Why Is Hillary Repeating WH LIES About Iran Seeking Nuclear Weapons???

[leftchick]

She fucking said it again! Does she think ElBaradei is LYING??? More fucking warmongering!

No evidence Iran is making nukes: ElBaradei

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22664498-5005961,00.html

CHIEF UN atomic watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei said overnight he had no evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now," the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told CNN.

"Even if Iran were to be working on a nuclear weapon ... they are at least a few years from having such a weapon," he said, citing assessments by US officials themselves.

"At this stage we need to continue to work through creative diplomacy ... as I don't see any other solution than diplomacy and inspections," Mr ElBaradei said.

The White House on Saturday rejected any parallels between its Iran rhetoric and the run-up to the Iraq invasion, after fresh sanctions on Tehran and escalating US warnings fuelled comparisons to the months before the 2003 invasion.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

1. when has she not?

Hillary believes the only way to win the approval of the angry white assholes of America is to out-tough them.

The message Hillary is trying to get across is that she will stay the course on the Bush foreign policy,

[MethuenProgressive]

72. Obama and Edwards agree that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

Pay attention.

[TheWraith]

73. At this point, Iran would have to be stupid not to be seeking nukes.

They've seen the difference between Iraq and North Korea. And Iran definitely falls into the "crazy but not stupid" file.

[derby378]

2. Herr Decider is grooming her to succeed him

Iraq is Bush's War. He wants to make sure that, even if he starts it, Iran is Hillary's War.

[Botany]

3. need you ask?

she is bought and paid for.

[sendero]

14. Poppy and the Big Dog...

... ride around in golf carts brokering agreements.

HRC is not bound to serve the country, she is bound to serve the same haves that the Bush family serves. Anyone who cannot see that is blind, and probably pretty stupid as well.

[truedelphi]

67. People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe

Plus over the last twenty years a lot of people who grew up in Democratic households inherited enough money that they act like Republicans - so Hillary doesn't really bother them.

[Lone_Wolf]

31. Yep.. There's a reason weapons makers and

military contractors are donating to her campaign.

[orleans]

51. i'd love to see a link to donations like that. got one?

i can't seem to find weapons makers and military contractors on the list at opensecrets

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

[leftchick]

68. "Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary"

By Leonard Doyle, Independent UK. Posted October 31, 2007.

The U.S. arms industry has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party and is putting their money on Hillary Clinton.

http://www.alternet.org/story/65869/

The U.S. arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

Mrs. Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.

Employees of the top five U.S. arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of U.S. armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.

[orleans]

71. thanks. i was trying to find something on opensecrets but i appreciate this link. n/t

[Emit]

40. Part of the larger agenda, I suppose. n/t

[LakeSamish706]

4. There are allot of great candidates on the stage, but I'm sorry to say that...

HRC is not one of them. She is a war monger just like the current bunch in the White house and if she were to win the Presidency, we will see more of the same in the White House.

[scarletwoman]

5. Of course she is. She's the Warrior Queen of the New World Order.

Imperialism? Corporate Globalism? Militarism? Privitization? If you love those things, then H. Clinton is the candidate for YOU!

sw

[tularetom]

6. she thinks she has the nomination sewn up

so she's now trying to win over the "undecided" voters by sounding "tough".

Problem is when it comes to all this war shit, there are very few undecided voters. Almost everybody has decided they want us out, while a few delusional morans think it's going great and we should stay and invade Iran. Those who believe we should stay hate Hillary and will never be convinced to vote for her and she's driving the "undecideds" away (not to mention the real democrats). I think she's making a duumb decision.

[LakeSamish706]

9. The only thing that concerns me about "Almost everybody has decided they want us out"

is the Zogby poll with 52 % of Americans wanting to strike Iran... What the F*** is that all about? Who did they poll, and why would anyone want to bomb Iran? Thats just crazy!

[emilyg]

38. You and the media think that. How stupid of both of you.

[Harper_is_Bush]

7. Unless you print what exactly she said, your thread is just another worthless hit piece n/t

[LakeSamish706]

10. I disagree with you, she is a war monger and most of us know that...

I don't think you actually have to know what she said, you just have to see her voting record and the fact that she has never apologized for voting in favor of going to war with Iraq.

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. Sorry, but I'm not taking the OP's word for it.

You can run around blindly accepting everything you're told, but I'd prefer to know exactly what was said when someone accuses a Democrat of repeating Republican talking points on Iran during a specific debate.

If you were a good Democrat, you would too.

[CoffeeCat]

19. Maybe you should read a newspaper...

...every once in a while.

Go read what Bush says.

Hillary says it too.

For the love of Pete, you Hillary people want the truth spoon fed to you,
like you're a bunch of babies who need everything explained in great
detail.

Why do we have to explain it to you? She's your candidate, isnt' she? You don't know
how she votes or what she says from day to day?

Her warmongering is obvious to anyone who listens to her or watches how
she votes.

Wake the hell up and do your own friggin research!

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. If you want to make a claim, as you have or as the OP did, you need to support it

very simple concept.

And don't label me, please. Or make assumptions about me.

[CoffeeCat]

26. Make a claim?

Ok...so you want us to reference articles, find direct quotes
and Google all of the recent bills that she has signed?

If I say the sky is blue, will you want color charts, interviews
with atmospheric scientists and annotated research from several
NASA experts?

If you don't know it honey--then you aren't paying attention to the
obvious.

No one is "making a claim."

Hillary is a warmonger. That is a fact. It's no "claim." She shilled for the Iraq
war. She's shilling now for Iran. She recently voted for the Kyl/Lieberman
Amendment, which designated the Iranian Military a "terrorist organization".
In effect, this allows Bush to do whatever the hell he wants to Iran--without
the permission of Congress and without the approval of the American people.

There's some red meat for ya.

[Harper_is_Bush]

29. Re-read the OP. That is the claim.

I'm not making any sweeping comment about all of her past actions, I'm simply pointing out that the OP makes a specific claim about Hillary's words during the debates tonight.

The OP cannot support it, or refuses to.

End of story.

[leftchick]

11. are you watching the debates?

apparently not. She also repeatedly says the WH line about "IRAN SEEKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS" at all of her stump speeches! I do not understand this selective hearing on DU?!

[Harper_is_Bush]

13. So, in the debate she said "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons"?

Is that what you're telling me?

[leftchick]

15. turn on your tv

yes she did. why are you making such a big deal about an OBVIOUS FACT? She would like to 'engage' Iran.

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. But it's not an "OBVIOUS FACT". The OP claims that Hillary, in the debate tonight, is

"repeating WH lies about Iran".

That is certainly NOT an "obvious fact".

[leftchick]

60. here is the quote

But she also insisted, "I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb."

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9b889c41-f28b-489f-8733-34d64882939d&&Headline=Hillary+backs+Iran+sanctions



what did cheney say on Oct. 22? oh here it is.....


If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/22/national/main3390065.shtml


and what did ElBaradei say about Iran?

No evidence Iran is making nukes: ElBaradei

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22664498-5005961,00.html

:eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

33. My guess is that there aren't any threads about Gore running

for him/her to trash.:shrug:

[leftchick]

65. yes

But she also insisted, "I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb."

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9b889c41-f28b-489f-8733-34d64882939d&&Headline=Hillary+backs+Iran+sanctions

[emilyg]

8. What did she say? If you don't mind.

[leftchick]

16. same thing she has said forver like the rest of the neocons

"IRAN MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO SEEK NUCLEAR WEAPONS" plain enough?

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. What is your problem? The topic made a claim with no backing information

people have a right to label that as lacking.

Your story keeps changing as well.

[CoffeeCat]

17. Hillary is a NEOCON...

...yes, there are neocon Democrats too.

Anyone who doesn't understand this glaring truth by now---will probably not be able
to find their way to the polls--so we have nothing to worry about.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[harun]

63. That has been obvious the last few years

Unfortunately I think only a few percent of the people know this. The neo-cons certainly know it, that is why they aren't slamming Hillary more than they are. They think if she gets elected at least she will continue their wars for Israel.

[Phx_Dem]

66. Wars for Israel?

The only entities that benefit from the Iraq war are the oil companies and defense contractors.

[harun]

70. The only people who ever benefit from modern war are

bankers and war profiteers. However, in the region, a secondary beneficiary is clearly Israel. With Iraq in disarray the people in the region are blaming the U.S. and for once someone else is being blamed besides them.

Israeli hawks wanted the U.S. to take out Saddam and occupy Iraq. This won political points for the B*sh admin with the neo-con supporters.

[tyedyeto]

18. It worked a number of years ago, so she's repeating the BS the Chimp is spouting

According to 'polls', over 1/2 of all Americans believe that Iran now poses a threat as big as or greater than Iraq ever did. Of course she's going to be playing to those polling numbers.

After all, it's the terra, terra, terra game from here out. Doesn't matter if they are a D or R.

[CoffeeCat]

22. Hillary is a complete sell out...

It's one thing, when a Republican is a warmonger. We expect it
from the party of war and idiocy.

However, when one of our own, brings this neocon slime into our
house---well, I find that even a bigger crime.

Hillary needs to take the PNAC talking points somewhere else.

It's like someone showing up at a vegetarian dinner dressed in
a flank steak dress.

[tyedyeto]

25. ROTFLMAO

Love the analogy.

Spot on!!!

[Bitwit1234]

24. BASH BASH BASH BASH HILLARY CLINTON

Golly gee sounds like a song.

[ccpup]

28. it's one of the few things

uncreative, dangerously stupid people can do well

[Danger Mouse]

45. Got something to offer besides disgusting broad-brush attacks?

[creeksneakers2]

27. Apples and oranges

There is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. There is suspicion that they are. ElBaradei hasn't said he's convinced Iran won't build a nuclear weapon. He's said that it would take Iran years to do it.

ElBaradei is negotiating with Iran for more intrusive inspections but so far Iran hasn't come around. The facts that Iran doesn't allow more intrusive inspections and continues to process uranium when they could buy already purchased processed uranium for less and Iran could even have a nuclear power plant given to them if they would cooperate but so far they refuse provide good reason to suspect that Iran wants nukes.

Hillary is only pushing for negotiations, as is the French and every other Democratic candidate. ElBaradei himself is negotiating.

[eridani]

30. Other than being bad from the standpoint of proliferation--

--why would any sane person even give a flying fuck if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon? Even the proliferation argument is starting to look silly because the Bushies have been doing everything they can to egg on Pakistan and India in their nuclear competition.

The only thing that an Iranian bomb would be good for would be to give them the kind of protection that North Korea now has from military subjugation by the US. They couldn't use it on Israel--the whole country would be turned into a radioactive parking lot by Israel's 500+ nukes. Giving one to terrorists? Why in bloody hell would terrorists shop for nukes in Iran when there are so many available in Russia, which has a really, really lousy command and control system? Not to mention all those unemployed Russian nuclear scientists.

[creeksneakers2]

35. We can't exclude catastrophic nuclear irrational actions,

using a bomb to threaten and intimidate, taking other aggressive actions knowing they are protected by the bomb. Its also important to keep ALL nations which don't have nukes so far from getting nukes. Each time another country gets nukes, the remaining system of control weakens. Wouldn't Saudi want them next? Turkey? Who else?

[eridani]

37. Most of the bombing, threatening and intimidating just happen to be currently--

--being done by the country of which you are a citizen. The US is taking aggressive actions all over the world because it is protected by the world's biggest nuclear arsenal. What fucking aggressive actions has Iran ever taken against anybody lately? Iran/Persia has not invaded ANY neighboring country since the Sassanid Dynasty of the 7th century.

I agree with you that proliferation is bad in and of itself, but it is American imperial aggression in the Middle East which is promoting the desire of countries to go nuclear just to protect themselves from us.

[creeksneakers2]

39. Iran didn't invade Lebanon

But Iranian proxies fought for control of that country.

[eridani]

41. Please cut the bullshit

As you well know, Israel invaded Lebanon, thereby creating Hezbollah as the only successful resistance movement. Less than half of Hezbollah suicide bombers are actually religious Shi'ites. The majority belong to various nationalist secular parties, and three are Christian. How in fucking hell can anybody be dim enough to think that a college-educated female Christian suicide bomber is a proxy for Iran?

[creeksneakers2]

74. I didn't know Hezbollah had suicide bombers at all

They were in business before Israel invaded Lebanon. No doubt they were supported by Iran. Iran put a line item in their budget. The group previously advocated a Islamic state, so Christians weren't calling the shots all along.

By the way, because I think most countries in the world are capable of committing crimes doesn't mean I'm unaware that the US has committed some of its own.

[eridani]

75. Catch up on your history before you discuss this further

Hezbollah did not exist until FOUR FULL YEARS after Israel invaded in 1982

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/opinion/18pape.html

Three general patterns in the data support these conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks - 301 of the 315 in the period I studied - took place as part of organized political or military campaigns. Second, democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists; America, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades. Third, suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective: from Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign - 18 organizations in all - are seeking to establish or maintain political self-determination.

Before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, there was no Hezbollah suicide terrorist campaign against Israel; indeed, Hezbollah came into existence only after this event. Before the Sri Lankan military began moving into the Tamil homelands of the island in 1987, the Tamil Tigers did not use suicide attacks. Before the huge increase in Jewish settlers on the West Bank in the 1980's, Palestinian groups did not use suicide terrorism.

See also--http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1838214,00.html
http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=10087269

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Lebanon/10057969.html

But the strikes also destroyed whatever support Israel still enjoyed among Lebanon's Christians.

Among the dead was Joseph Bassil, a Christian. Out for his morning jog, he passed under the 300 metre Fidar bridge, to the north of Jounieh, just as it was destroyed by a huge bomb that pitched cars into the ravine below. Bassil was crushed to death and three motorists were killed.

"Hezbollah has never bombed us here, yet Israel bombs us here so who are the terrorists?" asked Manal Azzi, a 26-year-old HIV specialist, as she stood in the chasm where the Fidar bridge had stood. "We have spent 30 years rebuilding this country and now Israel is taking us back to the Middle Ages."

[eridani]

79. And yet more information--

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1188890.ece

"None of my family had seen Lebanon and I have not been back for 25 years," said 53-year-old Mr Mansouraty. "I was amazed by what has been achieved, the new buildings, the restaurants, the roads the great lifestyle. One only really appreciates that if one knew how devastated the place was. And now this.

"The Israelis have destroyed the buildings, the roads and that lifestyle. They have put the country back 30 years. I cannot believe this all happened because of the capture of two soldiers. This must have been months in planning.

"The only good thing is this; back in 1981 it was Christians fighting Muslims with the Israelis instigating much of it. This time the Israelis have united the people. I stayed in a Christian neighbourhood and people there opened up their homes to the Muslims."

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20000901ib.html

Islamic extremists were never much of a factor in Lebanon prior to the 1982 U.S.-backed Israeli invasion and the subsequent direct U.S. military intervention in support of a rightist Lebanese government installed under Israeli guns. During this period, the more moderate Islamic and secular groups were largely destroyed; Hezbollah filled the vacuum.

This fundamentalist movement, which was responsible for the kidnapping of several Americans and other Westerners in the 1980s, rose from obscurity a little more than eighteen years ago to become one of Lebanon’s most powerful political groupings. Hezbollah receives the core of its support from the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Shi’ites who fled north into the slums of greater Beirut due to years of Israeli attacks.

U.S. officials greatly exaggerated the role of Syria in controlling and supporting Hezbollah. Syria has historically backed the rival Amal militia. The Iranian role was also inflated. These overstatements were largely intended to discredit a genuinely indigenous movement; one which had widespread support for its resistance efforts against a foreign occupation condemned across Lebanon’s diverse communities. The group did not even exist until four years after Israel began its occupation and heavy bombardment of southern Lebanon. Thus, Hezbollah is very much a manifestation of U.S. and Israeli policy. The perception of achieving a military victory, while those advocating a more moderate ideology and a diplomatic solution have failed, has enhanced Hezbollah’s status.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15819.htm

Why Hezbollah's Al-Manar Television is broadcasting Sunday Mass

By Sophie McNeill

12/05/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- BEIRUT: A truck laden with yellow Hezbollah flags drives past the Christian neighbourhood of Gemayzeh early Sunday morning in downtown Beirut. There's a picture of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on the windscreen, but it's not his name that the young men on board are chanting. "General, General!" yell these young Shiite boys.

Their chant is for the leader of Hezbollah's largest Christian ally, the former General Michel Aoun. And this van captures an important dynamic that many of the international and Lebanese press have omitted from their coverage of the last few days -- that almost a quarter of the crowd at the huge anti-government protests have been Lebanese Christians.

The size and commitment of the Christian participation became clear Sunday, as thousands of Christians from Aoun's 'Free Patriotic Movement' marched in from East Beirut to join their Shia allies in calling for the Prime Minister to resign.

[Ghost Dog]

52. Indeed. Iran was on the hit-list since before the selection,

and all the threats and aggression, the lies and the negative diplomacy, have proceeded from one side only, although Iran has been forced to expand.

The debate has been framed from the beginning for the purposes of the U.S.'s perceived "Manifest Imperial Destiny": Middle-Eastern and Central Asian energy supplies must be secured for corporations and their masters.

Iran had been covering up undeclared nuclear activity - experimentation, it seems - but then went to the IAEA to fess up and agree henceforth to work transparently under the NPT and IAEA inspections, including special 'surprise visit' inspections. But the U.S. had its agenda and Iran was pressured; there was no attempt at genuine diplomacy, only the negative, purely propagandistic variety devoted to spinning the domestic media and thus popular perceptions and the collective 'reality' in the USA.

As for nuclear weapons, these would seem to potentially serve little in Iran's defence, which would most intelligently rely on conventional forces, 'asymetric' tactics, and the hearts and minds of the people.

[eridani]

76. Most of the threatening and intimidating in the Middle East is done by the US

Would Iran be under the control of fundie whackjobs at all if our foreign policy elite had not overthrown the SECULAR democratic government of Iran in 1954? Here's an idea--why don't we just quit fucking with people?

[TheLastMohican]

56. Erm excuse me?

Lousy command and control system in Russia?

Care to give a source on at least one nuke from Russia ending up in the wrong hands?

Oh, right they do it in James Bond movies, so it must be true.


:sarcasm:

[eridani]

77. We have very narrowly avoided mishaps from Russian nukes in the past

Get a clue about the real nuclear threat that we face


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15604

The danger is not that the Russians will get angry with us, or plan to attack us. The danger is that they will quietly adopt a cheap and easy defense against a preemptive American attack, by keeping their forces on a hair-trigger alert. This presents the US with the threat of a large-scale Russian attack by mistake during some future crisis; for instance, the Russians may receive misleading warnings of an imminent American attack and launch their own nuclear weapons before they can be destroyed on the ground. (According to Russian sources, it now takes fifteen seconds for the Russians to target their ICBMs, and then two to three minutes to carry out the launch.) This danger is exacerbated by the gradual decay of Russia's capabilities for surveillance of possible attacks and control of their own forces, a decay that has already led them on one occasion to mistake a Norwegian research rocket for an offensive missile launched from an American submarine in the Norwegian sea.

Even though the threat of a large Russian mistaken attack is not acute, it is chronic. It is also the only threat we face that could destroy our country beyond our ability to recover. Compared with this threat, all other concerns about terrorism or rogue countries shrink into insignificance.

This brings me to the one real value of our large nuclear arsenal: we can trade away most of our arsenal for corresponding cuts in Russian forces. I don't mean cuts to about two thousand deployed weapons, but to not more than a few hundred deployed weapons on each side, and with each side having not more than a thousand nuclear weapons of all sorts, including those in various reserves, as called for by a 1997 report of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences. In that way, although the danger of a mistaken Russian launch would not be eliminated, the stakes would be millions or tens of millions of casualties, not hundreds of millions.

Such cuts would also reduce the danger that Russian nuclear weapons or weapons material could be diverted to criminals or terrorists. Instead of seeking the maximum future flexibility for both sides in strategic agreements with the Russians, we should be seeking the greatest possible irreversibility on both sides, based on binding ratified treaties. We ought also to be spending more on the program, originally sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar, that assists the Russians in controlling or destroying their excess nuclear materials. At this moment, when the Russians are eager to improve relations with the West, when considerations of economics provide them with a powerful incentive to reduce their nuclear forces, and when for the first time they have a president powerful enough to push such reductions through their military and political establishments, we have an unprecedented opportunity to begin to escape from the risk of nuclear annihilation. It is tragic that we are letting this opportunity slip away from us.

[Individualist]

32. She's a DLC member

DLC enables neocons.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. And Democratic voters support DLCers

Isn't it interesting how that works?

[Individualist]

43. ...in your dreams

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Who elected Hillary to the Senate?

:shrug:

[Individualist]

46. Duh! The people of New York.

Since her election, more people are becoming aware that DLC is a subversive organization.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. What happened when the far-left anti-war candidate ran against Hillary in 2006?

Hillary Clinton 577,605 83%

Jonathan Tasini 115,943 17%

[walldude]

34. I don't believe that it's a lie...

I know if I were Iran and staring down a U.S. President who would attack me for made up reasons I'd want a nuke to use as a deterrent as well. The lie is that they are going to get a nuke and drop it on Israel the next day.

[Danger Mouse]

47. She wants war with Iran, plain and simple

...and it seems like a lot of Americans do, too.
Wtf?

[Disturbed]

48. She does not care what the Liberal Wing of the Dem Party

thinks or wants. She is targeting her campaign to the Moderate Repugs, Conservative Dems & Swing Voters.
She has triangulated all of her positions to garner those votes.

[ShortnFiery]

50. Neo-Liberalism: Perpetual War but with the soft touch ... a velvet glove of feigned compassion ...

for the those non-investor peon citizenry of America ... whose duty it is to wage slave into an early grave as well as send off their children KILL and DIE for our blessed superiors within the privileged investing and political ruling classes. :crazy: :(

[area51]

53. "Why is Hillary repeating WH lies?"

Because she's a rightwinger who should be running as a republican. Republinazi pundits may be screaming about her, but they'll be voting for her, because they know she'll be Bush lite.

[leftchick]

54. Cheney or Clinton? Same shit different day......

If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/22/national/main3390065.shtml



The New York senator said Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, its NATO allies and Israel and accused the Bush administration of negligence in dealing with Iran.

However, she made clear that Iran "must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/15/clinton_on_iran_all_options_must_remain_on_table/

[deacon]

55. Very good question. She's a hawk. I've seen enough of her - no way she gets my vote.

[Richard Steele]

57. K&R

[MiniMe]

58. I think they are working towards a nuke

They would be stupid not to work towards that. All their neighbors have one, including Pakistan and India. That doesn't mean that they have one, or that getting one is imminent. They way to deal with it is not stamping your feet and threatening them, it is to enter talks with them.

It would be short sighted to not keep that on your radar, along with many other countries.

[harun]

64. Even if they do, who cares? It isn't like they can use it

Which is why I don't think they are that worried about getting one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

[mod mom]

59. Here's why: DLC-PNAC links:

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

-snip

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[leftchick]

61. and AIPAC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7tiEt_iguY

[yurbud]

62. we must leave all options open for seizing Iranian oil for American transnational corporations

not that they will sell it to us on favorable terms or anything.

[conspirator]

69. BECAUSE she works for the elite. She is part of the machine, the system,

her words are void and cynical. Every main stream media backed candidate is on the oligarch pay roll.

[Nuntius_Barbari]

78. She is saying that because she wants to be in the WH more than anything else. n/t

[CK_John]

80. Just maybe because Iran has said they are going to make weapons grade fuel rods. n/t