Sen. Barack Obama told an audience in Chicago Friday that he considers Iran "one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace" and pledged he would try to end that nation's uranium enrichment program. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070302obama,1,5726881.story?coll=chi-news-hed "Iran is serious about its threats," former US Senator John Edwards has told an audience in Israel. "The challenges in your own backyard â represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel," the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination told the Herzliya Conference, referring mainly to the Iranian threat. Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table." http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400 Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation. "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." http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php Howard Dean on Israel and terrorism: * "The greatest threat that the world faces today comes from Islamic terrorists." * "A strong Israel is an essential part of the ability of the United States to build democracy everywhere in the world." * "We will approach the bargaining table as an ally of Israel." http://njdc.org/issues/detail.php?id=436&iss=1
The left really is ridiculous. Just imagine if Iraq stabilizes under a Democrat administration. They'll make the "Mission Accomplished" photo op, (an obvious propaganda attempt to convince the Iraqi's to lay down their arms), look genuine. The "peace-loving" left will nominate Hillary, an ardent supporter of the war from day one, even while other members of the Democrat top-brass declare the war-is-lost. Get some principles for gods'-sakes. The left is so fractured its comical, comical as long as they are not holding power. There was no war plan that could have avoided the current chaos, except of course not invading at all, and the mishandling of this war had virtually nothing to do with the present situation. These people have been waiting decades to slaughter one another. Maybe, it would have been a relative "cake-walk" for Bush Sr. to overturn Saddam had he invaded Bagdhad after a smiling Iraqi military layed down their arms and surrendered by the hundreds of thousands, but obviously it's been a little more challenging for Bush II going in cold. By the way Dow 13,000. What an Economic nightmare Bush has unleashed. The Right Shall Rise Again!
Hmm Pabst, I told you a long time ago that the support of Israel in this country is strong and bi-partisan. Why are you pretending to be shocked?
I absolutely misgauged. I believe this is a case of some Democrat's selling out their pacifist base to rise quickly in the money game by pandering to well heeled Jewish contributors. Somewhere around half the 25 biggest 2006 Federal contributors were Jewish. Lotta weight. Not to mention what the lesbian hooker on AIPAC's payroll has on Hillary. The Democrat's also are apt to show "muscle" to an electorate who perceives them as weak on foreign policy. This will bite them in the back. Suburban WASP's (anti-fundamentalist) in the north have become increasingly Democrat. To wit: San Mateo County, Chicago's North Shore, Fairfield Cty., CN, ect. Those rich folk are peaceniks. They're global warming causing yet global warming concerned soccer moms. They ain't with Israel if it means war with Iran. Those voters rejected Bush because they would reject almost any war. Those folks are the sheeple. Dimwitted, sandal wearing, NPR listening, NYT reading college grads in million dollar restored victorians drinking wine and supporting Hillary or Obama. I predict and I will soon bet on my belief that Al Gore will be the nominee and winner of the 2008 Presidential election. These other guy's are cutting each other up. They are one and all, UNELECTABLE. Edwards is perceived as a did-nothing, pretty boy ex-Senator with a big house. This Cheney remark to Edwards in the debate cost Kerry a lot, "The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record. And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Forget Edwards. But think of all the A1 pussy he'll finally get after his wife dies. I'll bet Edwards will become a fixture at those Lady Tar Heal volleyball games. Obama clearly has stolen Edward's share as the anti-Hillary. Same problem as Edwards though-too young and inexperienced, questionable personal ties to Islam, increasingly implicated in corrupt Chicago shit-too smooth of an enigma-no where except to the bottom of the ticket. Maybe even too controversial there as well. Hillary is the c/v candidate. She's 2-1 in Vegas and if the field doesn't expand much from this setting then it's HRC. But with 38% negatives and behind in hypotheticals against various GOP it's clear she's not a winner. She's the most famous woman in America. She peaked in 2000. It's Gore. Don't worry though doodoo. He's a neo-con too.
To be honest, I have never made any distinction between the two parties when it comes to kissing up to their masters. One party does it because it is dominated by the biggest dooms cult, ultra right wing religious zealots while the other is the biggest flip flopper sellout this civilization ever witnessed. Bottom line, they both have a role to play in servicing their masters. The Zionist lobby led by AIPAC, a group implicated in espionage against the United states, knows how to play their cards very well. They will hold the republican party hostage through the 40,000,000, well organized, Evangelical lobby group and the other through the threat of drying up their funding and lining up opponents for every candidate who dares opposing them. I cannot wait for the ass kissing fest (2008 elections) to start. It is going to be a blast!!
It's already a blast. All viable candidates from both parties together with the overwhelming majority of the American public support a tiny brave democratic state which even though outnumbered by 70 to 1 and occupying less than 0.2% of the regional land still fearlessly defends their borders, their independence and free democratic way of life against hordes of blood-thirsty medieval religious fanatics.
Well, the democratic party is "a big tent" and pacifists while being party members don't represent the base but rather extreme left fringe of the party. Remember, 90-95% of Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Americans are not pacifists regardless of party affiliation.
Afghanistan=Taliban=Al Queda=Bin Laden=Revenge for 9/11. Afghanistan was a once in a lifetime opp for hawks ala Pearl Harbor, The Maine and Fort Sumter. I see little of the same venom on the mean street's of suburbia over Iran. Funny but where was the outrage over India and Pakistan entering the nuclear community? Talk is cheap. Where are the great Shia' atrocities? I'm not going to go overboard defending Iran who I disapprove of but are Shia' fingerprints on 9/11 or Lockerbie, or London or Madrid? No only those peaceful Sunni Wahhabi kill like that. Bringing America to war with Iran without direct provocation is a grave mistake. That's why I'm certain it'll happen. That's why I'm also certain that a Democrat will do it.....
Where are the great Shia' atrocities? ... No only those peaceful Sunni Wahhabi kill like that. 1. Shia -> Iran -> Islamic Revolution -> 66 americans held hostage for 444 days. 2. Iran -> Iraqi waters -> 15 British heroic defenders of the crown taken hostage 3. Shia -> Hezbollah -> The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing -> 241 american marines and 56 french paratroopers killed, hundreds injured. Actually in retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions. 4. Shia -> Iraqi insurgency -> thousands of american troops killed and injured. That's not to say that we must bomb Iran (I think Israel should) but the Shia are not any more peaceful or civilized than their Sunni brethren are.
What hogwash! Brave, 70:1 ratio, 2%, fearlessly defending, repeating democratic twice, and using the "way of life" slogan that is so familiar to the American people in an attempt to liken your fascist pariah state to the US. Buddy, you still live in the past! the whole world has entered and visited the occupied territories armed with cameras and capturing everything on their own. the whole world has, now a days, access to the internet and know exactly what you are doing to a defenseless nation. To make it worse the whole world is waking up to the fact that you are the ones that injected the Zionist wikipidia, the mossad directed AMRI site, the love filled Islamophopic and who knows what else are you doing to frame us and pin us in a war against the US that will benefit no one except for your fascist apartheid state. The whole world is watching how the "70" are going out of their way to the "1" asking them to reach out for peace and how that "1" is arrogantly refusing counting on its ability to manipulate all of the American administrations into being their slaves.