwilling to compromise over nuclear weapons, supporting heavy sanctions "even if the Russians and Chinese do not comply." ...
Scrapper, I don't want to fight. I think we agree on a lot. Obama owes nothing to AIPAC. Everyone has to kow-tow to the Jewish vote, no matter who (find one who defies it) but Hillary and most of the Republicans need that vote. I don't think Obama does. Here's a Daily Kos review of an article I wrote three years ago. I have exed out my last name, given that creeps from LP hang around here, and I already get enough crap on my phone. Sat Oct 23, 2004 at 09:14:35 PM PDT Need your Barack Obama fix? I got mine from my Occidental College alumni magazine with this fabulous cover (only click on it if you want to see the image way, WAY too big for your screen): And yes, among other choice words in the article is a description of Obama at a campaign stop in Ottawa, IL, where the author notes that The candidate who takes the stage is more relaxed, low-key, and conversational than the figure who electrified the Democratic faithful, prompting Heinz Kerry to predict, "He will be president someday." In the six-page paean to the Oxy alum (yeah, I know he didn't finish out at Occidental, but he did start there), freelance writer Pete xxxx tells of Obama's early start in politics: [financial consultant and classmate Hasan] Chandoo notes that Obama first became politicized at Occidental, where the two became involved in the anti-apartheid movement and attended rallies for causes like Citizens in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). "He could have made a lot of money, become an investment banker. But it was clear that he was taken with politics. he was always reading a book like Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, and it took over his life." "I got into politics at Occidental," Obama says in an interview between campaign stops. "Occidental was still investing in South Africa. I made a conscious decision to become involved in public policy." The article goes on to describe Obama's work and speeches on the campaign trail all over Illinois. In DePue: "There's nothing partisan about giving people a living wage, a decent education for their kids, real healthcare that won't send them to the poorhouse, and the chance to retire with dignity." following an explosion of applause, Obama concludes, "People are tired of politicians attacking each other instead of attacking problems." In Monmouth: This is an ideologically driven foreign policy that never lets facts stand in the way," he says. "We have to regain the respect of the world and regain our standing in the family of nations." The audience of academics and students goes wild. In Oquawka: When I went to school, we all took music and art and played sports, and today in Illinois, too many kids have to pay for that privilege," Obama says, calling it "profoundly un-American. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars for a war that didn't have to be fought." Finally, in the "that must've been some dinner!" Department, xxxx writes: One question remains. How did he get that keynote speech gig? The answer is almost prosaic. Shortly after his primary win, he toured with Durbin through downstate towns to thank them for their vote. Upon their return, Kerry was in Chicago, and spoke at one of Obama's fundraisers. The next day, Obama returned the favor and the two couples had dinner that night. A few weeks later, in late April, Obama heard there might be a speaking role for him at the convention. "I never expected anything like the keynote speech," he says, "but I was aware that they were interested in me." Maybe it was Heinz Kerry, who thinks Obama might be president someday, or it might be Kerry's staff, who saw a rising Democratic force. But someone spoke up, and three weeks before the convention, Obama got the word. And the rest is history in the making.” Indeed.
Daddy Shrub and Billy Boy have been a real dynamic duo lately, sort of an ex- President Laurel and Hardy act. I think their friendship goes back to their days at Mena, Arkansas when they worked together on Iran Contra. And your comparison of phony Dem vs. GOP "elections" to Professional Wrestling is exactly right. Only idiots take either seriously.
Yeah, they've got a lot to smile about.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
If it were up to me, all three would be chained together in striped coveralls, cutting grass on the side of the road.
...with sling blades.
...gonna go to Mississippi...
amen
#2. To: Mekons4 (#1)
#3. To: Rupert_Pupkin, Mekons4 (#2)
Anyone who thinks that we'd a more sane foreign policy with Hillary than with Rudy or any of the other GOP neocons is an idiot and a half (and vice-versa for those who want to vote for the GOP "lesser evil").
#4. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#2)
Those who blame the Democrats are half-right. Those who blame the GOP are half- right. A pox on both of their houses.
#5. To: tom007 (#0)
(Edited)
It could be because God is telling him to do it. It could be because his daddy didn't do it. It could be because it's step 13 in a 12-step program he was in.
I've already said too much.
#6. To: Mekons4 (#4)
Simplistic. The Dems have been against the war since the git go. You want the Bushies to stay in power? We were FAR FAR FAR better off under Clinton. I can get you the charts, but you probably won't even look at them
#7. To: Mekons4, Rupert_Pupkin (#4)
The idea that both parties are the same is insane, you know.
#8. To: Mekons4 (#4)
The idea that both parties are the same is insane, you know.
#9. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#6)
No, I don't want the Bushies to be in power, I'm just not naive enough to think that the Democrats are any better. Hillary supported the war in Iraq just like the Republicans did. She may want her supporters to THINK that she was against the war all along, but she wasn't. Like her sleazy husband, Hillary's views change by 180 degrees depending on what audience she talks to and what the polls say.
#10. To: Mekons4 (#9)
I've already said too much.
#11. To: tom007 (#0)
somebody who's close to a lot of military people, and there's a sense among them that the president is essentially messianic about this. He sees this as his mission.
#12. To: Mekons4 (#9)
Uh, Hillary is the only Dem? I support Obama and he opposed it from the beginning. And her husband threw the only war perfect game. Zero dead. And he ran a surplus that the Repukes then said was dangerous and turned into a HUGE deficit. If you like wasting money on bullshit, vote Repuke. Otherwise, just stop saying they're the same. You may disagree with both, but they are in no way similar. It's a stupid, comfortable lie.
#13. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#12)
The only reason Clinton's war against Serbia was casualty free is that the Serbs surrendered after air strikes and the Iraqis did not, so don't give sleazy Bill credit for Iraqis having more fight in them than Yugoslavs. And speaking of the war in the Balkans, Clinton attacked another country with even less justification and provocation than Shrub's invasion of Iraq.
#14. To: MUDDOG (#10)
(Edited)
And to their credit, more than half of the House Dems voted against the Iraq war powers.
#15. To: Mekons4 (#13)
I'm sure our 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded will be relieved that Clinton is the same as Bush.
#16. To: Mekons4 (#13)
I'm sure our 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded will be relieved that Clinton is the same as Bush.
#17. To: scrapper2 (#16)
#18. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#15)
And BTW, people in the military tend to vote GOP by a wide margin.
#19. To: kiki (#11)
do people have to keep dying because of one crazy person?
#20. To: Mekons4 (#17)
And if you think the Neocons had influence with him, check out the letter in 1998, signed by Cheney, Pipes, Wolfowitz, et al. He laughed and pissed all over it.
#21. To: scrapper2 (#14)
With regards to giving Bush the same type of authority to attack Iran as he had with Iraq, most Dems voted yes.
I've already said too much.
#22. To: MUDDOG (#21)
#23. To: scrapper2 (#20)
Dubya went into Iraq mainly due to AIPAC - Haliburton and oil industry were secondary compadres. Dubya was a Rapture nutter - AIPAC got lucky. The next President will be brow beaten to attack Iran, mainly due to AIPAC. What is the most solid vocal generous voting block for the Dems?
#24. To: MUDDOG, Mekons4 (#21)
Hillary and a lot of the other Democrats who voted for the war did so based on political calculations -- they thought it would hurt them to vote against it in the face of the war fever in 2002, and later if it went successfully like Gulf War I. In fact, Bush counted on this by having the war vote scheduled right before the 2002 elections. So they were guilty of inexcusable political venality, but that's not the same as giving the order to invade Iraq as Bush did. And it's not just a Dem/Repub thing. I think if just about anyone else had been president, there would have been no imvasion of Iraq.
#25. To: scrapper2 (#24)
#26. To: Mekons4 (#23)
(Edited)
a. I'll just ignore the Clinton stuff.
#27. To: scrapper2 (#26)
#28. To: orangedog (#8)
It's professional wrestling with suits and ties. There might be some jockeying of egos among the middle management, but after the cameras are turned off the ones in charge of both sides hang out at the same bars and slap each other on their backs about fooling the rubes. For fuck sake, the Bushes and Clintons vacation together. At the end of the day, they agree on one thing: it's "us" and "them." And the line isn't between political parties, it's between rulers and ruled.
#29. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#28)
Daddy Shrub and Billy Boy have been a real dynamic duo lately, sort of an ex- President Laurel and Hardy act. I think their friendship goes back to their days at Mena, Arkansas when they worked together on Iran Contra.
#30. To: robin (#29)
(Edited)
#31. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#30)
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#31)
#33. To: orangedog (#8)
It's professional wrestling with suits and ties. There might be some jockeying of egos among the middle management, but after the cameras are turned off the ones in charge of both sides hang out at the same bars and slap each other on their backs about fooling the rubes. For fuck sake, the Bushes and Clintons vacation together. At the end of the day, they agree on one thing: it's "us" and "them." And the line isn't between political parties, it's between rulers and ruled.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest