The Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack and John

[donsu]

http://counterpunch.com/solomon04122007.html


The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran.

Hillary Clinton says "no option can be taken off the table."

Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."

John Edwards says, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And: "We need to keep all options on the table."

A year ago, writing in The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: "One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."

For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all "options" should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten -- and possibly follow through with -- first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington's policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.
-snip-
------------------------------


will Hillary, Barack and John help take us to attacking Iran?

why do they say all options are on the table?

will all three make statements that they will not vote to attack Iran? I personally would want those statements.

Kucinich doesn't say all options are on the table.

[hippiechick]

1. Thank you, Donsu ...

.... I've wondered the same things. Iran is no more a threat to us than Iraq was. We have no business getting into their business, and the Dem nominee should state that plainly or declare their alliance with the military-industrial complex once and for all.

Period.


:patriot: <--- DK

[NormanYorkstein]

2. right wing talking points! Candidate bashing! oh wait...

How disappointing to hear this from Edwards, so sad.

[wyldwolf]

3. The Awful Truth About Counterpunch

With rags like that, who needs FOX News?

[donsu]

6. Counterpunch and Fox are world's apart - nobody needs Fox

except their masters the neo cons

[wyldwolf]

9. opposite sides of the same coin.

The only difference is FOX News/Newsmax goes after Democrats from the right and counterpunch goes after Democrats from the left.

[beachmom]

19. You're absolutely right, which is why it's against DU rules

to post articles or links to counterpunch. By the way -- they called Kerry a war criminal in the past in a piece that I think O'Neil of SBVT fame lifted for his own book.

[AtomicKitten]

35. seriously?

... they called Kerry a war criminal in the past in a piece that I think O'Neil of SBVT fame lifted for his own book.

That is proof positive it is nothing more than a filthy rag. The sad part is that it is gospel to too many people here at DU.

[Cameron27]

39. Counterpunch really is a filthy rag.

I never read the nasty thing.

[seemslikeadream]

54. If it is against DU rules

why hasn't this thread been deleted?

[DancingBear]

23. The "awful truth" - how quaint

I do give you credit for sticking to the script...

[wyldwolf]

24. but not as good as the "I hate Democrats" meme at counterpunch

[DancingBear]

38. What a world you live in

Can I have another cookie mommy, please?

I won't say anything bad, honest.

Ain't the truth a bitch sometimes?

P.S. Counterpunch has forgotten more truth then most true believers know.

[wyldwolf]

44. It's called "reality." Something you are obviously unfamiliar with

[DancingBear]

46. Try again

Comedy is not your forte.

But then again, I'm not sure what is...

[wyldwolf]

48. I succeeded the first time. But here's more: CounterPunch's Greatists Hits Vol. 1

This sounds like some of your favorite tunes!

Counterpunch sings "John Kerry is a War Criminal!"

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html

Alexander Cockburn yodels "Gerald Ford Was the Greatest American President!"

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2006/1477

Howard Dean Backs The Occupation of Iraq

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04222005.html

Howard Dean's Gay Bashing

http://www.counterpunch.org/wolf07102004.html

Scary Scary John Kerry

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank03272004.html

[DancingBear]

50. Oh no! Differing opinions!!

Why, that will NEVER do in the world of wyldwolf!!

You're either with us or against us!!

Commie!!

You DO make me laugh - as unintentional as it may be.

Stay on message, scout - maybe you'll get more than 20% next time.

I doubt it, though.

[wyldwolf]

52. Factual inaccuracies

The definition of "war criminal" is not open to opinion.

[mtnsnake]

4. Of the 3 comments, I'd have to say Hillary's is the least hawkish sounding

...but seriously, you don't really think you're going to hear ANY presidential candidate not want to come off as sounding strong on national defense, do you? It's not as if ANY of these fine Democratic candidates are out for war. They are not, not even Hillary as so many here proclaim. The people who claim that are simply full of it.

[Clark2008]

7. And, yet, Edwards is considered so "liberal" by many on this blog.

I don't get it.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Don't you have a Fred Thompson thread to promote?

[venable]

26. aren't barack and hrc considered liberal, too. so why only ask about edwards?

serious question.

by the way - are you aware that Edwards, when asked if a President Edwards would forbid a nuclear Iran he said there was no reason to make such a proclamation now as there were so many diplomatic ways to deal with it, and that we couldn't say for sure if a nuclear Iran would even be a threat?

did you also know that edwards has proposed that we sign a non-agression pact with Iran?

sort of interesting, don't you think?

[Le Taz Hot]

55. Not by liberals.

N/T

[wyldwolf]

56. not by "progressives." By the liberal standard set in the FDR/Truman/Kennedy days...

... both Clinton and Obama are liberal.

[ClassWarrior]

30. How is being flexible and open-minded "not liberal?"

I don't get it.

NGU.

[TwilightGardener]

10. All options should NEVER be off the table if Iran gets nukes!!! WTF--

our candidates make sense, and they get bashed--yeah, they're WARMONGERS!! Join the reality-based community, Dems, please.

[Josh]

40. THANK YOU!

Sheesh, some of the stuff I read here sometimes.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. the wording has to be right

candidates have to clear in their intentions that they will not attack a country 'willy nilly' or with intent to plunder the country's oil or other resources.

(They have to make clear that America will attack if it IS invaded or attacked) not on hearsay from faulty intelligence.

[Cameron27]

12. Well since two of the three front runners

have already relied on "faulty intelligence" when it came to Iraq, it will be fascinating to see on how they're going to convince us trust their judgment when it comes to Iran.

I should add, that obviously many already do trust that they won't make the same mistake; I don't happen to be one of that group.

[JNelson6563]

8. My question: What kind of complete moron

takes any options off the table early on in regard to any kind of talks?

Perhaps stone-throwing keyboard commandoes.....

Julie--who often wishes she could live in the happy go lucky world many DUers live in

[TwilightGardener]

13. Bingo.

[LandOLincoln]

14. You beat me to it. Thanks, Julie.

"What kind of complete moron takes any options off the table early on in regard to any kind of talks?"

[Cameron27]

15. What kind of complete moron

makes Hawkish statements like this:

“At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats.

Snip> 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.

Snip> While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn’t make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel. Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there land in order to advance peace.

Snip> For too long, the current US administration’s commitment to this issue has been halfhearted. Now, on the backdrop of Iraq, they have tried to bring the two sides together. This is especially significant since they have squandered America’s moral authority in the Middle East and around the world.

We should be finding ways to upgrade Israel’s relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO’s mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel.

Your challenges are our challenges. Your future is our future. The US will continue to stand by you. God bless you.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x33663

[JNelson6563]

17. Ah, the old side step

Nowhere in my brief post did I refer to any of the other components of anyone's statement but that of "taking options off the table".

But throwing in that hawkish statement is a nice distraction however the fatal flaw in your strategy is this: I have no horse in this race and purposely did not comment on the rest of the statements because of this very fact.

If you want to argue over entire, all encompassing statements with the supporters of the various candidates that's your choice. I for one simply pointed out that the portion refering to "options on the table" and took issue with those who think it's a good idea to take any options off of the table.

Either address the issue in my post or don't but do not try to change the subject that I addressed.

Julie

[Cameron27]

25. Statements about "all options"

don't necessarily mean the same thing. Yes, all options must remain on the table, of course, but it's important to parse the candidate's statements for intention. In his Herzilya Conference speech, Edwards tried to come off as the toughest guy on the block.

"...we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table." His emphasis not mine.

I can only base my opinion about Edwards from his Senate performance when he had some power to actually change things for the better, not what he talks about now. So when the same guy who once co-sponsored Lieberman's IWR, now strongly emphasizes keeping ALL options on the table, we'd better get worried. IMHO of course.

[ClassWarrior]

32. Did you just say...

..."it's important to parse the candidate's statements for intention?" You gonna try a little mind reading too? Maybe a Ouija board?

:rofl:

NGU.

[Cameron27]

33. ?

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
Pronunciation: 'pärs, chiefly British 'pärz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): parsed; pars•ing
Etymology: Latin pars orationis part of speech
transitive verb

2 : to examine in a minute way : analyze critically

parse

[Cameron27]

34. Most people understood what Edwards intended by

emphasizing ALL options in that speech. He changed his tone after he was harshly criticized for it.

[ClassWarrior]

36. Well, most people with a magic mind ray, at any rate.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Cameron27]

37. And some people with critical thinking skills:

Snip> "Let me say first off that I like Edwards. I always have. And I'd very much like to go along with the conventional wisdom that he "backed off" his hawkish Iran comments when he talked to the Prospect yesterday.

But, really, does anyone believe that? I don't. Instead, he was engaging in Politics 101: telling different audiences what they each want to hear. When he's talking to an Israeli conference, he emphasizes the supreme danger Iran presents and implies strongly that military action is a real possibility, while barely even mentioning the idea of engagement and economic aid. When he's talking to a liberal American magazine, he emphasizes engagement and economic aid and downplays the possibility of military action as vanishingly unlikely during an Edwards presidency."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

Snip> Indeed, some leading Democrats and prominent TV pundits still try to talk as tough – or even tougher than Bush – about Iran.

For instance, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, supposedly one of the more liberal Democratic presidential candidates, spoke via satellite to a security conference in Herzliya, Israel, in January telling senior Israeli government officials that he shared their view that Iran was the world’s preeminent threat.

Snip> Edwards even chided Bush for not being aggressive enough in confronting Iran.

Snip> “To a large extent, the U.S. abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake,” Edwards said in a speech that contained not a single critical word about Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, its settlements on occupied territory or its own large and sophisticated nuclear arsenal.

Robert Parry:

http://consortiumnews.com/2007/020207.html

[JNelson6563]

45. Why are you talking about Edwards?

Is it a natural propensity or what? Several candidates have stated they will leave all options on the table and that is a smart thing to say.

Why you are zeroed in on Edwards or taking issue with the other parts of any candidate's words outside of the options/table stuff with me is a mystery.

Julie--who has no horse in this race

[SOS]

16. We need to define this more clearly

The "option" of bombing Iran is always on the table in the event of an attack against the US by Iran.
Just as with Afghanistan after 9/11.
Are we talking about another "preventative" or "pre-emptive" option as in Iraq? Or are we talking about the right to retaliate against aggression?
If it's the former, these Democrats and Republicans are simply wrong.
The right to self-defense is self-evident.
The "right" to smash another nation (killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in the process) for nothing more than political expediency is bullsh!t.

[JNelson6563]

18. Agreed

These candidates are not talking to an obscure internet forum filled with armchair warriors with no clue as to how politics/the world really work. These folks are on the world stage and therefore have to consider carefully what they say.

The world is watching. What is said now can be pointed at in the future by the entities in question.

Julie

[Colobo]

20. Good post.

[Tejanocrat]

21. "Keeping options open" doesn't seem so awful.

[saltpoint]

22. I think it might be just a pinch more complex than you paint it.

And I'm voting Democratic for our ticket in 08.

[renie408]

27. Iran + Nuclear Weapons = A Bad Situation....right? So shouldn't we have all the options

on the table? Options being 'on the table' doesn't mean that the first thing you are going to go for is your red button. It just means that you want to remind everybody that you HAVE a red button.

[ClassWarrior]

28. So you want a President who is stubborn, obstinate, and...

...inflexible when it comes to dealing with the world? You already have one. Why are you complaining?

NGU.

[renie408]

29. Yeah...Options are good. n/t

[ddeclue]

31. Creating a straw man and then attacking it...how original...

There will be no attack by or on Iran. This post is just a contrived exercise in bashing all three frontrunners by someone who is rooting for a poll lagger candidate like Kucinich or Clark.

Nice try..but no cigar..

Doug

[zulchzulu]

41. Perhaps you could read EXACTLY what Obama said regarding Iran...

"It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hand 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."

He also said this:

"Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most despicable and tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country claiming it was a myth. We know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau, whose ashes clouded the skies at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. Many in this room have heard stories from their parents and their grandparents. We've touched the tattoos of loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it's time to deny the deniers."

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2007/Obama-At-AIPAC2mar07.htm

Two things...Obama would want to use diplomacy and sanctions before attacking. Also, he knows that Ahmadinejad is his way out with a miniscule approval rating. Waiting for him to self-destruct is the end game. Then Iran hopefully can retain a more moderate, more secular, less theocratic government that the people want.

[bling bling]

43. But quoting OUT of context makes the truth more flexible.

Simply quoting out of context means that the pesky truth doesn't have to get in the way of dramatic headlines such as "The AWFUL truth about Obama, etc....."

[AZBlue]

42. What should they say? "Don't worry Ahmadinejad, we won't attack or anything. But...

...well....we were just wondering if it would be ok with you if maybe perhaps you didn't, um, like pursue a nuclear weapon? If that would be alright with you? Pretty please??" Yeah, that's a great position to bargain from.

Even better question: why are we discussing a counterpunch.com article on DU??

[DancingBear]

47. "why are we discussing a counterpunch.com article on DU??"

Um, maybe because there is truth in it?

Oops, forgot.

That ain't allowed here no more.

This is Cheerleading Central now.

My bad.

[wyldwolf]

49. The "truth" (snicker) and Counterpunch

Counterpunch sings "John Kerry is a War Criminal!"

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html

Alexander Cockburn yodels "Gerald Ford Was the Greatest American President!"

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2006/1477

Howard Dean Backs The Occupation of Iraq

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04222005.html

Howard Dean's Gay Bashing

http://www.counterpunch.org/wolf07102004.html

Scary Scary John Kerry

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank03272004.html

[DancingBear]

51. Wow, two of the same replies

You must be getting seriously pissed off.

Hey, I can't blame you - if I had to swallow all that DLC swill on a regular basis I'd be a mite upset myself.

[wyldwolf]

53. two sets of facts

[AZBlue]

57. You forgot your quotation marks...

"facts"

:D