THIS is Why the Clinton's support McCain! It MAKES SENSE!

[Why Syzygy]

PATRIOTIC Americans LOVE WAR!

Why has Bill Clinton been going around trumpeting McCain's PATRIOTISM? Why have Bill and Hillary endorsed McCain's EXPERIENCE and credentials?

The War is On, is the message I'm getting. If Hillary doesn't get the opportunity, they HAVE to go with McCain. Obama doesn't want more war!

What if Bush is playing stooge for the Clintons by warming up a few war drums while waiting for their mistress to take the lead reins?

Are all those rich folks who are pissed about their money not buying the office of the President of the United States vis a vis Hillary, part of the WAR CROWD? They donate to McCain too!

Why do I suddenly get the feeling that The Clinton's & cronies true agenda is MORE WAR?



Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel
The Associated Press
Published: February 1, 2007

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php


January 3, 2006

Entrenched Hypocrisy
Hillary Clinton, AIPAC and Iran
By JOSHUA FRANK

As Sen. Clinton embraces Israel's violence, as well as AIPAC's duplicitous Iran position, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the recent shelling of the Gaza Strip. Over the past weeks Israel continues to mark the occupied territories (they call 'buffer zones') like a frothing-mouth K9 on the loose.
Hillary Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran in the future. AIPAC's right -- even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against Hillary "warmonger" Clinton.
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032006.html



EDWARDS BLASTS HILLARY IN IRAN SPEECH

Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:33 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Edwards

From NBC/NJ's Tricia Miller and NBC's Abby Livingston
IOWA CITY, IA -- Edwards used his speech today on Iran to once again blast Clinton for her vote designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
...
And he used her vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to segue to his new policy on dealing with Iran, accusing her of playing along with the Administration. “Sen. Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington and talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire,” he said. “One of her advisers told the New York Times that was because she was shifting from primary mode to general election mode. Well, we only need one mode all the time, and that mode should be the same for the primary and general election, and that mode should be tell the truth mode.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/05/448626.aspx


January 23, 2006 Hillary Clinton, War Goddess
She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran

The Bush administration, for all its bellicose rhetoric, has shown little stomach for directly confronting Tehran, and this has prompted Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton to take on the Bushies for supposedly ignoring the alleged threat from Iran. Speaking at Princeton University on the occasion of the Wilson School's 75th anniversary celebration, Clinton aligned herself with such Republican hawks as Sen. John McCain and the editorial board of the Weekly Standard, calling for sanctions and implicitly threatening war:

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428

[chknltl]

1. First rec. I felt this way as well...still do

Who does the Military Industrial Complex show the most support for? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html
edited for link addition

[Butch350]

34. If Iraq needs more troops...

Then it's time to fire up the "D" word, "Draft".
I remember the ol Viet-Nam days. What to continue the War? Want to help troop re-enforcement - then
the draft is the way to go then baby.

Vote McCain, get a paid vacation, see the ME!

[readmoreoften]

2. Obama doesn't want more war? He's expanding the military by 100K and moving into Pakistan ASAP.

Both Clinton and Obama have voted to fund the war. Both want to expand the military. Both want to expand corporate reach via military power abroad (AKA 'protect our interests abroad.' Stop overestimating these candidates. Rose colored glasses aren't going to get us anywhere.

Just. Stop. It.

[babylonsister]

4. Can I have a link to that expansion of the military under Obama,

because I've asked numerous times and no one seems to have one. Thanks.

And would that be because the military has been so weakened by this illegal occupation, or because he wants to throw 100K more soldiers in Iraq? That's not what I've heard.

[Ravy]

30. Get to know your candidate...

"Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines"

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

[babylonsister]

31. "...to reduce the strain on our active force. " That's exactly right.

Don't they deserve a break? That doesn't mean he will send them all to Iraq.

[Ravy]

32. I don't want to argue. You asked for a link, I provided it.

I wasn't making any argument either way, so a "thank you" would have sufficed.

[babylonsister]

33. I wasn't arguing either. And you're right-thank you. nt

[bhikkhu]

14. Read more often, or at least listen to the candidates stump speeches

You can say that they are liars, but we do not have a Democrat candidate that can possibly pursue unnecessary war without all hell breaking loose here at home. They have stated that they will not.

Obama's statement is stronger and more reliable, to me, than Hillary's, and is a part of why I support Obama. In any event, it is possible financial issues will tank the possibility of unlimited war funding we have so enjoyed, regardless of who is the president.

[SaveAmerica]

23. Please stop spreading that lie! I talked to someone in TX who was going to vote for

Clinton because she was told Obama wants to go to war with Pakistan. In one of the debates he said we have more reason to be in the mountains of Pakistan where Bin Laden is supposedly holed up than to be in Iraq.

[Buzz Clik]

27. "moving into Pakistan ASAP" LOL! Only slightly revisionist.

[MH1]

3. I don't know about the others, but Joshua Frank is worthless.

He told his share of lies about Kerry in 2004 and since. In fact I normally alert on posts that cite Frank, because he is rabidly anti-Democrat.

If Joshua Frank characterizes Clinton as a "war-monger", then I need to revisit my perception of her - she must be a pretty peace-loving person.

[Why Syzygy]

5. sorry

I'm not a political blogger specialist. I just googled. I did hesitate to use the website, but there are enough other sources to balance any tip posed by one.

[MH1]

25. understood

it's just that there are "freepers" on both sides of the spectrum, and we should avoid spreading the garbage of either side.

I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion about Clinton but I get there by a different means. I don't think the IWR was really intended as a "vote for war" in the sense it is now taken (but she should have admitted her mistake by now), and the Iran vote I think also has some nuances. BUT given how beholden she is to big corporations - and the apparent willingness to play that game - is what makes me think she would do the bidding of the military-industrial complex (as well as the bidding of the prison-industrial complex and the healthcare-industrial complex). And their bidding will of course be whatever sells more of their product: i.e., more war.

[crankychatter]

15. ty

wakin up

[bonito]

6. It's like when a nation gets the nuclear advantage

They become bigger players in world affairs and it's like no one wants more competition at that level.
I think the best thing we can be doing is resolving the Palestine issue by providing a place everyone can call home, just provide equipment and supplies for a sustainable existence,look at the cost of war it would be far less costly, starting there I think it is the most positive step we can take providing a great example for all eyes to see and support as well.

I think only The Golden Rule will provide lasting peace.

[Celebration]

7. k& r

How right you are.................

[sunnystarr]

8. It's nice to know I have company :)

I was thinking the same thing, not for the same reason but what you said makes perfect sense. I believe that she wants to win so badly and get back in the WH that if she can't coerce the Dem nomination she'll run as VP with McCain.

It's obvious that she doesn't care about the party or destroying Dems chance of beating McCain. She and Bill are now operating in 2 tracks with Bill keeping the door to McCain open. It's the only thing that makes any sense out of their actions. You provided the most obvious motive.

[Why Syzygy]

11. She wants to be the warrier in chief to bomb Iran!

THAT'S her real legacy. That's *her* war.

The office isn't what she's after! Her stage is the world and the POTUS a mere platform.

It just dawned on me tonight after reading about Mr. Bill's latest Toad Ride. It's so surreal that the obvious connection is hidden in plain sight.

[Sugarcoated]

9. Oh, come on

Actually this sounds like the hate speech conspiracy crap that Obama's former pastor preaches.

[Why Syzygy]

13. "Sen. Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington and talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire”

Edwards said.

Most of the quotes are Hillary's.
Were you speaking of HER Hate speech?

[Sugarcoated]

26. Hillary doesn't use hate speech

but it's looking like you do by spreading conspiracy crap about a good Democrat.

[Eric J in MN]

10. If Bill Clinton likes war so much,

...why didn't he start a war like the Iraq War during his 8 years?

[Why Syzygy]

12. "like the Iraq War"??

Another country with a Muslim population not good enough for you?

[Eric J in MN]

17. I'm saying that Bill Clinton isn't a warmonger. NT

NT

[Why Syzygy]

19. warmonger is too strong .. but he did have his war . nt

[knight_of_the_star]

16. You are Fail

You just Fail, this kind of wild-eyed immaturity is NOT good for GDP and is why this board is so far from the rules that are allegedly in place

[Unsane]

22. Can you explain the 'epic fail' thing to me?

Is it like the 'where is your god now?' fad?

[knight_of_the_star]

36. Sure

L33t speak for really screwing up. Fail is you screwed up bad, Epic Fail is something along the lines of FUBAR but not so much for describing a situation but more as a judgment on the person or situation. If you're familiar with gaming terms its the same as rolling a botch. I'm applying it very liberally because I'm stating any thread that is not contributing to rational, genuine discussion of issues and politics is Fail, threads that are borderline flamebait or are flamebait are Epic Fail, although its kind of subjective.

[dailykoff]

18. Bingo.

Double bingo in fact. She's made herself the candidate of the permanent war economy and they're counting on her to keep those dirty billions rolling in on schedule. That's the heart and soul of her campaign. The rest is nothing but corporate PR.

[Why Syzygy]

21. She's saying that BUSH isn't moving FAST ENOUGH to take action on Iran.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."...

[VenusRising]

20. Let's not forget this little beauty.

http://www.examiner.com/a-953145~Bush_quietly_advising_Hillary_Clinton__top_Democrats.html

Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats, says new book

Washington, D.C. (Map, News) - President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.

In an interview for the new book “The Evangelical President,” White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has “been urging candidates: ‘Don’t get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.’ ”

Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that “even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.”

“Especially if it’s a Democrat,” the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”


More at link above.

[Skidmore]

24. Some of us have been pointing to the neocon tinge to the Clinton candidacy

for a while, only to be shouted down or mocked. Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate choice of the war machine and empire builders. Those who back her apparently have not had enough yet.

[Why Syzygy]

35. It takes awhile for me to catch up sometimes...

But the blatancy finally slapped me in the face! Bill is now campaigning for BOTH Hillary and McCain!

I just never thought I would live to see the day ...

[UALRBSofL]

28. Oh Lord, People are so gullible.

They think an Op-Ed piece is the gospel. People should take the time to research a piece to see if it's opinion or truth or a combination of both before posting it. I don't know if it's because of laziness or intelligence. For the record, I would suggest looking at Clinton's platform of issues.

[cali]

29. ack. I agree

this is garbage and Frank is a real piece of shit.

[nichomachus]

37. Platforms are for suckers

Read the platform? That's a carefully crafted propaganda piece designed to make people support them.

Do you judge George Bush by the Republican platform -- smaller government, lower taxes, no foreign involvement, no nation building, more personal liberty -- or do you judge him by what he's done?

Please, be an adult and think for yourself. Judge candidates by what they say and do, not what tripe their flacks test-market, focus-group and pun into a platform the candidate has probably never read.

[Swamp Rat]

38. War = Profits

[Why Syzygy]

39. There you go!

Of course. That's why the investors are so restless!