See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Hillary Strangelove
Source:
http://www.boston.com/news/
URL Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a ... 008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/
Published: Apr 27, 2008
Author: Globe Editorial
Post Date: 2008-04-27 08:06:29 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 402
Comments: 32
AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel. This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world. Responding with understatement to a question in the British House of Lords, the foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, said of Clinton's implication of a mushroom cloud over Iran: "While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably not prudent in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country." A less restrained reaction came from an editorial in the Saudi-based paper Arab News. Being neighbors of Iran, the Saudis and the other Gulf Arabs have the most to fear from Iran's nuclear program and its drive to become the dominant power in the Gulf. But precisely because they are most at risk from Iran's regional ambitions, the Saudis want a carefully considered American approach to Iran, one that balances firmness and diplomatic engagement. The Saudi paper called Clinton's nuclear threat "the foreign politics of the madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush's foreign relations." The Saudis are not always sound advisers on American foreign policy. But they understand that Rambo rhetoric like Clinton's only plays into the hands of Iranian hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a nuclear weapons capability. They argue that Iran must have that capability in order to deter the United States from doing what Clinton threatened to do. While Clinton has hammered Obama for supporting military strikes in Pakistan, her comments on Iran are much more far-reaching. She seems not to realize that she undermined Iranian reformists and pragmatists. The Iranian people have been more favorable to America than any other in the Gulf region or the Middle East. A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
How can she obliterate anything w/o the approval of congress, which is controlled by the Ds, duly installed on a wave of anti-war sentiment?
My guess is that if they were not bribed by the Bush Regime, they were blackmailed.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Lets go with your assumption. From where does the Bush Regime get it's strength and power?
It looks like Hillary is beating the straw man to death. All straw men out there, must be shaking in their straw boots.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
...barely controlled by the D's. As for how, she's a Clinton. She probably do it with or without Congress's approval. Just like Bush.
Okay, let's compute the odds for Hillary's obliterating Iran: First, she must be the prez. and the odds for that are about 5% (10% to beat Obama and then 50% of that to beat McCain). The odds for Iran actually nuking Israel are, let's say 1%, and these are VERY generous odds. Then, the odds for Hilly successfully obliterating Iran should be about 25%. Now... let's compute: 0.05 * 0.01 * 0.25 = 0.000125 - this gives us odds of somewhere of better than one in 10,000. These are better than the Earth falling into the Sun next year but... not a lot better.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
As for how, she's a
Clinton. She probably do it with or without Congress's approval. Just like
Bush. The D controlled House Appropriation committee
could defund the war tomorrow morning. They won't because the Agenda is far
bigger than the presidency. This point is lost on the Hopeful ones.
when will folks get that the president is merely a puppet?
From the willingness of the people to continue putting up with the bullshit.
"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
Ahhh.... your comment #1 was sarcastic. I didn't catch that.
Hillary did surprisingly well among Jewish voters, educated voters, and the Philadelphia suburbs in the PA primary. I suspect that was all a result of her Dr. Strangelove comments.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Because the Democratic House elected in 1930 was unable to change Herbert Hoover's policies, does that mean there was no point in electing FDR in 1932?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
from the bankers and Zs? And from just plain old-fashioned robbery.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
I hope your odds are all wrong, but that's pretty good.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
I suspect that was all a result of her Dr. Strangelove comments. It certainly did not hurt her there. And since she has already lost the anti-war activist vote, she did not lose any votes by making this warmongering declaration.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
"Ds" and "Rs" lolol "The Ds have the answer" "No, it's the Rs" As if they aren't building the North American Union together...but who cares, let's play this stupid freaking GAME of make believe!
So much for the Democrat anti-war mandate of '06, eh?
When the lesser of evils selection strategy yields these three pigs like we currently have, I'd think more folks than not will finally get a clue. That 30% of the Rs in PA *didn't* vote for McCain, is something we can be proud of.
I understand that voting bloc is now comprised of Cindy Sheehan and Joan Baez.
And the power of the bankers and Zs will disappear w/an Obama presidency?
I'm talking about tomorrow morning, not 1932. Tomorrow, the Democratic controlled House could defund the Bush war machine. They wont. Why?
Since the bankers and the Zs have someone else in 1st and 2nd place in their hearts, I think there must be a reason, however slight.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
I think you know that the antiwar movement today has a large following.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Its membership couldn't fill a phone booth, and Iraq has been relegated to an after thought. The price of gas and eggs are far more important to the sheeple than Iraq and soon to be Iran.
Have you forgotten how much $$ is being raked in by Bush/Cheney families with this war? If this war ended today their heads would be on the chopping blocks. They need a good getaway first. When all the genocide and evil is revealed their names and the names of everyone in the families will be cursed. The Dems have looked the other way on everything Cheney has done. There are reports that when anyone from his office calls, people are frightened. Your guess is as good as mine, what this means. Whatever difference there is in a Democratic and NeoCommie/ZioNazi WH, it can be seen in the difference between the Clinton years and the Bush years. Not pretty, but there is a difference.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Amerikans like their Empire as long as it's semi-functional and moving closer to global governance?
Except a war with Iran will make all those economic woes far worse.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Tell that to the Christian Serbians...tell that to the Christians formerly in Iraq. "Bush bad, Clinton good" "Clinton bad, Obama good" The level of intellectual dishonesty and sheer idiocy among the Ophiles is appalling.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Without Iran's oil, we have no economy, never mind a bad one. I'm assuming you see what I do afa this war beginning?
You think the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the price of gas and eggs? You don't think a war with Iran would make them go still higher?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
We better not go to war with Iran then, because that will stop shipment of oil not just from Iran but from all the Gulf states to the world market.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#2. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#3. To: robin (#2)
My guess is that if they were not bribed by the Bush Regime, they were blackmailed.
#4. To: robin (#0)
#5. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
How can she obliterate anything w/o the approval of congress, which is controlled by the Ds, duly installed on a wave of anti-war sentiment?
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
#7. To: Pinguinite (#5)
...barely controlled by the D's.
#8. To: Jethro Tull, Pinguinite, a vast rightwing conspirator, Original_Intent (#7)
#9. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
From where does the Bush Regime get it's strength and power?
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#7)
#11. To: robin (#0)
#12. To: Jethro Tull (#7)
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
#14. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#6)
#15. To: aristeides (#11)
Hillary did surprisingly well among Jewish voters, educated voters, and the Philadelphia suburbs in the PA primary.
#16. To: Jethro Tull (#7)
#17. To: robin (#15)
#18. To: orangedog (#9)
From the willingness of the people to continue putting up with the bullshit.
#19. To: robin (#15)
And since she has already lost the anti-war activist vote,
#20. To: robin (#13)
from the bankers and Zs? (Where Bush receives power)
#21. To: aristeides (#12)
Because the Democratic House elected in 1930 was unable to change Herbert Hoover's policies, does that mean there was no point in electing FDR in 1932?
#22. To: Jethro Tull (#20)
#23. To: Jethro Tull (#19)
#24. To: robin (#23)
#25. To: Jethro Tull (#21)
#26. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
#27. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
#28. To: robin (#25)
Whatever difference there is in a Democratic and NeoCommie/ZioNazi WH, it can be seen in the difference between the Clinton years and the Bush years.
#29. To: All (#27)
#30. To: robin (#27)
Except a war with Iran will make all those economic woes far worse.
#31. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
The price of gas and eggs are far more important to the sheeple than Iraq and soon to be Iran.
#32. To: Jethro Tull (#30)
Without Iran's oil, we have no economy, never mind a bad one.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest