Hillary is absolutely SHAMELESS...she is becoming the goddess of war

Lost in the debate on Wednesday was the fact that Hillary Clinton has turned to the right of even Bush when it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East.

She proposed "massive retaliation" against Iran and she also proposed a "US security umbrella" in the Middle East...



These statements by Hillary Clinton are extremely disturbing for two reasons...

1) She is threatening Iran with "massive retaliation" when our own intelligence reports say there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. She assumes this to be true just like she assumed Saddam had WMD. This is a a disturbing pattern for her. She is essentially threatening Iran with nuclear annihilation.

2) Hillary wants to increase our involvement in the Middle East by creating a Middle Eastern NATO. Bush hasn't even proposed this. She wants to create a "US security umbrella" for various countries in the region.

America sticking it's nose in the Middle East for decades led to 9/11. There is no question about that. Now Hilary comes along and wants to INCREASE our involvement there by creating a Middle Eastern NATO. She is also threatening countries in the Middle East with nuclear annihilation. This is disgusting.

:puke:

She's a fucking NEOCON.

:grr:

JOe started out the way she is starting.

How do we know if she got the nomination that she wouldn't turn into Joe Lieberman II? I no longer trust her. I am sad to say that.

Gosh those big old bases in Iraq look mighty convenient.

She is not getting us out of Iraq. What a joke.

2) She is proposing a pact of nations in that self-same region which oppose nuclear proliferation. Is that bad?

No one is threatening nuclear annihilation to anyone. If you're disgusted, take some Pepto-Bismol.

and her supporters don't seem to have a problem with that. I guess anything to keep the daily kool-aid fix coming...

more jobs for the defense industry.

:shrug:

the one who voted in favor of declaring the Iranian military a terrorist organization.

And now making inflammatory, threatening remarks against other nations.

This is not the kind person you want to have with their finger on the red button.

She needs to be as far away from that red button as possible.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

Msongs

threatening countries with nuclear annihilation. She is also proposing a Middle Eastern NATO that will increase our involvement there. What we need is less involvement in the Middle East.

Too bad I missed it :-(

kind of a mealy mouthed statement for someone who wants to be CIC but I'm sure what Senator Obama was saying is that the protection of Israel is something the United States takes seriously and would use military force to counter aggression there. But Senator Clinton took it further, once again showing her command of foreign policy. In no uncertain terms she let it be known that an attack on Israel would be met with MASSIVE RETALIATION.

Senator Obama saying "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" also sends a warning to Iran but Senator Clinton was more forceful in her words and while the intent of BOTH Presidential candidates is clear, Senator Clinton made sure the American people actually understood what she was saying.

What makes more sense to the American people......saying we can "offer them carrots and sticks" as one candidate stated or "we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran"?

The problem with Senator Obama is that he doesn't explain his positions in a clear and concise manner and consequently no one realizes (and it seems especially his supporters) that he is really saying the same things as Senator Clinton when it comes to policy.

What she espoused were not progressive ideals at all, they were Republican and Neocon ideals. Most Democrats would disagree with her statements. What we need is less involvement in the Middle East and we need to keep away from forming these alliances, for the sake of our own national security.

According to you, what makes more sense to the American people is warmongering. Many Americans don't want any more of this. We've had 8 years of it under Bush.

And if you prefer it to be in words that the American people can understand, then you have Senator Clinton. If you prefer that this supposed "warmongering" posture is to be shown only in rhetorical generalizations, then you have Senator Obama. But they both threatened Iran or any other country in the M/E with a response should Israel be attacked. Senator Clinton's words were just easier to understand.

And until the US weans itself off of large quantites of oil, we will be involved in the Middle East. Doesn't matter which of the 3 are elected.

Obama emphasized negotiation while Hillary spurned negotiation and took the threatening warmongering approach. Obama may have sounded unclear to you, but he was clear as can be with me.

Negotiation and utilization of other methods instead of the Bush attack-first-ask-questions-later approach.

"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."

vs


"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

"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."

and

"As I said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel, is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security, we consider paramount. And that would be an act of aggression that we would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable. And the United States would take appropriate action."


vs


"Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States."

Same thing.

Once again, Senator Clinton is to the point and using words easily understood by Americans while Senator Obama just isn't able to do that. His use of the term "I will take no options off the table" in speaking of a US response to the development of or use of nuclear weapons in Iran should offend you also if Senator Clinton's words on the M/E got you so upset.

Massive Retaliation doesn't.

An attack on Israel by Iran will result in massive retaliation from a President Clinton, a President Obama or a President McCain. This is getting ridiculous.

How is "massive retaliation" an "appropriate action"?

We were able to let the whole USS Liberty issue go by without a "massive retaliation".

from giving Iran the finger from the White House to nuking them back to the stone age.

What does the USS Liberty have to do with Iran getting or using nuclear weapons or attacking Israel?

It could, but it doesn't have to.

You finally got it.

in the Middle East, you will be pointing to "appropriate action" and demanding that it be understood as massive retaliation. I put the kids to bed a couple of hours ago. Not playing anymore games this evening.

I'm not making that argument.

You always talk about what the GOP will do to Obama. You must have missed FrenchieCat's post on this. She nails you weak Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5581040

This is what it was like arguing with those knotheads in the last 2 election cycles. The obvious escapes them and really, what's the use. So now I'm a "weak democrat" for pointing out the obvious, then I was a "liberal" for pointing out the obvious. I blame television for the dumbing down of America, anyone else have any thoughts on that?

It was designed to draw us into a war for Israel, and it will happen again.

thats the difference between them.

While Hillary just goes around making threats in the crudest terms possible. That cowboy approach doesn't help anything. It just makes things worse. She shows little interest, patience or ability for diplomacy. Her approach seems to be 'shoot first, ask questions later.' Well I think most Americans and most of the world are fed up with the wild cowboy approach to foreign policy. 8 years too much.

when discussing the Middle East? Hint, it wasn't Senator Obama. He preferred to call it "offer them carrots and sticks".

"I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons" and "I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons"

These two sentences sound far more cowboy, and Bush like, than anything Senator Clinton said on the subject.

Obama in that statement clearly offered carrots and sticks. He didn't rule out the use of force while offering negotiations and carrots. The difference between them is that Clinton wants to offer only sticks.

It's very clear in the transcript posted. Senator Clinton's words were detailed and specifically mentioned diplomatic efforts with Iran.

The use of the term "carrots and sticks" is also telling of a failing in Senator Obama and that is his inability to convey his message in terms the American people can readily understand. On the other hand, Senator Clinton was specific and her language easily understood by most Americans.

:shrug:

From the transcript it's clear Obama has an emphasis on diplomacy while Hillary has an emphasis on war. "Massive retaliation" and a "US security umbrella" are terms she should avoid if she wants to focus on diplomacy instead of war.

Everyone who grew up during the cold war knows exactly what these terms mean. She clearly wants to focus on sticks.

not negotiations. Look, this is going nowhere. Either you heard or read what was said during the debate and understood it or you didn't. English is a complicated language, there are many ways to say the same thing and that is exactly what happened with these two candidates discussing the Middle East. One candidate chose to use language that is easily understood and difficult to mistake while the other candidate used language that was deliberately obtuse or politicospeak. The message was the exact same.

I hope to god she wouldn't rule out personal negotiations, but she did. VERY Bush-like. Thank god Obama isn't so shortsighted.

War is SERIOUS business and EVERYTHING should be done to prevent it, including personal negotiations. Unfortunately Hillary seems to be going down the same path as Bush by coveting war and chaos.

And they had the actual capability of killing us, unlike this ridiculous neocon fantasy that Iran is a "threat" to anybody.

If Ronald Reagan could sit down with the leader of the so-called "evil empire", how the Hell can any president be afraid of talking to an Iranian figurehead?

You do realize that if Chimpy had talked to the previous Iranian government - you know, the guys who organized candlelight vigils for the US after the alleged "terrorist" attacks of 9-11 - in 2003, when they asked him to, there would be no Ahmadinejad in office today. Not that he can actually do much. As I said, he's a figurehead.

Senator Clinton wrote that she would not negotiate with "hardliners" of which Ahmadinejad is only one. Considering that 80 members of the Iranian parliament are members of the IRG which she believes are terrorists. Thus she would not talk with them although those members have voted for the more moderate Iranian leaders. A note here: there really are no true moderates in Iran anyway, so that means that she can talk to no one within that government. Besides, the IRG is the main feeder organization for the Iranian diplomatic core. This is not unusual even within our our government.

Her qualifier buried within her statement negates any possibility of progress for peace with Iran.

Doing what it takes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is not an unreasonable statement to make. What else is he supposed to say? If Obama doesn't state things in clear, strong terms, he would be immediately pounced upon by his opponents (McCain, Hillary) for being soft on Iran. And as we all know, being seen as soft on Iran would be the death knell for any one's election chances.

Having said that, there are ways of stating things in strong terms without going overboard or sounding like you're eager to invade yet another country that did us no harm.

both candidates did sound eager to respond to an attack on Israel or an attack on Iran for getting or using nuclear weapons. One was just better prepared and used terms understandable to the bulk of the electorate.

that's a quality we need in a POTUS.

one who is thoughtful in his remarks and who doesn't end up putting their foot in their mouth.

when people say dumb things on an international stage it ends up pissing people off. that's not a great way to make friends in the world.

definitely not the top slot. Most Americans will agree with that sentiment in November so it will make a difference where he is on the ticket.

the popular vote, pledged delegates, and states won?

:rofl:

Wishful thinking my friend.

but that's the only way there will be a Democratic Party President next January. Please mark this post and refer to it around the 2nd week of November.

thing... well done, and appropriate!

Oh, well, so will McCain, her newest buddy-buddy.

'Cause if they don't then hilary is something else of WAR.