Personally, I think Robert Parry is good to raise this issue. Most have stayed totally mute on it.
She went and conferred with Buzh and I posted quite alot on it but the MSM was totally quiet about it.
After a brief glance at my over 100+ emails in a six hour period, the major stuff is on the rise of a third conservative religious party .. which means BuZh's base is further eroding and we must be ever cautious as to what that could mean potentially.
I will never sit and debate who is the lesser of evils and choose sides. But to have three of them! Horrors! But that is EXACTLY What I predicted a few weeks back.
Up here, in Canada, it takes the form of dissent wrapped up in a Canadian flag,
just a tactical difference made for the "climate" of opinion here.
Thing is they are ALL haters ...
All this seems to me is an attempt by all sides to divert attention from the real genocide going on .. mostly aimed at people of color, which they have extended right into all those in the Middle East as worthy of extermination.. sad to say, they'll take US troops with them and "blame" whatever happens on them.
To: "Isabel HUTCHINSON"
Subject: Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:06:24 +1300
Well, there are female psychopaths as well as male ones. And with an oh-so-charming psychopath for a husband, what else is to be expected of Hillary?
There is never the minutest acknowledgement that the U.S. of A. is illegally, immorally, murderously “present” in Iraq – to say nothing of its belligerent, war-mongering stance re Iran. Isabel
Hillary Prods Bush to Go After
By Robert Parry Iran September 28, 2007
So let me see if I’ve got this right: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, is demanding that George W. Bush take a more belligerent posture toward
In her view – and that of 75 other members of the U.S. Senate – President Bush hasn’t been aggressive or hasty enough in designating a large part of the Iranian military, the Revolutionary Guards, as an international terrorist organization.
The Senate resolution, approved on Sept. 26, recounts allegations that elements of
’s Revolutionary Guards have supplied Iraqi Shiite militias with “explosively formed penetrator” bombs that have shattered Iran armored vehicles and killed American troops. U.S.
In response, the Senate resolution calls on President Bush to list the Revolutionary Guards as “specially designated global terrorists.” In opposing the resolution, Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia, warned that the move could be tantamount to a declaration of war.
Despite Webb’s protest, 29 Democrats joined Republicans and neoconservative Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of
to pass the “sense of the Senate” resolution. The Democrats egging Bush on included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Connecticut , Nevada ’s Dianne Feinstein and California ’s Carl Levin. Michigan
Sens. Chuck Hagel of
and Richard Lugar of Nebraska were the only Republicans voting no. Democratic presidential hopefuls Joe Biden of Indiana and Chris Dodd of Delaware also opposed the measure. Sen. Barack Obama of Connecticut was absent but said he would have voted against it. [Isabel: Obama is clearly pro-zionist so it’s both meaningless & worthless for him to say he would’ve voted against it. Pre-emptive nuclear attack on Illinois is Iran ’s policy & increasingly shrill goal.] Israel
But Hillary Clinton, who also voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq in 2002 and staunchly supported the war for the next three years before reinventing herself as an Iraq War critic, now has reverted to her old hawkish self, jumping out ahead of Bush in urging a more hostile policy toward Iran.
Besides the extraordinary notion that Bush needs prodding into greater belligerence, there is the dangerous & delusional] definitional problem of throwing the broad cloak of “terrorism” over Iraqis, who are resisting a
military invasion force, and their alleged Iranian allies. U.S.
The classic definition of terrorism is violence directed against civilians to make a political point. The term shouldn't be applied to an indigenous population fighting an irregular war against a foreign occupying army, since that would have made everyone from George Washington to the French Resistance to the Afghanis confronting the Soviet occupation "terrorists."
Though Americans understandably detest anyone killing
soldiers – whatever the circumstances – it is not "terrorism." In effect, the Senate resolution is choosing to use “terrorist” as a geopolitical curse word against any combatant who challenges U.S. military might. U.S.
While that "tough-guy/gal" stance might make political sense domestically – condemning anyone who dares take up arms against
soldiers – the risk is that once the word “terrorist” is attached, it effectively dictates a course of action: negotiations with "terrorists" are prohibited and a host of draconian actions become unavoidable, even if they are counterproductive. U.S.
With a peaceful solution off the table, violence is almost guaranteed to escalate; more
soldiers are likely to die; and American interests may be damaged. One might have thought that the lesson of loosely applying the epithet “terrorist” to an adversary would have been learned from the debacle that followed Bush falsely linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. U.S.
That is a lesson now measured by the blood of some 3,800 dead American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. But it is a lesson that Hillary Clinton and those other senators – with their fingers to the political winds – apparently still haven’t learned.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.