from OpEdNews.com

Clinton, Edwards and Obama: Strike Iran

Why the Democrats Won't Save Us

Over the past weekend Hillary Clinton pledged to end the war in Iraq if she is elected. "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will," she told a large crowd at the Democratic National Committee's winter convention in Washington.

It was the first time since announcing her candidacy that Hillary acknowledged the growing movement against the war when discussing Iraq, which faced its bloodiest period since the invasion almost four years ago with over 1,000 reported deaths in the last seven days alone. Also in attendance at the DNC meeting were other presidential hopefuls, including John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama, who both attempted to paint themselves as the best antiwar candidate in the hunt for the White House.

The top candidates' tepid words on Iraq were a sign of what's to come over the next year and a half as their rhetorical talents are turned on high. Despite Obama's reassurance that he did not support the war from the beginning, along with Edwards' claims that he's had a change of heart on his past pro-war votes -- neither candidate distinguished their position from the Bush administration when it came to the looming Iran confrontation.

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly:

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons ... The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week. "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,'' Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.''

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush's dubious "war on terror" or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Times like these require bravery. They require a fight. A fight against immoral and illegal policies. A fight against tyranny. A fight for freedom. Freedom from hatred. Freedom from occupation. Americans and the people of the Middle East deserve better than Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. They deserve to live their lives without the threat of warfare and bloodshed. They deserve to live without fear.

by Joshua Frank

My question is this: Are these three would-be POTUSES aware that the only way to penetrate Iran's underground sites is with atomic weapons, i.e. "tactical nuclear devices" (if we know where they are, that is)?

I believe they are saying what their analysis indicates will get them elected.
Hopefully their analysis is wrong.

"Allowed"? That's a word you use when talking about a child. Iran is a sovereign nation, but the leadership of the US no longer seems to respect that concept.

To your question -- There's more than one way to shut down a nuke site. The most effective way might be to destroy the whole thing with nuclear bunker-busters, but an alternative would be to seal the entrances using conventional weapons, repeated as often as necessary.

I believe they are saying what my analysis indicates will get us exterminated. Hopefully my analysis is wrong.

Hopefully none of them get elected. This is just sad to me. Poll-watching Democrats trying to exploit every situation to their own political advatage. And don't think that the Bush Administration isn't watching this as they consider how they can attack Iran and get away with it. Doesn't give me a lot of faith in the Democrats.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. - The Who. "Fooled Again"

Last November gave me more hope for a Progressive agenda than I have felt ever. (half a century)
It's happened before when the trauma of the Great Depression brought us Roosevelt. And today the Neo-'s are actively doing battle with these things brought into existance by that ere of enlightenment, and all to often winning.

Let us hope the trauma is once again enough to cause progressive change. If it is not? Then we deserve what we accept.

If the Democrats miss the boat and fail to seize the reigns of the new progressive feeling spreading across the country so they can go back to playing their same old political games now that they are back in power, they will have thrown away a magnificent opportunity, both for them and for us. I'm trying to stay as neutral as possible and not condemn them, but I am waiting and watching to see what they do. Actions speak louder than any of the many words they use to make themselves look good. I won't be fooled.

You mean, there isn't much difference between a Democrat and a Republican? Say it aint so!

He may have said that, won't speak for him.
For myself though, I absolutely did not say that!

I never have said they were the same, but you must admit that the same old political games that these Democrats insist on playing again and again and again are beyond tiresome. Do they play us all for fools? What will it take for them to stop playing games with the American people and the country? Perhaps a Republican President in 2008? I'm afraid it is looking that way. And even then will they blame themselves for their failure or just strive to play the game a little better next time?

If these three are the best and brightest of the Democratic Party Presidential candidates (oh, and let's not forget the 'ultra-progressive' Biden), then we should go third party. I refuse to vote for a candidate on the basis of their party when I do not have a good feeling about the candidate him/herself.

SOME Democrats are much more to the right than I am comfortable with.
This does NOT mean the Democratic Party is similar or the same as the Republican party.


There is very little differance between a Neo-Liberal (SOME Democrats) and the Neo-Conservatives (MOST Republicans)
As of yet very few of us seem to understand where the differances really are and just who is who.
And if WE don't "Get It", how the hell we gonna educate the MSM recipients?

I couldn't identify it 'til I read your post, but I think you've put your finger on a fatal weakness in BushCo's way of thinking. It might well signify a lower than optimal level of intellectual development (as opposed to a lower level of education or intelligence). Here's what I mean. To speak of a nationstate as if you're speaking of a child is to anthropomorphize a country. Condolezza Rice does it constantly ("...Unless they change their behavior,..."). This is operant-conditioning jargon, which might work with children, mice, and Pavlov's dogs, but to conceptualize a complex, multifarious, inanimate abstraction in that way is a gross misapplication of behaviorism. Yet this has been the dominant approach in the social sciences for decades. Another example of this reification is Bush calling North Korea an "evil country." Black and white thinking is another symptom of brain damage and/or intellectual immaturity.
.
I also agree with your point that it isn't the president's place to "allow" anything in a sovereign state. The same disregard for sovereignty is also seen in the snatching of people (even diplomats) off the streets in Iraq, Germany, and God knows where else and "disappearing" them.

When I was fifteen, I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and devoutly believed that had I lived in Germany at that time, I would have assassinated Hitler (or tried, like Bonhoffer), even if it meant my eternal damnation. I realize now that that's no solution. This isn't just one man. It's a juggernaut. What can we do?

Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, has the full support of Ruppert Murdoch, a neoconservative.

And there are still people out there who think there's a difference.

Between Hillary and Ruppert? No dissagreement.
Between Democrats and Neo-con Republicans? Toeg, you have come here to be insulting?

I don't know of many progressives who support Hillary. Hillary Clinton is not a progressive by anyone's definition. She is a political opportunist who is using the Democratic Party as a platform for her own personal ambitions. I could not respect her less. Please do not judge all Democrats by the likes of Hillary Clinton, because they are not all like her. I think most progressives are smart enough to see through her as clearly as they see through a perfectly transparent window. She fools no one except for Big Business and the MSM and, of course, the Sheeple, who are always waiting to be fooled by someone or something. Meanwhile all the MSM is trumpeting "Hillary vs. Obama".

Hillary is a Democrat, fair and square!
However, no, she is NOT progressive. She IS a Neo-Liberal, and the Neo-Liberals are in fact very very similer to the Neo-Conservatives who have pretty much owned the Republican party for most of a decade now. (True Conservatives are waking up and are not too pleased at what they see. Case in point, Abell7)

So, to make the statement that Democrats are the same as Republicans, based on the similarities between Neo-Liberals of the Democratic Party and the Neo-Conservatives of the Republican party, is beyond naive. It's out right irresponsible and or deliberately stupid! (that is, assuming the one making said claim it's himself a last gasp, that 30% that won't let go of Bushco, political operative for the Neo-con dominated Conservative party)

I think our friend, toeg, is a Republican operative. The Republicans are the only ones bangin' the "both the same" drum now, and the only strategy behind that would be to discourage voters from...voting. And the Republicans are the only folks who benefit from low voter turnout. The more people vote, the more Democrats get elected. His job isn't to debate anybody, or present factual information. His job is to keep bangin' out "both the same, both the same, both the same...". That he posts it here on POAC so consistently only attests to the popularity and wide readership of the board.

I absolutley agree.

Toeg, in a back handed way gives the POAC a large compliment, and even Toeg must bow to the truth presented on this site,
or he wouldn't be here.

I thought the Repug line was that Dems are "soft on terror" for wanting to wind down the Iraq war. Maybe they're planning a policy shift? That would be a first. They still think Reagan did the right thing in Iran/Contra.

I know a Repug when I see one, and Toeg is not. He comes from a nuttier, more fringe-type world of resistance, where everybody's in a conspiracy (as opposed to just the Bush inner circle).


It is a credit to the admin that the info on this site is useful to more than the intended audience of progressives.