Comments on: NYT Asks Neocons How To Save America’s Empire

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:32:53 +0000

And here she is as well using a concept like a “Nuclear Umbrella” over the Middle East. Just what is that supposed to mean. Here’s clearly an idea of major importance that she has…but she’s never articulated it.

Does she mean that she’s going to make Israel give up their nukes in exchange for all other states in the region being “nuclear free”? And back up that threat with nukes? Would we protect Iran from an Israeli attack under this concept?

What does she mean? What’s in her head and why won’t she express it!

By: Bluetoe2

Bluetoe2 — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:10:27 +0000

The NYT is a lost cause. The sooner they are abosrbed in the Murdoch propopaganda machine the better. At least then there won’t be any pretense of objectivity of the NYT.

By: RevBev

RevBev — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:46:05 +0000

Someone was filling in for Idiot Ingraham this morning; giving high praise for Hill and threats; condemning Obama, close to calling his a pacifist. Just keep the bombs at the ready, make no sounds of getting along; the whole world is a threat.

OT: There is some way that the right wing women almost sound worse than the men. Can that be true: Shrill, bullying, argumentative. Maybe that is terrible sexist, I do not know. But it is as if they have something to prove. This women, Tammy, sounds rude. Molly Ivins used to talk about Repub. women as “perky”. Not particularly a compliment from her lips. This new tone is not perky. I have not come up with the word, close to harsh, cruel, know it all, Just have not found quite the new right word.

By: tw3k

tw3k — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:32:24 +0000

New York Times Death Watch.

By: JerryArrigoni

JerryArrigoni — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:29:13 +0000

Hey guys, let’s face it, Hillary is in the middle of a hellish campaign, and she has her nose buried deeply in the ass of AIPAC. If she doesn’t tow the old AIPAC line, they’ll bury her.

By: Scarecrow

Scarecrow — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:22:03 +0000

Thanks for finding those links; they seem to confirm what I suspected: while Clinton has now referred to the “obliterate” remarks more than once since the original interview, it looks like each time was in response to “why did you say that?” I misunderstood you. What I thought you meant in your original comment was that Clinton had been making the same point before the issue became “newsworthy.” If she did, I hadn’t seen that.

Again, I’m not defending or condemning the statement; only trying to determine the intended meaning, by suggesting an interpretation, and it’s just a guess.

By: SouthernDragon

SouthernDragon — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:12:10 +0000

Oh, but they did think the US would go along. These people have managed to maintain positions of influence in every administration since Nixon. The neo-conservative agenda is part of what has driven the R party for the last 30 years. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was seen as a super patriotic document and many of the signatories are people of some influence within the current administration, or were. Reading it as a stand alone, without any knowledge of the region would not raise any questions among the “uninitiated.” The ultimate goal is, and was, a Middle East controlled by puppet regimes. Israel would be the “permanent base” through which US Middle East policy would be maintained.

it was about controlling oil and making it scarce

That’s exactly what I said in the section you quoted. Each administration since OPEC was formed has tried to influence OPEC’s control of oil resources within its cartel. It has proven to be a hard nut to crack.

By: wigwam

wigwam — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:31:49 +0000

Here are YouTubes of three distinct times. IIRC I had heard of two or three more.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI…..index.html

Clinton made the statement about Iran on ABC’s “Good Morning America”
on Tuesday (4/22)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..00031.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton today defended her statement that the United States would “obliterate” Iran if it ever launched a nuclear strike on Israel. “Why would I have any regrets?” she told George Stephanopoulos and group of Indiana voters on ABC’s This Week. “I am asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for.” (5/4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ZXUA9WxFA
Hillary Clinton says she’ll nuke Iran on Olbermann.

By: behindthefall

behindthefall — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:11:50 +0000

This is a bit of news that could let me sleep better tonight — it being a New Moon, good time for some invading.

However, putting together the Assessment that the U.S. cannot handle fight in 3 nations at a time together with the hints, strong or otherwise, that the neocons would accede to our leaving Iraq to crumble on its own, I wonder if the stage is being set for first getting out of Iraq and THEN going into Iran.

By: selise

selise — Mon, 05 May 2008 14:56:05 +0000

damn. i just lost a long comment/reply to the ether. will try to recreate and post it here later because i think this is really important and i’m pretty sure i disagree with almost all your premises. but gotta run now… :(