Election Open Thread

If you live in PA, do your thing. I say Clinton by 8-10.

*** Update ***

And now, starring in the role of Ricky Ray Rector, Iran:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

Three thoughts:

1.) She will simply say anything to get elected.
2.) Are the roles reversed anywhere else in the civilized world- is there some place where candidates, on their respective national television channels, play out their war fantasies in which they nuke the United States?
3.) This is why I am not watching any more news until this person is dispatched from the race.






145 replies
  1. 1
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    SurveyUSA bumped it up to Clinton by 6, and PPP has Obama by 3, so I’m a little more optimistic today. Still, I’ll hedge my bet and stick with Clinton by 5 to 10.

  2. 2
    4tehlulz says:

    Clinton 8 to 12, ensuring maximum aggravation (for all Clinton included) until IN (cuz NC don’t count lawl).

  3. 3
    Shem says:

    Pushed the button (and yes, I miss pulling the lever) for Obama this morning. Our local Democratic organization was handing out flyers outside the polling place urging people to vote Obama, but I’m in eastern PA, which is probably going to go for him anyway. The real question is how he’ll do in the central and western regions.

  4. 4
    Punchy says:

    Clinton by >15%. Easy.

    Obizzle needs the Sidney Crosby and Jerome Bettis endorsements, stat.

  5. 5
    Jake says:

    It sure would be nice if he could hold her to single digits, but I doubt that will happen.

    She’s talking this morning about how she WILL attack Iran if she’s president, how we’ll “obliterate” them if they attack Israel.

    I’m not sure what to be more upset about, that she’s giving this response or that the mediots are lining up the pins by asking what she’ll do if Iran nukes Israel. How did we reach the point where that became a goddamn talking point? Jesus.

  6. 6
  7. 7
    b. hussein canuckistani says:

    If just one person votes for Hillary, that will be enough for her to carry on. Better a nation perish in extremist agony than Hillary break faith with that one voter who needs her.

  8. 8
    Poopyman says:

    No longer living in the Pgh area (or the state), but plenty of cousins there and across the state, so I know the local sensibilities, so….

    Clinton by a touchdown and a field goal.

  9. 9

    I was watching Hillary on Countdown last night and she was responding to Olbermann’s question regarding the “massive retaliation” to an attack on Israel by Iran and it caused me to think about a few things.

    First, how does Iran nuke Israel without nuking the Palestinians? (Israel is about the same size as the state of New Jersey)

    If Iran attacks Israel with a nuke that doesn’t annihilate everything within the boundaries of Israel, why can’t Israel retaliate with their full arsenal of nuclear weapons?

    Even though the Iranians are “crazy Muslims” they’re smart enough to know that Israel has more nukes than they do and are aware that the U.S. has enough to blow up the world twice. Is “Mutually Assured Destruction” only a deterrant to Americans and Russians?

  10. 10
    zmulls says:

    I voted. Showed them my “O” face.

    I’ll predict Clinton by 4-6.

    My gut (which is notoriously unreliable but better than David Broder) says that the last-minute “scary world, Osama bin laden, who can handle it?” ad will actually hurt Clinton. It’s too obvious, too blatant, too Republican. I am guessing it hurts her with the people she’s trying to get to vote for her.

    One online friend, very progressive, and truly undecided until this weekend, spent time *Reading the website position papers* and decided to go with Obama. Smart female liberal voter breaking at the last minute for Obama. Sure, that’s a very tiny sample, but….

    Pretty busy at the polling place this morning.

    Oh, minor PA rant. On the PA ballot you vote at the top of the ballot for President. At the *bottom* of the ballot, there are 13 delegates, and you vote for 7 of them. The candidates they are pledged to are in 2-point type (not senior-citizen friendly) and all mixed together (Clinton-Obama-Obama-Clinton-Obama-Clinton). And Obama has one extra delegate listed (nobody’s getting 100% so that doesn’t matter).

    They tried to explain to everyone who walked in about making sure to vote for the delegates as well, but I’ll bet there’s some “butterly ballot” effect.

  11. 11
    Dork says:

    why can’t Israel retaliate with their full arsenal of nuclear weapons?

    Israel has nukes? Seriously?

  12. 12
    Chris says:

    I’m calling it Me, by a the million or so points I presume on accumulating tonight playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl instead of watching Nora O’Donnell and her amazing pie charts on MSNBC.

  13. 13
    zzyzx says:

    The vote for the delegates doesn’t matter unless you have a preference as to who actually serves as an Obama/Clinton delegate.

    I’m feeling 6-8 today, but would accept 10 I guess.

  14. 14
    Joe says:

    I was first in line to vote in my suburban Philadelphia ward at 7:00 am this morning. Turnout was strong. African Americans and sixty-year-old white ladies eyed each other with suspicion and mistrust.

    Four Obama lawn signs decorated my street, versus zero for Clinton. Many of the larger houses in the neighborhood have Hillary signs. But I also know that many of those houses have divided loyalties inside them.

  15. 15
    myiq2xu says:

    Barry spent a bazillion dollars a week for the last six weeks, and has had the media in full fluffer mode, not to mention the unrelenting attacks on Hillary.

    She was outspent by about 5-1 too. All that ate into her support, so I predict Hillary will only win by 14 points.

  16. 16
    4tehlulz says:

    >>Is “Mutually Assured Destruction” only a deterrant to Americans and Russians?

    No, it only works if each side has the capability to have a significant portion of its nuclear arsenal survive a first strike.

    In the superpowers’ cases, that was provided by subs (which is why India and China want a nuke sub fleet).

    The most unstable situation is for example, Pakistan, whose arsenal is highly vunerable to a first strike, might be tempted to fire first in a crisis (and nearly did in ’99 and ’01). Iran would be in the same position as Pakistan for about ten years or so (until they master sub launching or have really hardened silos), if they went down the nuclear road.

  17. 17
    zzyzx says:

    “has had the media in full fluffer mode, not to mention the unrelenting attacks on Hillary.”

    Yeah Reverend Wright, “bitter,” and that ABC debate were full fluffer mode.

  18. 18
    Zifnab says:

    Clinton 8 to 12, ensuring maximum aggravation (for all Clinton included) until IN (cuz NC don’t count lawl).

    Clinton by >15%. Easy.

    Obama by 2.

    I’m thinking the Steelers will have it by five inside the last three minutes of the game if no one gets injured.

  19. 19
    John Cole says:

    The only other people I have seen refer to Obama as “Barry” are the folks at Protein Wisdom.

  20. 20
    Fred X. Quimby says:

    Clinton by 7.

  21. 21
    Scrutinizer says:

    She’s talking this morning about how she WILL attack Iran if she’s president, how we’ll “obliterate” them if they attack Israel.

    I’m not sure what to be more upset about, that she’s giving this response or that the mediots are lining up the pins by asking what she’ll do if Iran nukes Israel. How did we reach the point where that became a goddamn talking point? Jesus.

    Meanwhile, over at TalkLeft, Armando writes

    (Emphasis supplied.) This is excellent strategic thinking, providing a great alternative to armed intervention in Iran and allowing for hard headed and rational diplomacy with Iran on the question of nuclear weapons.

    We really don’t need to be the guarantors of Israel’s security. Israel is the very antithesis of a client state, and is quite capable of causing extreme provocations that region, particularly if they know they can rely on us to provide a nuclear deterrent.

    It’s possible to have rational diplomacy with countries in that area without threatening to bludgeon them if they don’t go along with what we want. Rational diplomacy involves give and take on both sides—BushCo basically says “My way or the highway”, and Clinton is falling into that same trap. I have no idea what “hard-headed” diplomacy is, unless by “hard-headed” Armando means “You little brown guys are going to do what we say, or else”, which is, of course, the antithesis of diplomacy.

    In Arsenals of Folly Richard Rhodes does a fairly good job of dispelling the myth of nuclear deterrence, and the hidden costs to society of the Cold War. Clinton is buying into this whole circle of threat inflation and reliance upon our military strength as a substitute for, you know, actually finding creative solutions to hard problems.

  22. 22
    zmulls says:

    Hey, at least he didn’t say “Barry Hussein”….

  23. 23
    zzyzx says:

    Some MyDDers do the Barry thing too. I’m not sure why it’s supposed to be an insult.

  24. 24
    Davis X. Machina says:

    ….how she WILL attack Iran if she’s president, how we’ll “obliterate” them if they attack Israel.

    Tells me she’s polling badly in Bala Cynwyd and Squirrel Hill.

  25. 25
    zmulls says:

    (Which leads me to wonder, will be see “Love, Sidney” signs at McCain rallies?)

  26. 26
    cmorenc says:

    It depends on which regions turn out, by how much.

    My guess is HRC by 5 to 8.

    TO THE EXTENT SE Pa turnout is heavy (especially an demographically AA areas), and to the extent more rurual, western regions isn’t quite as strong (i.e. enough the “undecideds” in Clinton-favored regions stay home) – Obama could do much better, even pull off an upset. TO THE EXTENT the corresponding opposite facts are true, HRC could win by 10 to 12.

    But I think mid to high single digits is most likely.

  27. 27
    dr. bloor says:

    Regardless of the outcome, this should be the last day that Obama utters Clinton’s name or acknowledges her existence short of a polite dismissal of questions directed to him about her. He’s the nominee. Everything from here on out should be targeted toward dismantling the Potemkin Campaign being run by McBBQ.

  28. 28
    Jake says:

    Can I just be the first to say THANK GOD there are only TWO weeks before the next primaries?

    Please tell me the media circus tempers shortly after NC and Indiana. Please. I can’t stand the cackle. I need it to stop. Pronto.

  29. 29
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    The vote for the delegates doesn’t matter unless you have a preference as to who actually serves as an Obama/Clinton delegate.

    It does not matter how the delegates are selected, Clinton is working to get them to switch to her. A post at Kos has the details.

    Here is part of the message:

    Preferences expressed at precinct caucuses and the county convention are not binding pledges. Sign-in preferences at State, when called for at the convention, are. Your free will and social conscience are called for in the intervening time. It is my hope and prayer that you will join me and many others in embracing the Hillary cause that is America’s best Hope. Sign in for Hillary Clinton; the Time is Right.

    And how are they describing Obama?

    We have seen Mr. Obama’s’ayatollah-like arrogance before: Peron/ Argentina, Mussolini/ Italy, Mugabwe/ Zimbabwe, and elsewhere historically. “Hope and Change” can become seductive temptations for an adorative addiction of emotionalism over rationalism. That we don’t need.

    Hillary don’t care what the voters say, all that matters is that she wins. She will even steal the delegates who are supposed to be representing the voters of their state. She does not respect the voice of the people, and she will do anything to overturn their decision to back Obama.

    Anything. She is out of control now, and she will be be the same if she is elected president. She just don’t care what anyone who disagrees with her says or thinks. She is better than the rest of us, and she is going to prove it.

    I am so sick of the Clinton crap, I just want it to go away. Forever.

  30. 30
    Redhand says:

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

    Political whore.

  31. 31
    Crusty Dem says:

    ugh, John, careful you don’t rouse their sleeping horde. PW could round up five semi-retarded trolls who would be thrilled to write 50 posts a day echoing whatever dear leader wishes they say.

    Clinton by 12, if Obama spent three days worth of TV ads on Philly money, it would’ve been mid-single digits. Three more weeks.

  32. 32
  33. 33

    In regards to question #2:

    Iran, of course.

  34. 34
    Mary says:

    Al Giordano at The Field says Clinton by 4.6%, gaining only 4 more delegates than Obama. His predictions have been pretty solid this year because he gets right down to the precinct level. He also throws out some interesting hypotheses, like the Passover effect that could give Obama a helping hand in Jewish households.

    Me, I woke up this morning thinking Clinton by 7, but then, the last election where my gut was right was season 2 of American Idol.

  35. 35
    cleek says:

    I’m not sure why it’s supposed to be an insult.

    it’s his childhood nickname. why they would want to use a name he rejected, one that people called him when he was a little boy, is a deep mystery.

  36. 36
    Josh E. says:

    The only other people I have seen refer to Obama as “Barry” are the folks at Protein Wisdom.

    Hillbots have been indistinguishable from wingnuts for quite a while.

  37. 37
    Soylent Green says:

    If Iran attacks Israel with a nuke that doesn’t annihilate everything within the boundaries of Israel, why can’t Israel retaliate with their full arsenal of nuclear weapons?

    Israel has submarine-based nukes, so to be safe Iran would be advised to take out the entire Mediterranean.

  38. 38
    TheFountainHead says:

    instead of watching Nora O’Donnell and her amazing pie charts on MSNBC.

    Really? See that’s exactly what I was planning on doing tonight….I could watch those pie charts all night long…

  39. 39
    Pug says:

    According to Hillary’s answer in the debate we will also obliterate Iran if they launch a nuclear attack against Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan or the UAE.

    So, I guess Hillary is just not going to put up with Iran using those nuclear weapons they don’t have against anybody. I’d like to know what the reaction in the U.S. would be if during their recent election campaign someone in Pakistan glibly talked about who they might nuke.

    Obama’s answer to this question in the debate, by the way, was very thoughtful and somewhat cautious. It was forceful, yet even Pat Buchanan didn’t have a problem with it as it was stated carefully.

  40. 40
    zzyzx says:

    “Clinton by 12, if Obama spent three days worth of TV ads on Philly money, it would’ve been mid-single digits. ”

    I don’t know if it would make that much difference; Obama has a great GotV team himself and his supporters are pretty fired up.

  41. 41
    Scott H says:

    Excellent strategic thinking? Yeah, nothing is going to convince Iran to sideline their nuclear program like the promise of being obliterated by a nuclear super power. That’s some great foreign policy expertise at work there.

  42. 42
    Billy K says:

    Israel has nukes? Seriously?

    Welcome to 1967.

    Question for Pennsyltuckians: Is your primary open? I haven’t seen word on this anywhere.

    RE: MyDD, what the hell happened to that site? They used to matter (and I’m not just speaking about Hillary/Barack stuff. I quit reading them a couple years ago. The quality of posts just nosedived).

  43. 43
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Hillbots have been indistinguishable from wingnuts for quite a while.

    Fixed.

  44. 44
    Wilfred says:

    Not even Bush has ever been so cowboyish as to threaten total nuclear annihilation of another country.

    It’s just Hillary giving a hard-on to her die hard Jewish Progressive supporters.

  45. 45
    4tehlulz says:

    >>According to Hillary’s answer in the debate we will also obliterate Iran if they launch a nuclear attack against Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan or the UAE.

    But not Iraq. WHY DOES SHE HATE THE TROOPS?

  46. 46
    PeterJ says:

    Hillbots have been indistinguishable from wingnuts for quite a while.

    There was this post over at NoQuarters about the “Fingergate” scandal, they closed the comments, I’m guessing since they wouldn’t be around to monitor them. SusanUnHinged, then directed the readers to go over to the Fox News site and comment there…

    Pathetic.

  47. 47
    Mr Furious says:

    Gratuitous sabre-rattling? Hillary is truly running as a Republican now. And I suspect this and the last ad will backfire on her. The people seduced by that shit are already voting for McCain.

    Coinflip, with the spread no more than 3.

  48. 48
    zzyzx says:

    “Question for Pennsyltuckians: Is your primary open? I haven’t seen word on this anywhere.”

    Closed. You had to change registration by mid March.

  49. 49
    zzyzx says:

    (Damn, I hoped to stop the wrong post before it went through…. April, March, whatever?)

  50. 50
    Mr Furious says:

    Yeah, nothing is going to convince Iran to sideline their nuclear program like the promise of being obliterated by a nuclear super power. That’s some great foreign policy expertise at work there.

    Exactly. I’m pretty sure Iran is looking at nukes as it’s own deterrent more than as an offensive tool. Hillary just stamped “approved” the overtime for Iranian scientists.

  51. 51
    Ed Drone says:

    How does Hillary Clinton take her Crown Royal?

    — with a dash of bitters.

    Now that that’s out of the way (and I assume I’m not the first to say it, it’s so obvious, but I haven’t seen it anywhere on the Inter-tubes), I think Clinton wins, but not by nearly enough to get the extra delegates she needs.

    And with the popular mindset, that “winning” delegates actually means winning delegates, any attempt to ‘turn’ delegates will increase her negatives that much more. It might be technically within the rules, but it violates the “good loser” ethos in our political life.

    So even if she wins this way, she loses. And kind, avuncular John McBBQ (as someone here put it) is ready and willing to save the country from such a grasping, single-minded, power-hungry (what do you expect — she’s a) woman.

    Way to go, Hillary!

    Ed

  52. 52
    Vlad says:

    “Question for Pennsyltuckians: Is your primary open?”

    No.

    Voted at around 7:30 (for Obama, naturally), and FWIW my polling station was busier than I’ve ever seen it. I got the last parking spot, where it’s usually more like 50% capacity. My neighborhood’s pretty red, too.

    Obama seems to have a much better ground game, which probably shouldn’t be any surprise. I got hit up by one of his canvassers over the weekend, but haven’t seen any of Hillary’s, and driving back from voting I heard him doing a quick Q and A on the leading morning radio station (WDVE).

  53. 53
    chopper says:

    such stupid hypotheticals.

    yeah, iran doesn’t have nukes and wouldn’t for some time. yeah, israel does, and if iran nuked israel we wouldn’t need to step in as israel would fire back. yeah, iran wouldn’t nuke israel because millions of arabs and muslims including tons of palestinians would get vaporized.

    but it’s totally an honest, realistic question to ask.

    and the right-wing’s hard-on for attacking iran goes unabated…

  54. 54
    cleek says:

    someone needs to put together a video of Hillary and McCain doing a duet of BombBombBomb Iran

  55. 55
    Dork says:

    Here’s what someone should ask her:

    “Will you use nukes on France or China if they attack Israel?”

    Cuz it’s so trendy to bash Iran. But let’s see if she’s consistent. Nuke the Frogs or not, Hill?

  56. 56
    4tehlulz says:

    >>“Will you use nukes on France or China if they attack Israel?”

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘or’ is.”

  57. 57
    chopper says:

    Exactly. I’m pretty sure Iran is looking at nukes as it’s own deterrent more than as an offensive tool. Hillary just stamped “approved” the overtime for Iranian scientists.

    right on. by actually answering such a crappy hypothetical in the piss-poor way she did not only did she lend credence to the whole ‘omg iran’s got nukes’ crowd, she also gave the mullahs in iran the perfect sound bite to further rationalize their nuke program.

  58. 58
    chopper says:

    Here’s what someone should ask her:

    “Will you use nukes on France or China if they attack Israel?”

    exactly. while we’re talking crazy situations that don’t exist in the real world, let’s see what other nutty questions we can come up with.

    “if william defoe sets off a suitcase nuke in hamburg, will you bomb hollywood?”

  59. 59
  60. 60
    nightjar says:

    A fair number of Clintonites will realize resistance is futile and stay home. Obama by .378 %.

  61. 61
    JohnTh says:

    Re. your point 2 AFAIK there are a number of countries where candidate would say aggressive things about neighbouring countries (most of the MidEast about Israel, for a start). However, of the nuclear powers: in the UK and France obliterating anyone is off the table. The Russians like to mutter about how they still have the capability to wipe anyone but don’t (AFAIK) discuss specifics. China ditto, although there was some general who made a speech 2-3 years ago which was a bit threatening re. US. Israeli politicians usually remember to pretend to not have nukes, while being publicly clear that anyone who really threatens them will have an extremely large but unspecified problem

    It wouldn’t be surprising if Indian and Pakistani politicians occasionally got close to threatening to obliterate the other side – but not the US, obviously…

    The North Koreans have a good line in bluster though, and may have made this kind of threats. However, they run a one man, one vote system (Kim Jong-Il is the man; he has the vote) and he doesn’t talk much – so I’m not sure they count.

  62. 62
  63. 63
    Z says:

    They use the Barry thing, because it is more white Americana. When he was a kid, like most kids, he wanted to fit in. When he grew up, he made peace with his funny name and got in touch with the black part of his identity. A certain kind of Hillary supporter will interpret that as rejecting his white half, and that will anger them. Another kind of Hillary supporter will see that as a sign that he is trying to be, but isn’t, an authentic black man. Regardless, both indicate the supporter really don’t understand and haven’t gotten past their own racial issues. That doesn’t mean they are racists, per se, but it does mean they have issues.

  64. 64
    mrmobi says:

    right on. by actually answering such a crappy hypothetical in the piss-poor way she did not only did she lend credence to the whole ‘omg iran’s got nukes’ crowd, she also gave the mullahs in iran the perfect sound bite to further rationalize their nuke program.

    Chopper, she’s in full campaign mode right now, so she’ll pretty much say anything that she thinks will help her win, no matter how idiotic or irresponsible.

    None of that nuance stuff for this candidate, this is Pennsyltucky we’re talkin about here, know what I mean?

    She really dodged a bullet on the Ed Rendell 1997 speech to the Nation of Islam and Minister Farakkhan. If that had come out a couple of weeks ago, it might have helped if Obama had been able to point out her hypocrisy.

    Funny thing, though. I know Farakhan has been fully demonized for his anti-Israel statements, but isn’t the Nation of Islam generally a great thing for the black community? I watched Rendell’s speech yesterday, and he seemed quite appreciative of the groups’ efforts in 1997. What happened?

    Let’s see, they help people find work, get off drugs, lead useful lives. Yeah, everything they stand for must be wrong because they are wrong about Israel.

    Just sayin’

  65. 65
    Wilfred says:

    “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”

    Charles Krauthammer on American deterrence in protection of Israel.

    Col. Pat Lang, noted anti-Semite, skewered Krauthammer for this ridiculous and offensive op-ed, which appeared less than a week ago.

    Hillary Clinton is an Israel First neo-con.

  66. 66
    mrmobi says:

    Oh, I forgot, Clinton by 3.

  67. 67
    Dave_Violence says:

    First, how does Iran nuke Israel without nuking the Palestinians?

    Since when does this matter? They’ll be martyrs. Besides, they’re demonstrated a desire to destroy themselves, several children at a time. Not part of the equation anyway.

    Thusly:

    1.) She will simply say anything to get elected.

    How may are in agreement with this? I am, but I also think she’s being truthful in this instance.

    2.) Are the roles reversed anywhere else in the civilized world- is there some place where candidates, on their respective national television channels, play out their war fantasies in which they nuke the United States?

    North Korea – judging by their posters, http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,504259,00.jpg. There might be others… Gotta go looking. However, it’s not about nuking the US, it’s about nuking one of our allies. Think Britain and Poland prior to WWII.

    3.) This is why I am not watching any more news until this person is dispatched from the race.

    So you’ll be not watching until at least 2013?

    I predict Hillary! by 20%. Huge victory for her.

  68. 68
    Xanthippas says:

    If Iran attacks Israel with a nuke that doesn’t annihilate everything within the boundaries of Israel, why can’t Israel retaliate with their full arsenal of nuclear weapons?

    That’s kind of what I was wondering. Doesn’t Israel have their own nukes? As opposed to Iran which, last time I checked, still doesn’t have any? I don’t see why we’d be wasting our nukes. Those things aren’t cheap. And anyway Israel would probably know an attack was coming and would probably launch theirs first.

  69. 69
    jake says:

    Oh John, you’re just askeered of a woman who is strong enough to say “Yes, yes I will unleash a instant firey death on our allies’ enemies and a longer, agonizing death on whichever of our allies in the path of the fall out!”

  70. 70
    Cain says:

    Boy, the numbers seem to be all over the place. I can’t watch. I’ll read about it tomorrow, I think. Ugh. Clinton for another 2 months. ARRGH! Whatever she wins here, NC and OR will make up for it. *sigh*

    cain

  71. 71
    John Cole says:

    North Korea – judging by their posters, http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,504259,00.jpg. There might be others… Gotta go looking. However, it’s not about nuking the US, it’s about nuking one of our allies. Think Britain and Poland prior to WWII.

    I said the civilized world. If the only example you can find of similar bellicose warmongering is one third of the axis of evil, you have sort of proven my point.

  72. 72
    chopper says:

    Chopper, it’s Willem Dafoe.

    however you spell it, he’s a danger to society.

  73. 73
    chopper says:

    First, how does Iran nuke Israel without nuking the Palestinians?

    Since when does this matter? They’ll be martyrs.

    i’m imagining a shia country nuking a bunch of sunnis and thinking it wouldn’t be that simple.

  74. 74
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Boy, the numbers seem to be all over the place. I can’t watch. I’ll read about it tomorrow, I think. Ugh. Clinton for another 2 months. ARRGH! Whatever she wins here, NC and OR will make up for it. sigh

    What’s not to like:

    Punxsutawney Phil comes out his burrow. If he see’s Obama Bin Laden’s shadow, we have another 6 weeks of winter.

  75. 75
    PK says:

    I think it is about time the United states declared Israel the 51st state.
    Now I am off to cast my vote against this nutjob!

  76. 76
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    I demand to know what she expects to do when Sri Lanka drops the H-bomb on Bolivia, using their invisible Superbomber that may be able to travel at Mach 83.

    It’s important that we know exactly what that response will be, should it arise. I bet Obama would just dismiss this as a foolish question. Clearly, then, he’s not a serious candidate.

  77. 77
    jenniebee says:

    I’m confused, she’s saying that her policy toward Iran will be deterrence on the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction, and that’s a bad thing? It’s not like she said she would pre-emptively nuke Iran, she said that the US would respond in kind to a nuclear attack on an ally (although with allies like Israel, who needs asylums for the criminally insane?…)

    May I remind everybody that our nuclear deterrence ability was one of the primary strategic advantages that was ignored in the run-up to the Iraq war? As in, even had Saddam had WMDs, we didn’t have much to worry about because if he’d tried to use them against us, we could have “obliterated” Baghdad within an hour of identifying the source of the bomb? A candidate who says that if Iran gets the bomb, they’re dead meat if they use it is undermining the argument that anybody has an existential interest in preventing Iran from getting the bomb, not the other way around.

  78. 78
    gypsy howell says:

    A candidate who says that if Iran gets the bomb, they’re dead meat if they use it is undermining the argument that anybody has an existential interest in preventing Iran from getting the bomb, not the other way around.

    I highly doubt if that was her point though.

  79. 79
    4tehlulz says:

    >>I’m confused, she’s saying that her policy toward Iran will be deterrence on the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction

    Ummm…no, since the United States can be assured that it will not be destroyed (or even slightly injured) if it attached Iran with nukes, MAD does not apply.

    She just did this to say she’s willing to nuke something. Iran just happens to be the target du jour. Honestly, I think she just threw Israel in there as a distraction from the fact she wants to extend the umbrella to the Saudis.

  80. 80
    Wilfred says:

    and that’s a bad thing?

    Yeah, it is. For one thing, what control will the US be able to extend over Israeli polices? As Zev Chafets pointed out, one Israeli misstep or overreaction or lunatic act would compel the US to incinerate another country. Would you give Israel, or any other country, what amounts to a nuclear blank check?

    What price, if any, the umbrella of US nuclear deterrence?

    Oh, who the fuck I am kidding – no one will ever ask her that question.

  81. 81
    4tehlulz says:

    *attacked

  82. 82
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    To the cheers of supporters, Clinton today promised “massive retaliation” against the moon if the moonmen should turn their Death Ray on Liechtenstein.

  83. 83
    nightjar says:

    I demand to know what she expects to do when Sri Lanka drops the H-bomb on Bolivia, using their invisible Superbomber that may be able to travel at Mach 83.

    She’d do nothing. Bolivians are nothing but southern working class bums who haven’t done anything for Bill so “Screw em!”

  84. 84
    Martin says:

    Digging in a bit on PA, don’t be surprised if Obama pulls this out. The demographics are against him, no question, but it’ll be all about GOTV on those undecideds. I don’t know of the old guard PA machine can pull it out for Clinton (I haven’t lived there in some years) but her ground campaign is weak and Obama’s looks as strong as ever there. I wouldn’t bet against the machine at any other time but this one.

    Nice to see myiq upping the money ante. The media are reporting 2:1 or 3:1 spending, myiq has already inflated that to 5:1. It’ll probably be 10:1 or 20:1 by tomorrow. Any comment on why nobody believes enough in her campaign to contribute? All those old women buy too many Girl Scout cookies this year or did they chip in to buy her a new Trident II?

    Any comment on Hillary’s new self-loathing by repeatedly putting herself back in the hot kitchen and refusing to get out?

    I like how Armando thinks that any nuke-waving rises to the level of ‘classic deterrence theory’. I propose threatening to nuke Lithuania next in case they have nuclear ambitions. It’s just a deterrence. Nobody will mind, I’m sure.

    I’m unaware since lunatics like Curtis Lemay of threats to nuke:

    1) a non-nuclear nation
    2) a nation in response to an attack against a non-NATO nuclear nation
    3) a nation that may have a nuclear defense assurance from Russia

    This isn’t deterrence. It’s not deterrence until Iran has nukes. Making the threat is as likely to drive them to feeling they need nukes as a deterrent of their own. Remember, the deterrence effect actually *sped up* the proliferation of nukes. You take an entirely different approach to talking them out of getting nukes in the first place. The problem with deterrence threats is that just as we have to assume that Iran would strike first, Iran has to assume that Israel (and now the US) will strike first. That’s why the proliferation takes place and why Iran would seek out Russia’s help to balance out the threat.

    Israel does have 2nd strike capability. This was reported at least 6 years ago, which means that Israel already has an effective deterrence setup. They don’t need our help. There is no credible nuclear enemy to Israel, so us piling on becomes destabilizing.

    Israel is a terrible choice to overtly promise this defense to. Not only do they have a history of actually starting wars, their borders are poorly defined. If Israel initiated an attack on Iran and a nuke detonated in the west bank would the US be obligated to take out Iran? That seems like Israels dream come true – the local palestinian problem is reduced, Iran is gone, and all it cost them is a nuke and a coverup – although Israel would never do something so underhanded to try and drag us into one of their conflicts…

    And the ‘should we just let Iran take out Israel’ argument is a non-starter. Were allies with both India and Pakistan, but if India dropped a nuke on Pakistan, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t wipe India off the map. And these are both nations that we *know* have nukes.

    We have a nuke defense pact within NATO, but it’s a mutual pact. If the US is attacked, our allies respond. It was designed to balance out an expanding Soviet presence by expanding the US presence, but these have always been reciprocal arrangements. What reciprocity do we trust Israel to offer? None. This is a better deal than we are offering NATO. I can’t imagine NATO would think this is a prudent move. Even Wes Clark seems to be stunned by this move.

    And if you combine it with her other statement (which might be unfair, but she’s laid a few whoppers on us in close proximity without much clarification) it appears that she’s willing to extend a non-nuclear (or also nuclear?) umbrella across the middle east. Problem is that the umbrella appears to fall strictly along sunni/shia lines. Are we really going to take sides in a 1500 year old religious conflict? That’s how some will interpret it. And we’re now suggesting that we’ll commit nukes there in at least some instances?

    I’m not sure the GOP would see this as a winning move, and I sure as hell can’t imagine how the Dems could see it that way.

  85. 85
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    I’m confused, she’s saying that her policy toward Iran will be deterrence on the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction, and that’s a bad thing? It’s not like she said she would pre-emptively nuke Iran, she said that the US would respond in kind to a nuclear attack on an ally (although with allies like Israel, who needs asylums for the criminally insane?…)

    jenniebee,

    IMHO Hillary has raised a serious issue, which is the relationship between our extended deterrence umbrella (including client states) and non-proliferation, which is much more of an issue in the Middle East now than it was prior to the emergence of the mid 1980’s Iraqi and the more recent Iranian nuclear programs. During the cold war we extended our nuclear umbrella as much to prevent friendly states from trying to get nukes as we did to protect them, in other words extension of our umbrella was part of the non-proliferation framework and helped to minimize the number of states in the nuclear club.

    There a several problems with the solution which she is proposing to address this problem:

    1 – Israel already has a submarine based deterrent force of is own, so they don’t really need ours any more.

    2 – The states (both Israel and other unnamed sunni Arab states, but probably SA and Kuwait, perhaps others as well) which she is proposing to extend our umbrella to are less tightly bound to our foreign policy by alliances and formal command structures than say West Germany or Japan were during the cold war, and collectively have a past history of engaging in dangerous and destabilizing adventures, so we would be increasing the chance of being forced to choose between pulling the nuclear trigger or having our bluff called during a crisis.

    3 – A very significant change has occurred since the cold war in the manner we should expect the use of WMD’s to be threatened, which is not by nation states in a context of 20th cen. style total war, but by non-state political actors like AQ, and in a much more ambiguous way than ICBM’s raining down from the sky.

    I think it very unlikely that even if the Iranians did want to nuke Israel, SA or another neighbor, that they would shoot a missile at the target. A much more likely scenario would be a car-bomb nuke or radiological dirty bomb, planted with the assistance of one of the terrorist groups in the region. How do you respond to that? Do you massively retaliate against Iran and kill 20-30 million people in response to an attack of dubious provenance which may have caused casualties in the tens or hundreds of thousands? How do you establish a proportionality of response which is acceptable to both US domestic and world opinion? What if the attack looks like it was staged by Iranian allies, and later we find out it was faked by AQ (who hate the Shia and are anti-Persian)?

    There are all sorts of serious problems with Hillary’s proposal as it stands now which make it a very bad idea IMHO, although I think the topic of how to create a framework for non-proliferation in the Middle East (and what sort of regional security structure might help that goal) is a good one.

  86. 86
    Gus says:

    Lately I’ve been reading a lot about Iran nuking Israel or Iran becoming a regional hegemon because of its nuclear capability. This is causing the usual nutcases like Krauthammer to call for preemptive strikes on Iran. Everyone seems to take it for granted that Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons. Didn’t a recent NIE suggest that Iran has abandoned it’s nuclear weapons program? Has a more recent report debunked that NIE? I’m wondering because no one seems to bring up the NIE when the issue of a nuclear Iran is brought up. Isn’t the proper response to this question, “we have no proof Iran is attempting to create a nuclear weapon, so we’ll refrain from baseless speculation.” Did I miss a non-Bill Kristol based debunking of our best intelligence?

  87. 87
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    And if you combine it with her other statement (which might be unfair, but she’s laid a few whoppers on us in close proximity without much clarification) it appears that she’s willing to extend a non-nuclear (or also nuclear?) umbrella across the middle east. Problem is that the umbrella appears to fall strictly along sunni/shia lines. Are we really going to take sides in a 1500 year old religious conflict? That’s how some will interpret it. And we’re now suggesting that we’ll commit nukes there in at least some instances?

    One of the points of view that has been growing on me of late is that events in Iraq and the Middle East more broadly have less to do with US + Europe vs Islam, and are more likely the reflection of a Shia-Sunni cold war within the latter, reflecting regional rivalries between Iran and SA, into which we’ve been drawn as a unwitting proxy. If this is true, then I expect that at some point both Iran and SA will go nuclear in order to establish a regional balance of deterrence similar to the one in South Asia between Pakistan and India.

    We should be doing everything we can to simultaneously pursue two goals: (1) prevent this from happening and establish the region as a nuke-free zone, but (2) make sure that if we fail at goal #1 the resulting arms race results in a stable balance between the two powers in which a preemtive first strike by one side is not even a remote possibility.

  88. 88
    4tehlulz says:

    >>Problem is that the umbrella appears to fall strictly along sunni/shia lines. Are we really going to take sides in a 1500 year old religious conflict? That’s how some will interpret it.

    It’s this line of thinking why I see the Saudis being the actual focus of this policy, not Israel. (It would also explain why Iraq was not offered it either.} Imagine the shitstorm that would result if she extended the umbrella to the Sunni ME states but not Israel. Epic would not even begin to cover the shitstorm that would result.

  89. 89
    Wilfred says:

    I’s this line of thinking why I see the Saudis being the actual focus of this policy, not Israel.

    Oh shut the fuck up. Clinton’s statement coincide perfectly with Krauthammer’s, who is also no doubt interested in extending a US nuclear deterrence to Saudi Arabia

    This cretin’s comments are meant to deflect the growing resentment of Americans towards Israel’s influence over American foreign policy by concocting some moronic counter-scenario where the Iranians are planning to nuke the site of the Holy Places.

    The Iranians are looking to attain hegemony in the Muslim world, not by taking it from the Saudis – who not only do not have it but are uniformly looked on and despised as the American/Israeli puppets that they are – but by earning it in the eyes of Muslims. They do this by challenging both the US and the Israelis for their joint occupations of traditional Muslim lands and their routine slaughter of innocent Muslims – about which the Saudis do nothing and never will. The Saudis have no standing whatsoever in emergent political Islam. The endless array of weaponry they are obliged to purchase from the US sits unattended in the empty quarter.

    Clinton’s statement is more red meat Muslim killing to Jewish voters in Pennsylvania – nothing more, nothing less.
    The construction of Iran as the new devil is a time-honored practice of the same people that have helped murder 4,000 Americans in Iraq. I think Americans are getting a bit sick of watching their children die for the betterment of Israel.

    Nonsense speculation about Sunni-Shia cold war is part of the same process.

  90. 90
    4tehlulz says:

    Angry Jew is ANNNNNNNGRY

  91. 91
    Wilfred says:

    Angry Jew is ANNNNNNNGRY

    Awwwwww, spoiled little cunt time because you got called on your Israel First bullshit? Tsk, tsk.

  92. 92
    Rick Taylor says:

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

    It’s disconcerting that left leaning sites supporting Hillary that one would normally think would be leery of saber rattling and who criticized Obama for saying we’d go after Osama in Pakistan even without Pakistan’s permission suddenly think that talking openly about nuking Iran is a great idea, as soon as it’s Hillary doing it.

  93. 93
    chopper says:

    Clinton’s statement is more red meat Muslim killing to Jewish voters in Pennsylvania – nothing more, nothing less.

    well you know us jews. we’re crazy about gentile blood. our pastries wouldn’t be the same without it.

  94. 94
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    One of the things that surprised me about Clinton’s statement was that Iran was elevated rhetorically from a state with no nuclear weapons to a nuclear armed threat to the region. The logical follow-up question, “At what point in the future do you believe that Iran will become a credible nuclear threat?” was never asked. Subtler questions like, “Do you believe that the President can unilaterally extend the US nuclear umbrella to any other nation without a treaty or Congressional action?” weren’t asked either.
    The reason that politicians make bullshit statements is because we largely have a bullshit press.

  95. 95
    4tehlulz says:

    >>Israel First bullshit?

    lulz. Israel always seems to be First in your mind. That makes you much more Jewish than I am.

  96. 96
    Cain says:

    well you know us jews. we’re crazy about gentile blood. our pastries wouldn’t be the same without it.

    Your bagels are excellent. I thank you for their creation. Now who do I thank for cream cheese?

    cain

  97. 97
    4tehlulz says:

    >>Now who do I thank for cream cheese?

    Philadelphia

  98. 98
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Wilfred,

    YMMV, but from where I sit the evidence for Saudi domination of US foreign policy is at least as compelling as the case for excessive Israeli influence.

    Consider how much leverage they have over us right now, by threatening either a 1973 style clamp down on our oil supply, or more likely (and less disruptive to their income) to switch to pricing their oil in Euros. Who benefited the most from both GW1, and then the movement of our troops out of SA as a result of OIF? Whose interests are being served by the Anbar awakening movement, and the continued infighting between multiple different Shia factions within Iraq which we are currently sponsoring? How many times has Cheney flown to the ME to consult with Likud?

    Cui bono?

    Despite what Krauthammer may think, I don’t see a whole lot of win for Israel coming from our recent involvement in ME poltics, but the Saudi’s have gained both some relief from their internal political pressures and lots of external boogeymen to use as a distraction from their internal problems.

  99. 99
    Rick Taylor says:

    Oh my God, now Clinton’s advisers are saying that her remarks were not meant to imply we’d actually use nukes against Iran. Can you imagine if Obama did this? They’d be all over him, and rightfully so: amateur hour, not ready for prime time, this is why you need someone experienced in the white house.

  100. 100
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Philadelphia

    Cut to a shot of Hillary, cream cheese on her upper lip a la the ‘Got Milk?’ ads. “And I want to thank the wonderful people of Philadelphia for this fine product.”

  101. 101
    Wilfred says:

    well you know us jews. we’re crazy about gentile blood. our pastries wouldn’t be the same without it.

    Piss off, twat. Or is that some of that famous Jewish humor now?

    A thinking man might wonder why Hillary Clinton, famous for not saying anything without a fucking reason would choose to make such a jingoistic, incendiary nutjob remark on the eve of the Democratic primary. No doubt to appear to the massive Zorastrian vote in Philly, or ex-pat Iranians desperate to see their country ‘liberated’ from the yoke of the Ayatollahs.

    Her comment was dog whistle for jews. Deal with it.

  102. 102
    Sasha says:

    I won’t be surprises if Hill wins by 10. I’ll be very surprised if she wins by much more than that.

  103. 103
    chopper says:

    Your bagels are excellent. I thank you for their creation.

    don’t remind me. i live in brooklyn yet i can’t eat any bagels this week.

  104. 104
    Sloegin says:

    Funny thing about this nuking silliness and Israel.

    There isn’t even a US-Israel defense treaty on the books.

  105. 105
    4tehlulz says:

    >>i live in brooklyn yet i can’t eat any bagels this week.

    Could you tell those jackasses that make that matzos shmura there to turn down their goddamn oven next year? They’ve burned them into inedible masonry two years in a row.

  106. 106
    chopper says:

    A thinking man might wonder why Hillary Clinton, famous for not saying anything without a fucking reason would choose to make such a jingoistic, incendiary nutjob remark on the eve of the Democratic primary.

    a thinking man might note that the jewish population in PA is a little over 2%, most of which are pretty liberal and secular and not all that interested in eschatological nightmare scenarios.

    a thinking man would also note that pennsyltucky, on the other hand, is chock-full of rapture-ready christians who just eat that shit up. you know, the same people the bush administration has been wooing for years with it’s armageddon-styled inflammatory rhetoric and saber-rattling in the middle east, specifically iran.

    a thinking man would also note that clinton already has about 75% of the jewish vote in PA and has no need to ‘dog whistle’ at them.

    clinton isn’t aiming for the small jewish vote here. she already has it wrapped up. she’s aiming for the christian ‘red-stater’ vote.

  107. 107
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Oh my God, now Clinton’s advisers are saying that her remarks were not meant to imply we’d actually use nukes against Iran.

    Did you catch this jawdropper from her ABC interview yesterday:

    I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran [emphasis added],” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

    So, if she’s the president then we will attack Iran. Right. Now her staff will come out and attempt to explain away that one too. For all of her supposed policy expertise, she’s all over the map. Does she realize that if she did answer that 3AM phone call with the word “Attack!” that her staff will not be able to undo it with explanations? A simple willingness to blow people up is not crossing the Commander-in-Chief threshold.

  108. 108
    chopper says:

    Could you tell those jackasses that make that matzos shmura there to turn down their goddamn oven next year?

    i got some recently, this hand-made stuff that was really good. still lots of the stuff is like charcoal, that’s why i usually make my own during passover. but then again i can get shmura flour out here which is pretty cool.

    and there are plenty of christian children whose blood i can add to the mix. really, the blood makes all the difference.

  109. 109
    Wilfred says:

    Despite what Krauthammer may think, I don’t see a whole lot of win for Israel coming from our recent involvement in ME poltics, but the Saudi’s have gained both some relief from their internal political pressures and lots of external boogeymen to use as a distraction from their internal problems

    I don’t agree. Israel is the only winner in this whole fiasco, not least because it’s safety is henceforth insured without the loss of any of its own treasure. Do you really mean to suggest that the removal of Saddam Hussein, a permanent (let’s be honest) American military present throughout the region, and even more largess rained down upon Israel does not add up to great victory for it?

    I’m quite familiar with the politics of the region. The ruling family of Saudi Arabia has no interest in using its ‘supposed’ influence over the United States for any purpose other than ensuring that its countless princes can gamble and whore at London nightclubs. If, and I contest the degree you assert, Saudi Arabia has power, it has done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of the Palestinians – the single most important political issue in the Arab/Muslim world – an action that would have given it enormous prestige if not political hegemony. Any power they have is used in the personal interests of the ridiculous House of Saud.

    Israel on the other hand, uses its enormous political influence to advance its territorial interests in the region, always under cover of political allies in the US.

    Feel free to indicate one instance of Saudi Arabia using its political clout to do anything other than benefit the interests of the royal family and I’ll stand corrected.

  110. 110
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Feel free to indicate one instance of Saudi Arabia using its political clout to do anything other than benefit the interests of the royal family and I’ll stand corrected.

    Well, they’ve done what they could to bring man-kisses to our shores.

  111. 111
    Martin says:

    Clinton’s statement is more red meat Muslim killing to Jewish voters in Pennsylvania – nothing more, nothing less.

    Agreed.

    My concern is why so many of her supporters are buying the bullshit as good policy and are equating it with US/Soviet deterrence. It’s nothing of the sort.

    the evidence for Saudi domination of US foreign policy is at least as compelling as the case for excessive Israeli influence.

    I agree with this as well. SA has us over a barrel because our currency is backed by their oil. SA doesn’t need nukes when they can simply shift their position on petrodollars and completely wreck the US economy. In exchange for the favor of them always courteously accepting US dollars, and only US dollars, from their customers, we have the benefit of providing them with whatever military equipment they can talk us out of.

    It’s believed that Saudi Arabia entered an arrangement with Pakistan to trade oil for nukes almost a decade ago. SA already bought medium range missiles from China. SA is possibly already a nuclear power.

    Anyway, bottom line is that whether I got any of this right or not, this is wickedly complicated shit that shouldn’t be ad-libbed to grab votes.

    Her comment was dog whistle for jews.

    That wasn’t dog whistle. That was bullhorn.

  112. 112
    Liberal Masochist says:

    There was obviously something besides milk in Wilfred’s corn flakes this morning.

    Leftturn and Martin are addressing (quite eruditely I might add) a different aspect of the inane “nuke Iran” statement. They are talking about why the implications of that kind of policy are problematic. Wilfred is addressing the “why is was said” part (although I disagree with his analysis – what chopper said is probably the real reason). The answers to both parts don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Wilfred needs to chill.

    And one other thing Wilfred – I would submit that 4,000 American soliders being dead has very little to do with the furtherance of an “Israel First” policy. It has a lot more to do with a certain commodity and the Middle East being the main supplier of it. Go read The Prize by Dan Yergin. This has been our policy for going on one hundred years. The support Israel part, like the support Saudi Arabia part, is just one tool of this decades long policy to secure cheap energy resources for the United States and its allies.

  113. 113
    Pug says:

    I’m confused, she’s saying that her policy toward Iran will be deterrence on the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction, and that’s a bad thing?

    Yes, in fact it is a bad thing. We have a treaty with NATO that an attack on one is an attack on all. However, since it is a treaty, it was approved by Congress. We have no such treaty with Israel and certainly not with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the UAE, all of whom Hillary has now included in her defense umbrella. We allegedly have rules in our government and she is taking this thing to a level even beyond George W.

    Does Senator Clinton believe she will have the power as president to decide on her own that we are going to “obliterate” another country? Is she running for Queen?

  114. 114
    Z says:

    well you know us jews. we’re crazy about gentile blood. our pastries wouldn’t be the same without it.

    Now as an atheist gentile, is it still ok to eat those pastries with my Jewish friends, as long as it is Christian or Muslim blood? I’m still trying to figure where to draw the cannibalism line.

  115. 115

    […] John Cole, noting the sudden “don’t cross me, Mahmoud!!” statement from Hillary, asks a really damn good question: Are the roles reversed anywhere else in the civilized world- is there some place where candidates, on their respective national television channels, play out their war fantasies in which they nuke the United States? […]

  116. 116
    chopper says:

    Now as an atheist gentile, is it still ok to eat those pastries with my Jewish friends, as long as it is Christian or Muslim blood? I’m still trying to figure where to draw the cannibalism line.

    just go to mass afterwords and drink the blood of jesus and you’ll be fine.

  117. 117
    4tehlulz says:

    >>Now as an atheist gentile, is it still ok to eat those pastries with my Jewish friends, as long as it is Christian or Muslim blood? I’m still trying to figure where to draw the cannibalism line.

    iz cool. Just stay away from the Manischewitz wine-bottling facility. Just sayin’.

  118. 118
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Our daughter turned 21 today, and she is hoping for an Obama win and a Hillary concession speech to make it even more memorable. She figures that she might get the first, but fat chance about the second. But if she gets neither, at least her, her Mom and the girls from work are going to the bar to get faced.

    I get to stay home and care for our son, but we have our own plans. We are going to have a jam session and see if we can drive the neighbors nuts with heavy metal thrashing, then I am going to take him out for a burger (we rarely ever eat out). This is his first time that he will not be celebrating her birthday with her, so I thought it would be nice to do something with him while the girls are out. We don’t get a chance to jam together as often as we would like to, and with the ladies out we can crank it up to 11. :D

    I would like PA to end up at the most +5% for Hillary, and less would be even better. The primary is already over and Hillary has lost and is broke, but our reality is not something that a Clinton can relate to. Like Bush, they create their own reality.

    We are just supposed to sit back, watch and study it. Right?

    ;)

  119. 119
    Gus says:

    Amazingly enough, TalkLeft thought this was an eminently reasonable policy position.

  120. 120
    ThymeZone says:

    Her comment was dog whistle for jews stupid people. Deal with it.

    I think that’s what you meant.

    And no, I do not mean that jews = stupid people. I mean that the assertion you made just doesn’t make sense on several levels. But if you change it to my version, it makes perfect sense.

    Her comment was dog whistle for jews. Deal with it.

    Clinton on an Iran Attack: ‘Obliterate Them’
    Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

    “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

    Here, Clinton talks down to both Americans and Iranians at the same time. Americans are treated as fools, and Iranians are talked to as if they were ignorant people who didn’t know about our nuclear arsenal.

    I don’t know about you all, but I am little tired of this smarmy piece of shit woman and her condescending, insulting and fear-mongering approach to politics.

  121. 121
    Wilfred says:

    And one other thing Wilfred – I would submit that 4,000 American soliders being dead has very little to do with the furtherance of an “Israel First” policy. It has a lot more to do with a certain commodity and the Middle East being the main supplier of it.

    I’ve often argued the economically determined nature of the war. But it’s ridiculous to assert that after over 5 years of slaughter the American people accepted it. Do you think the war could have gone on for a minute if Americans thought their kin were dieing for oil?

    They were sold on the political argument behind it – and that has a great deal to do with the persistent conflation of American/Israeli political interests. Every war in the last 100 years has been about Empire of one sort of another – the spice has always had to flow. But to pitch this war you need a politics, and to suggest that Israeli interests have not provided a good deal of the necessary political cover is simply silly.

    I suppose the clamor for war against Iran is about oil, too. Is that correct? If you want to something morally wrong, you need a beard.

  122. 122
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    Feel free to indicate one instance of Saudi Arabia using its political clout to do anything other than benefit the interests of the royal family and I’ll stand corrected.

    Wilfred,
    I have no intention of trying to refute this statement, because I agree with it. When I talk about the geopolitical interests of SA, I’m really talking about the ruling clique.

    My point is, I think the “ZOMG! Zionist influence on US policy!” meme has turned into a very convenient fig leaf for concealing from public view political realities which would be deeply embarrassing to the ruling elites of all 3 countries (US, Israel, SA):

    A. The Israeli and SA elite geopolitical (and most especially security) interests in the ME coincide with one another (and there is tacit cooperation between these two in dealing with rivals in the region) to a much greater degree than either one would like to admit.

    B. The client-patron relationship between the US and SA has flipped over since the Carter doctrine was announced. We are now their clients and they are our patrons, geopolitically speaking. US foreign policy in the ME is now written up in Riyadh, not Washington, because they own us. It doesn’t help having an oil guy in the WH, either.

    Nobody in any of these 3 countries wants to admit these truths, because the internal political consequences would be very bad for the current elites.

  123. 123
    Cain says:

    o I thought it would be nice to do something with him while the girls are out. We don’t get a chance to jam together as often as we would like to, and with the ladies out we can crank it up to 11. :D

    I can’t imagine a more fun way to spend the evening ignoring PA! :)

    Well, there is automata theory and studying for midterms. Would that be a good fun?

    cain

  124. 124
    chopper says:

    I mean that the assertion you made just doesn’t make sense on several levels.

    right. wilfred’s statement only makes any sense at all if you assume that the only people that are strong supporters of israel and would react positively to such a crazy comment are jews.

    the jewish population in PA is about the same as in the US overall, a little over 2%. going with a very liberal assumption that 90% of PA jews are strong supporters of israel, you’re talking about 2% of the population.

    almost 60% of americans are christians who believe in the end times, the rapture and armageddon and all that bullshit. a belief, of course, that centers around a great war with israel right in the middle. a vast majority of these people are strong supporters of israel for at least that reason.

    so why would anyone assume that clinton’s comment was a dog whistle just for the jews, when there’s a different population 20+ times bigger that eats that crazy shit up with a spoon?

  125. 125
    Krista says:

    Piss off, twat

    Jeez, Wilfred. The c-word, and now this? Do me a favour and cut back on that kind of talk, huh? It doesn’t make for a very pleasurable reading experience.

  126. 126
    Vlad says:

    “iz cool. Just stay away from the Manischewitz wine-bottling facility. Just sayin’.”

    To Serve Man(ischewitz)?

  127. 127
    Martin says:

    almost 60% of americans are christians who believe in the end times, the rapture and armageddon and all that bullshit. a belief, of course, that centers around a great war with israel right in the middle. a vast majority of these people are strong supporters of israel for at least that reason.

    This is an important observation. I’ve never really had a problem talking rationally about Israel with Jews, even loyal Israeli Jews. The problems almost always come out when you talk with hard-core Christians. It’s not that one group or the other seems to care more or less about the region, but Jews at least understand the complexity and reality of the situation, and while they might advocate for a hard line there, they are cognizant of the repercussions of that. The Christians, on the other hand, almost seem as dismissive of the impact on Jews as they are on the impact of Muslims. They care about Israel only as the location of their holy sites and if God intends to save the Jews from the ionizing radiation and pressure waves, then he’ll extend his magnificent hand and do that. We needn’t worry about it as a policy consideration.

    But the 60% is way too high. Maybe 20% tops. Rapture and end-times is pretty narrow stuff and doesn’t find any home in most Christian sects. It’s still a big (and vocal) number, but it’s not exactly a core belief.

  128. 128
    4tehlulz says:

    >>They care about Israel only as the location of their holy sites and if God intends to save the Jews from the ionizing radiation and pressure waves…

    This must be a new wrinkle in Christian eshatology; last time I checked, Jews were supposed to die in a fire with everyone else that rejected Jesus.

  129. 129
    Martin says:

    This must be a new wrinkle in Christian eshatology; last time I checked, Jews were supposed to die in a fire with everyone else that rejected Jesus.

    They are, but even the most radical fundie yields the floor to God for the final say. My point was that they don’t see it as their job to save any of them and it’s foolish to think that their pro-Israel views harbor consideration for the lives of Jews in any capacity. That’s the extreme view, mind you, but anyone begging on the end of the world automatically lands in that camp.

  130. 130

    any back on topic, me and the wife did our parts today. Clinon by 4-6 range.

    Man this is almost as fun as prediciting football scores!!

  131. 131
    chopper says:

    The Christians, on the other hand, almost seem as dismissive of the impact on Jews as they are on the impact of Muslims. They care about Israel only as the location of their holy sites and if God intends to save the Jews from the ionizing radiation and pressure waves, then he’ll extend his magnificent hand and do that. We needn’t worry about it as a policy consideration.

    to the rapture-ready crowd the jews are merely cannon fodder. a necessary speed bump on the way to ‘eternal peace’.

    But the 60% is way too high. Maybe 20% tops. Rapture and end-times is pretty narrow stuff and doesn’t find any home in most Christian sects. It’s still a big (and vocal) number, but it’s not exactly a core belief.

    back in 2002 a time/cnn poll showed that 59% of americans believe the events in revelation will happen. according to other polls, 40 or so percent of americans believe the rapture will happen ‘in their lifetime’.

    it’s bigger than you think.

  132. 132
    chopper says:

    also, according to a recent poll, 82% of american christians “say they have a ‘moral and biblical obligation’ to support the State of Israel”.

    trust me, when it comes to support for israel in america christian supporters far outnumber jewish ones.

  133. 133
    Martin says:

    back in 2002 a time/cnn poll showed that 59% of americans believe the events in revelation will happen. according to other polls, 40 or so percent of americans believe the rapture will happen ‘in their lifetime’.

    I’d like to see a more recent poll. On 9/11 I was pretty sure Bush/Cheney were about to nuke the planet myself. 9/11 was a bad marker for this kind of thinking. But that’s higher than I was expecting at any rate.

    according to a recent poll, 82% of american christians “say they have a ‘moral and biblical obligation’ to support the State of Israel”.

    I think we have a moral obligation to support the State of Israel as well. I also think we have a moral obligation to support India, France, and Uruguay. That question is pretty fuzzy. My support for Israel probably looks a lot different from Tim LeHay. I’d like to see ‘Biblical’ isolated and asked of all Americans rather than just Christians with cross-tabs. Christian is a poorly defined group and can easily be carved down to produce the survey outcome you want. Christians constantly fight amongst themselves what constitutes a Christian.

  134. 134
    Liberal Masochist says:

    Wilfred Says:

    I’ve often argued the economically determined nature of the war. But it’s ridiculous to assert that after over 5 years of slaughter the American people accepted it. Do you think the war could have gone on for a minute if Americans thought their kin were dieing for oil?

    They were sold on the political argument behind it – and that has a great deal to do with the persistent conflation of American/Israeli political interests. Every war in the last 100 years has been about Empire of one sort of another – the spice has always had to flow. But to pitch this war you need a politics, and to suggest that Israeli interests have not provided a good deal of the necessary political cover is simply silly.

    I suppose the clamor for war against Iran is about oil, too. Is that correct? If you want to something morally wrong, you need a beard.

    Wilfred this thread is winding down, but you are really stretching here. A “good deal” of the political cover? Really? How much? Remove the geopolitical implications of the vast reserves of oil in the area and we never invade Iraq in the first place (911 probably does not happen either, but…). There are many reasons why we are still there, but the main part of it has to due with the stubborness of our leaders and no sense of sacrifice on the part of the American people. The media coverage has been abysmal, first with the cheerleading and now with the silence.

    Historically, we have been a friend to Israel in the region because it has served our strategic interests. Israel provides us with an in-region friendly counterweight to the belligerent players in the ME. We were very close with the Shah and are still very close with the Saudi Royal family. Why do you think that is? It’s all part of the same reason. Access to cheap energy. The Bush Admin. painted Saddam as a threat to energy security. The American people went along for the ride.

    The “end-times” crowd with their rationale is a rather recent phenomenon in that they have more political power than ever before, so it’s more vocal, although it will wane come November.

    I think this quote from Three Days of the Condor with Robert Redford (Turner) sums it up nicely. It’s at the end, where he is confronting his Company handler (Higgins) before going into the NY Times building to spill the beans. This was made in 1975. Absent the melodrama, the underlying sentiments apply just as much today. Stable American democracy relies on access to cheap energy. Cable TV, fast food and mass religion help as well.

    ——————————————————————————–
    Higgins: It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

    Joe Turner: Ask them?

    Higgins: Not now – then! Ask ’em when they’re running out. Ask ’em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ’em when their engines stop. Ask ’em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ’em. They’ll just want us to get it for ’em!

  135. 135
    myiq2xu says:

    Conservatively Liberal Says: I’m not even a Democrat, I’m a die-hard supporter of John “Crypt Keeper” McCain.

    Funny what happens when you use the truth filter.

  136. 136
    Wilfred says:

    A “good deal” of the political cover? Really? How much?

    If you’re right, then the ‘speedy’ withdrawal from Iraq promised by both Obama and Clinton can’t take place; economic determinism must win out above everything else.

    If, however, there is a strong enough movement amongst Americans to pull out, regardless of the consequences to the economy, high oil prices, et., then there shouldn’t be any problem. Am I correct to infer this?

  137. 137
  138. 138
    Brachiator says:

    Some Guy Named Matt Says:

    any back on topic, me and the wife did our parts today. Clinon by 4-6 range.

    Man this is almost as fun as prediciting football scores!!

    The New York Times has a fun little interactive on its home page. It shows how Clinton can come close to sealing the deal (The Challenge For Clinton).

    If, for example, she wins 60% of the delegates in the 10 remaining contests, she would need only 54% of the uncommitted super delegates to win the nomination. She currently has the support of 53% of the super delegates.

    On the other hand, if she sticks to her average result so far of 47% in delegate wins, she would need a whopping 79% of the uncommitted super delegates to seal the deal.

    Most interesting of all, if she only wins 36% of the delegates in the remaining primaries, she cannot win the nomination at all unless there is a massive super delegate defection, or unless she can pull off some convention floor death match (Xbox should make a video game of this).

    A close result in PA won’t do. If Senator Clinton has convinced large numbers of voters in this state that she is a better choice, I think she could honestly say that she has begun to make a strong case for her candidacy. But short of that, to paraphrase the line from All About Eve, “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy primary campaign!”

  139. 139
  140. 140
    Liberal Masochist says:

    Dude – Nowhere did I say economic determinism must win out. There are lots of very different factors that determined decades of our policy and our actions in the region, but the economic value of the region is by far the most important. We were well engaged in the region before the formation of Israel. We have parked a carrier group in the Persian Gulf for quite some time as a warning to first the Soviets and later to the bad apples du jour (they have a habit of changing). Next you’re going to say the Suez fiasco in the fifties was more about Israel than about protecting a vital economic corridor to Europe.

    Sorry to break this to you, but our policy toward Israel is not going to meaningfully change with any of the three remaining candidates in the White House (it’s part and parcel to the broader economic rationale for being engaged in the region) and the timing of our troops coming home will have little do with our support of Israel. Come off it already.

    (shaking fist at bottom of this thread)

  141. 141
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    myiq2xu GoatBoy Says:

    I love the smell of hot goat sex in the morning. You know, one time I was loose in a goat pen, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I looked up. I couldn’t find one standing, not one stinkin’ goat. The smell, you know that hot goat sex smell, the whole pen. Smelled like… victory.

    Someday this war’s gonna end…

    You ought to write a book about your hot goat sex orgies. I would suggest ‘Head or Tail: Which End Should I Start At?’.

    Well, there is automata theory and studying for midterms. Would that be a good fun?

    Only when compared to pulling your teeth out at home with Vise-Grips or reading about NoIQ and his hotgoatsexcapades.

  142. 142
    Wilfred says:

    Come off it already.

    Wanking. You didn’t answer the question, but attempted to deflect it. If its all about oil then we’re never leaving. If it’s not, we will. I make it zero sum, unless there is another factor. you say there isn’t, we´ll see.

    Sorry to break this to you, but our policy toward Israel is not going to meaningfully change with any of the three remaining candidates in the White House (it’s part and parcel to the broader economic rationale for being engaged in the region)

    More wanking. I think it will change with Obama, for the better – you don’t. Your parenthetical phrase is baffling. American presence in Iraq, motivated, say, 90%, by oil, has what exactly to do with Israel?

  143. 143
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    2.) Are the roles reversed anywhere else in the civilized world- is there some place where candidates, on their respective national television channels, play out their war fantasies in which they nuke the United States?

    Not quite.

    However, we have a foreign minister who doesn’t like foreigners, who is campaigning on an anti-Asian stance while representing us in China, who has stated he will criticise a free trade agreement in public while representing us (said FTA passed by 85% of the House), and who claims that he could have got a better deal – when the opposition trade spokesman and the head of the WTO think it was a ‘high quality’ deal.

    Wanted – out and out xenophobe. Will trade one egotistical Maori politician well past his use by date.

  144. 144
    mere mortal says:

    1.) She will simply say anything to get elected.

    A.) John Cole will repeat any anti-Clinton frame. Any Frame, Any Time. No longer a loyal Republican, but still a team player, and he knows all the rules.

    2.) Are the roles reversed anywhere else in the civilized world- is there some place where candidates, on their respective national television channels, play out their war fantasies in which they nuke the United States?

    B.) I’ll take George Bush and Taiwan for $1,000 Alex. Sadly, I lose, since it only counts if you’re a Clinton. But we all knew that, right John?

    3.) This is why I am not watching any more news until this person is dispatched from the race.

    C.) John will continue to act like a child whenever it comes to the Clintons. It’s one of the holdovers from his loyal Republican days. Hard to give up that wonderful Two Minutes Hate.

  145. 145
    fenris says:

    2.) Are the roles reversed anywhere else in the civilized world- is there some place where candidates, on their respective national television channels, play out their war fantasies in which they nuke the United States?

    Oh, yes. Just the other day, we had our minister of the interiors point out that in the immigration related cases, they face difficulties keeping their stated targets when it comes to finalizing work- permits (they should be higher) and granting reunions and naturalisation possibilities (they should be lower), because of an influx of refugees, asylum seekers and american politicians who are no longer welcome in their native habitats.

    All of which generate a tremendous strain on our budgets due to increased costs in councelling and integration related matters.

    It also presents an increased security risk, and the interior minister has determined together with the best our government has to offer in thinkers, that the United States is the cause of all our troubles (all of them, but also including the security one, obviously). Because of the instability they cause not only around the world, but inside their country as well.

    It thus is the conclusion of the specially appointed by royal decree “committee of truthiness and very wise decisions that shall not be questioned, peasant!”, that we must strike at the heart of the enemy, and bring “compassion and long lasting peace” with “determination and skill befitting the motherland’s finest” through military force if necessary. When pressed the minister admitted, with the most serious tone he could muster, that “all options are on the table”, and that if necessary, our army of mad cybernetic monkeys will be unleashed to protect our interests. He added – “I mean, I can’t say we’re not going to fucking use them, can I! What the fuck would be the reason for us spending decades training the little bastards then, huh?! What about your tax- money? Down the goddamn drain, that’s where – but I can’t SAY that, now can I, you shitheadsgetmeacoffee”.

    In the meantime, we await “signals” from the United States so they can prove their good intentions towards our unrestrained and expansive reign of monkey. And that they are not harboring dangerous war- criminals and the seeds of destruction for our very way of life (even if they do not exist yet, as such – but they will!).

    Being a war- criminal harboring dangerous country that is a threat to our nation, naturally we’re not listening to anything the US has to say. The monkeys are being powered up as we speak.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] John Cole, noting the sudden “don’t cross me, Mahmoud!!” statement from Hillary, asks a really damn good question: Are the roles reversed anywhere else in the civilized world- is there some place where candidates, on their respective national television channels, play out their war fantasies in which they nuke the United States? […]

Comments are closed.