8.3.07
Warmongering Democrats
Here you go, antiwar voters - your options for the next presidential election. Unprovoked nuclear war, anyone?
- Hillary Clinton, speaking at an AIPAC conference in January:
“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal,” Clinton told the crowd. “We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”
- John Edwards, offering his wisdom via satellite at the Herzliya conference in January:
"Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
Never mind the "update" at the top of the article - Edwards qualification was a mealy-mouthed equivocation delivered to a timid interviewer. But pay attention to the praise Edwards heaped upon war criminal Ariel Sharon - someone this craven should not be allowed to clean the levers of power, much less operate them.
- And finally, we come to the Democrats' great hope, Barack Obama - also, funnily enough, speaking to an AIPAC conference earlier this month:
"The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."
Obama, as Raimondo points out, also sermonizes about how the US "should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests". That's great. And what happens if the case should somehow, strangely, oddly, arise that America's
security interests are at odds with Israel's "security interests"?
There are two things connecting all of these statements. The first is the recurrent use
of the phraseology involving "options" being on "tables". Are these clowns handed the same talking points by the same people before speeches? The second thing in common is that they were all delivered before right-wing, pro-Israel audiences. What is it about delivering addresses before this kind of crowd that requires threats of unprovoked nuclear attack to be made?
And just to show that it's not just about Iran, here's Senator Carl Levin, looking for any reason to attack Syria:
“These weapons (in Iraq) are coming from a state which doesn’t recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn’t, we’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source, they’re killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran. I think we have to stop them going to the Sunni insurgents, as well as to the Shia, and I was just wondering, does the military have a plan, if necessary, to go into Syria, to go the source of any weapons coming from Syria.”
New US Intel Chief J. Michael McConnell answered that there is already an attempt to stop the flow of weapons, and also that most of the weapons being used are already in Iraq.
Levin appeared annoyed, and said that we need to take action “on all fronts.”
The Democrats were voted in to get America out of a war - and now these schemers are looking already to the next one.
Syria, Iran, it doesn't matter. No wonder they've been utterly ineffective at doing anything substantive to stop the war in Iraq - they really don't give a damn.
Here you go, antiwar voters - your options for the next presidential election. Unprovoked nuclear war, anyone?
- Hillary Clinton, speaking at an AIPAC conference in January:
“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal,” Clinton told the crowd. “We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”
- John Edwards, offering his wisdom via satellite at the Herzliya conference in January:
"Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
Never mind the "update" at the top of the article - Edwards qualification was a mealy-mouthed equivocation delivered to a timid interviewer. But pay attention to the praise Edwards heaped upon war criminal Ariel Sharon - someone this craven should not be allowed to clean the levers of power, much less operate them.
- And finally, we come to the Democrats' great hope, Barack Obama - also, funnily enough, speaking to an AIPAC conference earlier this month:
"The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."
Obama, as Raimondo points out, also sermonizes about how the US "should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests". That's great. And what happens if the case should somehow, strangely, oddly, arise that America's
security interests are at odds with Israel's "security interests"?
There are two things connecting all of these statements. The first is the recurrent use
of the phraseology involving "options" being on "tables". Are these clowns handed the same talking points by the same people before speeches? The second thing in common is that they were all delivered before right-wing, pro-Israel audiences. What is it about delivering addresses before this kind of crowd that requires threats of unprovoked nuclear attack to be made?
And just to show that it's not just about Iran, here's Senator Carl Levin, looking for any reason to attack Syria:
“These weapons (in Iraq) are coming from a state which doesn’t recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn’t, we’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source, they’re killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran. I think we have to stop them going to the Sunni insurgents, as well as to the Shia, and I was just wondering, does the military have a plan, if necessary, to go into Syria, to go the source of any weapons coming from Syria.”
New US Intel Chief J. Michael McConnell answered that there is already an attempt to stop the flow of weapons, and also that most of the weapons being used are already in Iraq.
Levin appeared annoyed, and said that we need to take action “on all fronts.”
The Democrats were voted in to get America out of a war - and now these schemers are looking already to the next one.
Syria, Iran, it doesn't matter. No wonder they've been utterly ineffective at doing anything substantive to stop the war in Iraq - they really don't give a damn.
