but then, that's pretty standard for the HC supporter -- post a non-topical dodge and pretend you prevailed on the merits

about a regime that finances terrorists and a people that elects terrorists, that pour poison into their children's ears and commit terrorism on a daily basis and have shown zero evidence they're in the least bit interested in peace? bibi is an asshole but to pretend both Iran and the Palestinians are cherubs is nonsense.

nobody's pretending that either of them are boy scouts, and that's just projection, given that her whole argument -- as is the case with all of you neocons/supporters, is that the Israelis are saints, as indicated by the lack of any discouraging words for them.

You didn't give one ounce of criticism to the financiers of terrorism or the terrorist hamas until you were called on it. I called bibi an asshole immediately and for the hundreth time. One day you'll realize all those candidates saw that gallup poll last week - the one where the VAST majority of Americans sympathize with Israel - the candidates were speaking for the majority of Americans. Too bad for you.

when you're on the side of the issue that has such insignificant support - and this crosses party, age, gender and religious affiliation - maybe the problem is you.

It's not my fault the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you but you surely aren't important enough to start a war over it.

less important than any other person on the planet but you're free to feel the way you do.

but don't care enough to do the research. Just going to point out that one is measuring feelings about one foreign policy doctrine and the other is measuring sympathies for a country that's been around for a while. I don't think they're comparable but whatever.

Saddam was involved in 911, the first attack on US soil, and had WMD that he might use to attack the US. And, btw, Saddam and his sons are also the lowest form of human alive. That's the story Americans heard from media, from Repubicans and from some Democrats.

Now, let's poll Americans if they think the US should attack Iraq before Iraq attacks us.

I forgot the big "Yawn".
Great debating technique you got there.
Are you all blogging from the same room?

wouldn't you? Sorry, those who sympathize with the Palestinians over Israel represent a teeny minority of Americans - that's the reality that gallup shows every single year (they do that poll every February). I was accused to wanted to call in an air strike because I disagree with the poster and you don't like that that I couldn't care less about that hyperbolic bullshit. That's not my problem.

Geller.

Have yourself a lovely day.

because its better angels protested and would not sit down and shut up because theirs was the minority view at the time.

Not speaking to any specific issue here. Just pointing out that an argument that relies on numbers of people who agree or disagree about an issue is inherently weak.

the "better angels" as you call them continually vote in thoroughly corrupt and terrorists as leaders who do nothing but steal from their people, line their own pockets and instead of building schools and hospitals, build tunnels to kill Israelis. It's only a surprise to those who ignore reality that they have so little support.

or typical HC-supporter stuff

This post wasn't/isn't about them, and your effort from start too finish just the customary dishonestly dodging nonsense designed to change the subject from your precious warmongering Hillary and the case made against her.

Look at all those words saying absolutely nothing at all....well done. There isn't one lie in my posts and you know it.

meanwhile, the critique and all of its content directed at HC stands WHOLLY INTACT AND UNREBUTTED

Hardly - it's hard not to laugh at stupidity and it's obvious you only believe what you want to believe - that would be entirely your problem. I couldn't possibly care less. Toodles.

have left the material in the TP unaddressed and unrebutted

that's "knowledge" not a belief

you're trying only makes a woman like myself laugh out loud. Try it on some insecure man. I don't take the time to rebut garbage - it does that all by itself.

HC critique wholly UNADDRESSED AND UNREBUTTED while totally welcomed, were neither warranted nor solicited.

please proceed, no? Trying to associate the use of "impotent" in this instance with sex like that's the ONLY application it can have is just another example of how impotent you must apparently be, no?

Are you having a problem you need help with and would like to discuss? There are support groups all over the internet.

HC critique wholly UNADDRESSED AND UNREBUTTED while totally welcomed, were neither warranted nor solicited.

please proceed, no? Trying to associate the use of "impotent" in this instance with sex like that's the ONLY application it can have is just another example of how impotent you must apparently be, no?

Such bombing couldn't be carried out without heavy loss of civilian life.

Nobody is pretending that the Iranian government is made up of saints, or that the Palestinian leadership is.

What we're saying is that nothing can be made better in either place through the use of American or Israeli force.

to bomb Iran if there was loss of civilian life - I had zero problem with Israel taking out that Iraqi nuclear site. American troops have never fought in any Israeli war so I'm not sure what you're worried about there.

Besides which, we just got this agreement, so it's not as though nothing has changed.

And If Netanyahu reall wants to bomb Iran anyway, why doesn't he just go ahead and do it? Why is he so arrogantly insistant that rest of the world support him on doing this?

It wouldn't make any difference in the results of the bombing if he had global back-up versus if he didn't.

And he really has no right to ever ask for US support for an Israeli strike against Iran OR to demand that the US actually bomb Iran ourselves. We don't owe him that.

but whatever. I'm not as keen on Iran as you seem to be - perhaps those missiles with the messages in Hebrew disgust me more than they do you.

But we already know that there is nothing this country or anyone else outside Iran can do to change Iran for the better.

The mullahs are in power now largely because of the damage we did in 1953, the last time we brought regime change to that country.

from you despite their leaders and Israel doesn't.

It's just that, when we restored the Shah, we as Americans forever lost any right to lecture Iran as a country on anything or to claim moral superiority to Iran on anything. I assume you'll agree that we should never have overthrown Mossadegh in 1953.

Iran has a bad government, but nothing good can ever come of the US confronting that government. We've been implacably hostile to it since 1979, and if that hostility has achieved nothing there so far, that proves it never can achieve anything.

We already know that no US intervention there can ever have any progressive, democratic or humane results.

I do oppose Iran being repressive. It's a good sign that moderates won the last election. We need to leave this to the Iranian people. Change there can only be legitimate it it involves no one but the Iranians themselves. Bombing Iran(it would never just be an attack on one site) would hurt the democracy movement.

And I respectfully criticize the Israeli government when it oppresses the Palestinians. I don't oppose the existence of Israel. Nothing I have ever posted against there was essential to Israel's survival as a country OR the safety of the Israeli people.

The occupation and the settlements do nothing but harm to Israel and Israelis, and do nothing but make it harder to end the conflict.

If you care about Israel, you should be passionately anti-Netanyahu, anti-settler, and anti-right wing.

Oh Pleeeze.

is probably an unreasonable expectation

anyone with a minimum of intellectual heft and an ounce of integrity would no doubt conclude that the author of that headline was referring to all of the anti-Iran and Palestinian stuff she noted in her speech.

and that is a difficult conclusion to arrive at why exactly?

and I didn't "refer" to an entire article in response to the specifics of the demonization thing, but rather explained that the details of the "demonization" referred to is to be found in her speech.

Now, if I were to spend an "X" amount of time and text here criticising and condemning HC, would it be necessary for you to cite the specifics to allege, and justifiably so, that I "demonized" her?

Not at all. The "demonization" is to be found in her speech, which I ain't gonna look up for you, and no matter how much you struggle with the "google" as you do it seems with plain and simple English


on edit, and as I thought, it was linked to in the body of his post

That Clinton doesn't conceive of either of them as human beings is worrisome to me since they're both citizens - my son is a native.

Why the hell would I ever vote for someone who wants to bomb people who look like my son? People who are part of my son's family? Just for, well, living there (my family aren't terrorists - just people trying to earn a living in what they consider their native country).

Answer me that one?

Hope that was less "boring" for you.

Thank you for your post.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

We support Bernie because of these boring ideas of peace in the Middle East and decreasing wealth inequality, making our public servants work for us, not their big donors, fighting against climate change and the fossil fuel industry, and trying to get universal health care and affordable prescriptions. Etc
Oops there I go boring you again.

for nearly 18 hours now.

That's one group of voters she won't be getting.

Not a big group in the states, mind you, but it can certainly effect Michigan and North Carolina.

it's been backing up for a very ong time now

Then I checked out the transparency page that is list up like Christmas morning and realized it was just someone unhinged.

And now that we know she doesn't want our votes, per you, maybe we can cut it with the "unity" bullshit trying to be pushed by the Hillary supporters.

This poster seems like a special case, so use that button

"lewebley3, welcome to my naughty list."

then click ignore.

booyah

Hillary is, by definition, a neoconservative. Her speech was, in my opinion, the most honest that she's given during this campaign.

and even though she willfully if not gleefully played the role of the best witness for her own prosecution of that charge, it is no doubt a "rightwing smear" to submit the indictment...lol

Seriously. At least she is being honest.

If she's a neocon, which she clearly is--just embrace it and defend it.

Come out in the open and talk about it. Be honest about what this means going forward, and what your neocon agenda would look like if you were President.

I think the two of them have better access to her true foreign policy views than most of us here.

She is one of them (even if she doesn't say "I AM A NEO-CONSERVATIVE&quot .

Hillary supporters that deny this need to reconsider. There is A LOT at stake here.

while she was Secretary of State.

She could have picked anyone. And she chose the founder of the neocon movement. The godfather of war.

Isn't it interesting that Obama knew nothing about her private email server? He found out when the rest of us found out.

She was walled off, even from the President--consorting with neocon Blumenthal (a person that Obama instructed her to not consult with) and probably Kagan too. What do you want to bet that the entire Libyan debacle was planned on her little private server?

Vote was quite intended. So all those American and Iraqi deaths are wholly on her hands, she went in wanting war - not following. As everything has come out during her time as SoS, and now AIPAC, that is what I've come to believe. She's doing what she believed from the start, and won't stop. Unless she's stopped.

She actually took the floor of the Senate to shill for that shit.

Almost verbatim. From that same video, a few years later, she's gushing about business opportunities for American corporations...im Iraq. Then came the "It was a mistake" non-apology.

I think with a lot of them that is the precise motivation.

They know who they are endorsing. They KNOW her foreign policy world view and what actions she would be most likely to take.

They know much, much better than most of her supporters know.

Not many of them can credibly claim ignorance although they all seem to try.

As much as some accuse Sanders supporters of being influenced by rw propaganda, it seems that might be the case with many Democratic voters. Of course, I am not talking about Rush and Fox, per se, I'm talking about the DLC/3rdway/New Democrats. It's very apparent.

I believe she was being fairly genuine and true to herself in this particular speech. Hillary's a war-monger. She really likes to come across as tough -- so much so that it clouds her thinking. She's, frankly, quite scary in that regard. She just doesn't get it -- empire is a fatally doomed policy.

eom

... but it's not like Iran finances terrorists or anything. Or Palestinians go around randomly stabbing civilians on the street and killing people. (Including an America tourist by the way)



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-violence-tourist-idUSKCN0WA2FR




And by the way Bernie was more than willing to address AIPAC via video but they didn't accommodate him. Stupid move on there part.

well done.

Iran DOES finance terrorists. Palestinians DO commit terrorist acts every single day and elect terrorist organizations to lead them.

or more likely, as a neocon supporter at the very least, ignore the half (where much/many more die and live in a state of perpetual misery) about the Israeli state terrorism.

I've called bibi an asshole and warmonger on many occasions. Meanwhile, DU likes to pretend there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism and think that Israel deserves whatever it gets. Luckily, the VAST majority of Americans sympathize with Israel which is why all the candidates spoke (Bernie sent his statement to them) to the leading American organization that supports Israel. If the Palestinians had taken a state when they were offered it in 1947 instead of going to war, they wouldn't be living in misery. Actions have consequences.

Saudi Arabia is the largest financer of terrorism in the the world. Hillary sure is cozy with them. Have any problems with that?

This country should have become energy independent decades ago so we could let that shithole loose also. Any other questions?

You mean in the 90's? Bill Clinton was in charge, what did he do to help us reach that goal? And now we're going to put them in charge again. Insanity is the act of doing things over and over again, and expecting a different result, let's not put another Clinton in the WH. It will be the same result. Scandal and back door deals.

Actually I was thinking back to listening to President Carter. Tell me, Bernie has been in Congress for decades. Where are all the bills with his name on them calling for energy independence? You can pretend he's an outsider all you please but the fact remains he's been in Congress since 1991.

... does not make one a neocon.

I am a member a J-Street because I think a two sate solution is essential for Israels survival. I oppose West Bank settlements.

I opposed the Iraq war

I fully supported the nuclear agreement with Iran.

There is a line in The Newsroom where Will says something like "I am not a liberal I am a Republican I only seem liberal because I don't believe hurricanes are caused by gay marriage."

Well I am not a neoconservative I am a proud liberal. I only seem like a neocon because I refuse to declare solidarity with a group that has called for all Jews to be killed.

I'm sick and tired of being called a neocon because I wont wrap my arms around the terrorist hamas or country's the shoot missiles with messages like wiping Israel off the map on them.

We New Yorkers just have more sense.

at least we don't make excuses for terrorists.

"I am allergic to bullshit"

I couldn't care less about your affinity with the zionist war criminals

... your support of a terrorist organization.


You are lying and telling half the story as well

which has apparently left you all impotent and stuff, and all of which remains largely unaddressed and intact

You accused me of being a neocon. I had explained to you why opposing a terrorist organization does not make someone a neocon.

I said that they make basically the same arguments you did in your first response, and I'd add now, generally for the same reason -- to deflect in an effort to avoiding having to defend the war crimes on the part of Israel they largely agree with/support. In this case, there's the addition of being "impotent" when it comes to defending the charge of neoconism on the part of HC.

SHe's Nettheyahoo in a skirt, plain and simple, and nothing you've posted undermines that

I think Bibi is a first class asshole. One of the reasons why I hate Hamas is because they make me sound like I am a fan of Bibi.

And they are not war crimes. Terrorists are shooting rockets at their civilians. In those situations you have every right to shoot back.

If not for US obstructionism, they'd likely be charged with war crimes

That's why most of us voted for him over her in 2008. And it's not a coincidence that every single major breakthrough in Obama's foreign policy happened only after she and her crew of Neocons left the state department in 2013.

FP is where we see the most bipartisanship period, but some are certainly better than others.

I don't for example, see her having ironed out the Iran nuke thing as peacefully as BHO did.

I have little doubt about that.

But Obama has taken that option off the table for her unless Iran really screws up.