What's up with Hillary going around to all of these news shows saying she will destroy Iran?

[IsItJustMe]

She sounds like a fricken war monger. Have we not had enough of this shit for the last eight years.

I mean, we already have two wars going on. Isn't that enough for the time being?

Of course any of these candidates would respond aggressively if Israel was attacked. There is absolutely no reason to go around and spread a message of war.

This is just fricked up. Honestly. Clinton/McCain both scare the hell out of me.

I come to life with the believe that what you concentrate on expands. If it's nuking Iran, then you will probably get your wish sooner or later.

[saltpoint]

1. There are several reasons why progressives were never hogwild about Hillary

Clinton.

This is one of them.

[Buzz Clik]

5. No kidding. I'm thinking she's going to start scaring the independents, moderates, ...

... libertarians, and old school conservatives.

I think she's getting Barry Goldwater flashbacks.

[saltpoint]

6. Yep. We can't win the general without indies and we can't draw indies

if she's on the ticket.

[PoliticalAmazon]

111. Only one explanation: SHE'S FREAKING NUTS. Get her out of the race, now. n/t

[patrice]

7. Odd, how one holds one's early opinion in abeyance, and how often they turn out to be true. nt

[saltpoint]

8. Yes. Progressives and independents are increasingly drawn to Obama this

past winter until now he holds the national lead over Clinton, who, in the last weeks, has re-introduced herself as a shot-guzzling, duck-hunting, Iran-obliterating rough-and-tough gal.

Yuck.

[patrice]

15. I'm hoping there is a visceral drive for Freedom that will nourish those Independents if

the "Democratic" Party throws them under the bus.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

22. Obama seemed to stake a claim for that turf this winter. His comments

are more adult and more diplomatic, and thus (IMO) more useful and less divisive.

Independents appear to value that and don't want affiliation with partisan crap. Clinton's war-mongering is a lot like Bush & Cheney's war-mongering, and it carries serious partisan voltage.

I think she's beating a dead horse trying to frighten the "Reagan Democrats" to increase her vote totals in PA, and it sounds desperate.

[Taxmyth]

29. Senator Obama favors diplomacy should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons

Let's get that message out. That will surely attract the Independents.

[saltpoint]

32. McCain is the loser if indies flock to Obama, which is a notion supported

by surges in registration rolls and caucus/primary turn-outs.

Go, Democrats.

[Lerkfish]

52. WEEEEEEHAAAAWWWWW!

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. LOL.

There wouldn't be anyone to practice diplomacy with, should Iran attack Israel with nukes. Israel would turn the entire nation into glass slag.

[redqueen]

65. How is it that people are unaware of this?

:wtf:

What has happened to some people on this site?

All of a sudden they don't believe the NIE either? So now Iran is some huge urgent threat, so urgent that we must start banging those war drums now?

[BattyDem]

68. Ignoring intelligence and banging the drums of war

I've seen that behavior on other political web sites in the past, but not on DU. :wtf:



edited: typo :blush:

[Taxmyth]

90. Responding to the faux outrage

or ignorance, I really can't tell the difference with most of Senator Obama's supporters. In the overall scheme of things, this particular issue is not at the very forefront of problems facing America but after seeing so many Obama supporters expressing "outrage" or "ignorance" on this issue, I felt it necessary to add my 10 cents into the er, discussion.

[redqueen]

91. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5617427

[BattyDem]

58. No, Obama favors diplomacy in order to PREVENT an attack on Israel or anyone else.

That's the whole point of diplomacy, which I haven't heard Hillary talk about recently. It's easy to threaten people - anyone can do it. Bush does it all the time and it hasn't done a damn thing to achieve peace or make us safer!

Obama has always said that if Iran attacked Israel, he "would take appropriate action" as president.

Clinton promised "massive retaliation" and said "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Yes, they both said they would attack if Iran attacked first, but think about how each statement sounds to the rest of the world. One talks about reasonable action that every country would take under the same circumstances. The other is warmongering.

[Taxmyth]

60. As does Senator Clinton

Funny, I heard only ONE candidate use a form of the word "diplomacy" during their last debate when discussing this issue and it was NOT Senator Obama.

[BattyDem]

67. Obama didn't talk about diplomacy? That's not true ... here's the transcript

SEN. OBAMA: "I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is."

"Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region."


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. See? SEE? That WHOLE quote, and the word 'diplomacy' does not appear once!

:eyes:

[BattyDem]

70. LOL!

:hi:

[BattyDem]

81. I can't believe it, but ...

that does appear to be the argument. :rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

83. If they keep grasping at straws, eventually they will grab that last,

fatal one.

IMO, they already have.

[Taxmyth]

71. Carrots and Sticks

as opposed to:

And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.

Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.

Senator Clinton is far more direct in her approach to telling the American people, and the world, what they need to know. It doesn't appear that Senator Obama can do that and THAT could be dangerous.

[BattyDem]

80. She's better because he didn't use the actual word "diplomacy" when talking about diplomacy?!

They described the same process using different terms! :rofl:


HILLARY: "we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran"

OBAMA: "I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians"



HILLARY: "we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it.

OBAMA: "we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is."



Hillary also said she "certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad" - Obama has said many times that he would. How exactly does diplomacy work when the president refuses to talk to the leaders of other countries? That's Bush's policy and that's why we're in this mess with Iran!


By the way ... his answer was not "Carrots and Sticks" - the phrase was simply used to summarize what he had said just prior to that.

[Taxmyth]

89. Their positions are almost identical with Clintons being more detailed

And there is the exception of Senator Clinton not wanting to meet with Ahmadinejad directly. BUT she goes further and explains how he WOULD be involved in a diplomatic process, just that it would not occur in her White House or with her directly.

She gave specific answers to specific foreign policy scenarios in words that could not be mistaken. That is what is needed in the White House.

[BattyDem]

93. You're basing your entire response on what was said during one debate.

What about the responses given in other debates? What about details given during interviews? What about going to the web sites of both candidates and viewing the details of their foreign policy plans? :shrug:

[Taxmyth]

95. There is no written foreign policy for Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons

My entire response is rhetorical based on rhetorical answers given to rhetorical questions. The anger shown by many of Senator Obama's supporters seems real when it should not be. Is this "outrage" designed to effect Senator Clinton's chances for nomination or is it ignorance of Senator Obama coming from his supporters?

[BattyDem]

96. But you've already contradicted your own OP

Your OP stated something that had no basis in fact.

I called you on it by saying Obama favored diplomacy as prevention, not as a response.

You offered the ABC debate as "proof" that Obama didn't talk about diplomacy, which is completely opposite from the position you took in your OP.

I used the ABC debate transcript to prove you wrong.

You used that same transcript to "prove" that Clinton discussed diplomacy in detail, but Obama talked about "carrots and sticks". Also not true. Both candidates said almost the same thing, but in a different way.

Then you said "Their positions are almost identical with Clinton's being more detailed." EXACTLY ... and by admitting that, you completely contradicted your own OP.

Now you're saying your entire response was rhetorical and Obama supporters are expressing false outrage to affect Clinton's chances for the nomination. However, your OP has no basis in fact because - by your own admission - their positions are almost identical. So I ask you ... whose supporters are using false outrage (and false information) to affect someone's chances for the nomination?

[Taxmyth]

100. Senator Obama favors diplomacy should Iran attack Iraq with nuclear weapons

is a ridiculous statement. Sarcastic rhetoric aimed at anyone whose panties are in a bunch about what Senator Clinton said she would do using the same scenario. Anyone that can't recognize that statement for what it is, bullshit, has the same thought processes as those who call Senator Clintons words "warmongering". They are both idiotic remarks, the only difference is that I know what I wrote was idiotic.

There are far more important things to be concerned with in America at this time.

[krkaufman]

88. I don't think that's Obama's position.

Obama didn't say the response would be "diplomacy"; Obama said the US would have an "appropriate response", opting not to go with the undiplomatic, threatening language chosen by Clinton.

[Taxmyth]

92. Make no mistake about it

and you can't with what Senator Clinton has said about this highly unlikely and improbable situation. The American people know what her response would be, the Israeli people and government know what her response would be and anyone seeking to acquire or develop nuclear weapons in Iran for use against Israel knows what her response would be.

If Senator Obama's idea of an "appropriate response" negates the use of nuclear weapons then let him come out and say that directly.

Otherwise this ridiculous "outrage", or is it ignorance of Senator Obama and his policies, needs to end.

[krkaufman]

110. Clinton's responses are provocative, and, like with Bush, tend to lead away from diplomacy ...

... which would avert the scenario under discussion. Clinton's words are war-mongering, and I'm grateful for it; she's at least being honest, now.

[patrice]

31. This IS true about Obama.

And FYI I didn't start out with him. I have been worried about his "Trojan Horse" effect, but once I started listening to him, I realized that the likelihood of his bringing more actually Independent voters along with him is definitely higher than HC's.

To be fully "Human", people must be Free. We'll always react from our baser instincts as long as we are slaves to anything. This is one of the facts that caused OUR Invasion and Occupation of Iraq and all of its attendant Death and Suffering.

[patrice]

98. The primary criteria should be, as you suggest, "Use".

Hopefully, the uses of the divide-and-rule intellect have reached their practical limits.

[olkaz]

2. Triangulation.

The reason I hate the Clintons and the DLC.

They'll do anything for power.

[NorthCarolina]

42. That is exactly the reason

somebody's been paying attention! :hi:

[olkaz]

74. If only more people would wake up and see these sorts of things for what they are.

I think a lot of people don't even understand what triangulation is, why it's done, and why it's such an act of cowardice.

Seriously, every time I see progressives get thrown under the bus, I get furious. And the longer this thing goes, the more furious I get.

It just really, really gets to me.

[Two Americas]

107. how can that be?

It can't be both: that Clinton is triangulating to pander to independents and cross over voters, and that she is alienating independents and cross over voters and driving them away.

As a Black man, Senator Obama cannot appear to be threatening or aggressive or angry. As a woman, Senator Clinton cannot appear to be weak or soft. That explains the differences between the way that the two of them have described the exact same identical policy toward Israel and Iran.

In either case, it is no cause to "hate" either candidate. Many have asked if the country is ready for a woman as president or a Black as president. I have to ask if the Democratic party activist are ready for either, judging by the commentary from so many here.

I would think that if anyone could be accused of triangulating - talking in vague and nuanced language that can be heard as all things to all people - it would be Obama. In the recent "clinging" flap, people who had opposite views about the challenge of rural voters both thought that he was speaking for them.

[Crazy Dave]

3. No surprise

She voted for the war, she's voted for continued funding of the war, she goes to bed wearing a pantsuit in case the phone rings at 3am...

[patrice]

4. She is bidding for Bush's ba$e. And apparently she really need$ their help. nt

[blm]

40. She's assuring Bush she'll continue his policy on Iran BEFORE he'll steal the votes for her.

.

[patrice]

44. Oh SHIT yeah!! I forgot about that little process . . . : - (((((((((((((((((

Currying favor with King George, so sleepers all over the country can do "what's right". :puke:

[krkaufman]

109. eh, she'd never be able to get Bush's base

She's going for the moron middle, who were previously duped by Karl Rove's fear-mongering in previous election cycles. The militant talk on Iran, the 3am ad and now the bin Laden reference are all from the Rethug playbook.

[Diamond Dog]

9. Because she's a typical Democratic Leadership Council corporatist.

Tells you all you need to know about her gross distortions, really.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. No nation has used nuclear weapons on another since we bombed Japan.

I think the preface to her comments is relevant, it assumes that Iran has already launched a first use of nuclear weapons against Israel. She is discussing retaliation but really what she is discussing is deterrence.

[Diamond Dog]

17. What about her comments to the effect of 'Iran would be the only nuclear power in the region'?

When the above chart demonstrates that's untrue. Israel has undisclosed nuclear weapons - hundreds of 'em.

She's playing the fear card. Look through it and look through her and look in yourself and you'll see it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. There was a mutually agreed upon fantasy for a long time

Middle Eastern nations, Israel included, did not openly talk about Israel having nukes. The reason why that fantasy prevailed for so long was that the leaders of Arab nations actually felt fairly confident that Israel would not use nuclear weapons against them unless Isreal's very survival as a nation seemed to depend on it. For that reason, unlike the situation with India and Pakistan, nations like Egypt, Jordon, and Saudi Arabia never felt a need to launch their own nuclear program. The word out of the Middle East, with a centuries old fracture line between Sunni and Shiite Islam, is that the story will be very different if Iran gets nukes. It will start a Middle East nuclear arms race.

[Diamond Dog]

50. I'm fully aware of it. The question is, however...

... are nations that utterly loathe Iran, e.g. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, likely to glass Israel, or Iran?

And it doesn't change the fact she lied about Iran being the only nation in the Middle East that would have nukes. A pitiful, pandering lie.

[C_U_L8R]

11. She even scared nasty old Pat Buchanan

Hillary's overplaying the Rambo card, wouldn't you say?

[ShortnFiery]

12. Selfish Neo-con Millionaires don't lose with either HRC or McCain: Rich get richer ...

poor get poorer.

Many millionaires think of elections as "just a game." :grr:

[ericgtr]

13. More bad advice from her new advisor is all I can figure

She's tried everything under the sun. Now pretending to be a war monger isn't going to make much difference other than making herself that much more unappealing to the rest of the world.

[WinkyDink]

14. She was asked the question. Obama is lucky he wasn't.

[IsItJustMe]

21. Yes he was asked the question, at the debate, and he answered it. He said something to the effect

that our actions would be forcefull. Obama did not go around on news shows, days later, saying we will destroy Iran, over and over again.

She is not right.

[WinkyDink]

63. IOW, he hedged his bet.

[redqueen]

66. No, in other words, he's not trying to out-cowboy Bush.

He's acting like a responsible leader acts.

Funny how quickly people seem to have forgotten...

[meow mix]

16. No wonder she voted for the War, Neo-con Deluxe

even more violent than the old version

[BigDDem]

18. She's saying "she will destroy Iran?"

Please provide link.

[IsItJustMe]

23. Have you not been watching the news?

[BigDDem]

25. No, not yet, please provide link where she says she will

destroy Iran.

[LSK]

84. here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x122334

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x122410

I guess you didnt see the debate last week either?

:wtf:

[LSK]

87. transcript from her interview on Countdown:

OLBERMANN: You mentioned the oil suppliers. And, obviously, that leads us into something else that really flew by during the debate, but seemed awfully important. In that debate, you were asked about a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel and your hypothetical response as commander in chief.

And you said—let me read the quote exactly—“I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region.”

Can you clarify, since there was no follow-up to that, which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country, and what constitutes massive retaliation?

CLINTON: Well, what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.

And I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War, when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing, because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power. So, I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.

In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement, where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.

It is a theory that some people have been looking at, because there is

a fear that, if Iran, which I hope we can prevent becoming a nuclear power

but, if they were to become one, some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mind-set and a world view that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs.

I don‘t buy that. But I think we have to test it. And one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going to permit them, if we can prevent it, from becoming a nuclear power. But, were they to become so, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States—which, personally, I believe would prevent it from happening—and that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran, because they were a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256056/

[patrice]

105. Self-fulfilling prophecy provokes the bad guys' behaviors that justify the prediction.

They're laying the groundwork for our use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons. Make no mistake about it; we will hear how "little" nukes will solve a bunch of our Military limitations, for cheap.

[BigDDem]

19. She's saying "she will destroy Iran?"

Please provide link.

[Diamond Dog]

24. Here.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/A_nuclear_threat.html

It isn't that she threatened to "obliterate" them. It's that she said, and I quote, "... the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power." Which is a lie.

[Writer]

73. Uhhh... I think some are hearing what they want to hear. n/t

[LSK]

85. yes because that whole invade Iraq thing was a big bluff

:eyes:

[oviedodem]

20. DLC! DLC! DLC! DLC! -- Listen and learn.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=124


I point to there security writings.

[NorthCarolina]

45. Vote DLC Democrats out every chance you get

and eventually we will take the Democratic Party back from the Republican infiltration that is the DLC.

[Taxmyth]

26. Senator Obama will give a speech should Iran nuke Israel

That should scare you even more.

[Cassandra]

28. Nuke it with what, exactly?

[Taxmyth]

34. Exactly

and this ridiculous faux outrage over a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question needs to stop. Or are Senator Obama's supporters so clueless when it comes to his approach to foreign policy?

If they believe that Senator Obama would have a different approach should Iran nuke Israel, then we need to make sure the American people as a whole understand what that approach might be, in specifics.

PS. If you read the NIE pay particular attention to item H.

[bowens43]

30. What a ridiculous uninformed post.

[Taxmyth]

35. certainly no worse than the original one

that it was in response to. Or is this just a case of selective outrage?

[patrice]

33. PURE Speculation. Do yourself and us a favor; go Wiki "Logic" and read up

on the principles of rational thought. You're WAY out of your depth here.

[Taxmyth]

38. As logical as the thread it was in reply to

Logic seems to be something lacking in Senator Obama's supporters on this particular NON-issue. But if they want to take Senator Clinton's answer to a rhetorical question as a sign of warmongering then that follows the same logic as saying Senator Obama would give a speech in response to Iran nuking Israel.

[patrice]

41. That's pretty funny: On one hand we have a denotative verbal statement and on the other we don't, so

I'm supposed to pretend that HC didn't mean what she actually said and Obama does mean something he hasn't said.

In either case, it is MUCH smarter to "play your hand closer to your chest" and NOT go around setting all kinds of things in motion in foreign states because you want to show how "tough" you are in order to garner a few votes from people who disagree with you on almost ALL of your other policy statements.

Just like her Bosnia story, Hillary's Nuclear Priority shows that she is living in her own version of reality.

[Taxmyth]

46. Better to be sharp than to be obtuse

especially when it comes to discussing foreign policy. Should Senator Obama get the nomination he had better learn this especially when debating Senator McCain on this very issue.

[IsItJustMe]

49. As much as I dislike McCain and hate to pay him any type of compliment, I think he is smarter than

to use the type of war rhetoric that Hillary is using.

[Taxmyth]

55. Both Senators Clinton and Obama used rhetoric

and answered the rhetorical question of what they would do if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel. Senator Clinton used language that was focused and to the point. Specific foreign policy to a specific foreign policy problem and that seems to have upset Senator Obama's supporters. Senator Obama used language that could be confused with a non-response should this unlikely event occur. I think Senator McCain would use language that would not be confusing and probably even sharper than that of Senator Clinton.

But there is really no doubt that all 3 would employ the same approach were this improbable event to occur.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. The point is, this is not an issue.

Iran does not have nukes. Should it ever get nukes, and drop one on Israel, Israel's retaliation will make OUR response moot. We won't HAVE to obliterate Iran, and we won't be ABLE to talk to Iran, because Iran will no longer exist.

Obama recognizes that. I suspect Hillary does too, but she'd rather play with the uninformed to get votes than speak the truth to the people.

[patrice]

97. Both of those words "sharp" and "obtuse" are projections of your own agenda.

How about "offensive" and "dialectic"? - have at least as much validity as your opinion.

[LSK]

86. yes, right after he is the starting 2B for the Chicago Cubs

:eyes:

[bowens43]

27. Her only hope is getting the neo-con vote

progressives, liberals and centrists won't vote for her.

[invictus]

36. Hillary has shown she cannot be trusted with the presidency. She's as insane as a Republican. n/t

[invictus]

37. If it votes like a Republican, talks like a Republican ....

it must be Hillary.

[Skidmore]

39. And, might I add...

quack!

Hillary has become the War Queen.

[NorthCarolina]

48. Hillary was a Republican before meeting Bill

and now she's a DLC Democrat (aka Republican)....same 'ol, same 'ol

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. Hillary = Bush wannabe

[Political Heretic]

51. She's campaigning to the right on security. It's a strategy - not a very good one.

[GoldieAZ49]

53. Democrats are always perceived as weak on national security

and we are a country at war.

America wants and needs a president that will defend the country when needed.

She is letting everyone know she is willing to make those difficult decisions.

America will not elect a president that will abandon Israel.

[kenny blankenship]

54. Fascism is a hard habit to break

[Lerkfish]

56. no fascist regime ever breaks the habit

until they were conquered by someone else.

so, yes, you're correct. Once you start fascism, it will never stop on its own, it will only get increasingly fascist until some outside force or inside revolution stops it.

[Occam Bandage]

61. Looks almost like she's pushing for a McCain VP slot at this point.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Now THERE'S a unity ticket.

McCain/Clinton.

That way she wouldn't even have to wait till 2012 - just step up when Granpa goes off to the home.

[BeyondGeography]

62. Jewish votes and AIPAC money

DUH

[SurfingAtWork]

64. I think it is wierd too

Why shift to the right, before the primaries have ended? It seems kind of self defeating. Kind of makes me wonder if she knows something we don't, in regards to how the primaries are going to end. :tinfoilhat:

[The Stranger]

75. I thought nothing could surprise me.

She sounds like a fucking Nazi megalomaniac.

[guruoo]

76. If they nuke Israel.

[suston96]

77. Where is the link to what she said? nt

[yurbud]

78. simple: she is selling herself to military-industrial complex, not us.

[madrchsod]

82. she already has

..levin and then hillary are 1-2 in military industrial complex earmarks .

[patrice]

104. THAT is exactly what she's doing.

:rofl: Like Obama's going to take the Military Industrial Complex apart! :rofl:
Ain't happenin' folks; he's just going to try to get us some breathing room, while we create whatever alternatives we are capable of. And then we'll ALWAYS have to "carry the ball" from there.

If anyone has learned anything from the HELL we find ourselves in right now, it has to be that we can never turn our backs on them anymore.

[Arugula Latte]

114. Bingo.

It's sad to me that her supporters here on DU don't see through her.

[yurbud]

115. I think her loudest supporters here are rentals if you know what I mean

their vacuous yet well-crafted posts give them away.

[yurbud]

79. I noticed in her discussion with Olbermann she said Iran getting nukes would start arms race but...

Israel already HAS nukes, so it would be suicidal for any nation to nuke them in any case.

And unlike Iran, Israel is not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Aloha Spirit]

94. This is my impression from the Olbermann interview: She wants to prevent Iran

from getting nuclear weapons, and the way she's gonna do that is by threatening them with annihilation.
That plan is tested and vetted.
It never works.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

101. nobody stopped Pakistan getting nuclear weapons

[patrice]

103. Right! If you think you're "done for" under any circumstance and it is only a matter of when,

you're much more inclined to shoot first. It's stupid to threaten foreigners for votes.

The SMART thing is to make it clear that both courses of events are EQUALLY possible, without letting the bad guys extort stuff from you for "peace". We must stay in control of what happens, that's what Strength is.

[patrice]

99. Yep. She's "Tough" alright, with other people's lives, that is apparent from the IWR. nt

[AngryOldDem]

102. Can someone explain how she differs from Bush?

Or McCain, for that matter?

[zulchzulu]

106. Funny how some Hillary supporters last night in interviews think...

...she will stop the wars she in fact helped start and now with this FUCKING Iran warmongering, they appear not to see beyond their noses...

What will it take for people to finally see the light?

[libnnc]

108. up is down black is white right is left....

:crazy:

It's looney-tunes time in Hillworld.

[BlooInBloo]

112. She's playing for the hick vote - the bombbombomb... bombbomb Iran vote.

[stranger_with_candy]

113. She's delusional

But what else is new?