portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government | imperialism & war

You call this a choice? Top Democratic presidential hopefuls okay with striking Iran

Clinton, Obama and Edwards say they are for peace in Iraq. What are they saying about Iran?
Everyday I hear something about '08 presidential hopefuls Clinton and Obama. '08 is two years away. In the meantime we're about to mix it up with Iran. We have aircraft carriers in position. Even "Grand Chessboard" ex-national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski is warning about it:  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml

And what are we hearing from these phoney Democratic hopefuls who say they're all for peace in Iraq now that the American people have spoken???

from "Clinton, Edwards and Obama: Strike Iran"

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,'' Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.''

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails.

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons ... The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."


We need better candidates than these sold-out schlubs. Is there anyone left in the Senate not in the pocket of AIPAC or the war profiteers???

It's not a big jump to see how unprovoked attacks on Iran can lead to WWIII. The population of Iran is 3-5 times the size of Iraq, and its army and population have not been decimated by a decade of economic sactions. Russia and China have shown particular interest in what is going to happen next. Don't forget they *do* have nuclear weapons that can reach our shores. And the world has a billion Muslims who aren't going to be too happy about any of this, either. I've heard all this entire plan is straight out of PNAC's playbook, "Rebuilding America's Defenses"  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm (It's been a while since I've read it, however, I don't have my own computer and have limited time on the internet).

There's something *you* can do, personally, to at least make your voice heard on this issue! Call or visit your representives and tell them we need to take the idea of Iranian air strikes OFF the table and investigations leading to the impeachment of Bush/Cheney ON the table!

And let's get behind some better candidates, for heaven's sake!

Wouldn't It Be A Shame 06.Feb.2007 14:15

Den Mark, Vancouver

Wouldn't it be a shame if Hillary Clinton were the first woman president, or Barack Obama the first African-American president? Wouldn't it be disgusting if aristocrats controlled those firsts, like they control everything else? That would be tragic, to let this nation's moneyed slime determine who the first woman or black would be to occupy the House of White. The just scenario would be if the progressive movement would make those historic & critical decisions. If it is to be, it is for us to make it be.

comment 06.Feb.2007 14:37


republican = chickenhawk

democrat = chickenshit

Any fantasy about any difference is brainwashed idiocy

I have no suggestions either sorry

imagine. . .

what this is all really about 06.Feb.2007 15:20

pocket-size pundit

The corporate media are promoting the next presidential election earlier than ever before because its owners know there is more public discontent today than there has been in decades, and the public must be distracted. Although people understand, if they stop and do the math, that there are no elections this year -- no primaries, NOTHING -- the barrage of media bullshit is lulling people into feeling that relief from the crimes of the current regime is merely months away, and all they have to do to stop those crimes is support some Democrat for president.

In other countries, the activity that actually brings down criminal administrations generally includes open insurrection in the capital city, whether nonviolent or otherwise, huge unpermitted protests in the streets that continue around the clock for months. Americans don't understand this.

top money getters from AIPAC (most powerful lobby in the US) 06.Feb.2007 20:28

the war mongerers

we have given Israel 84 billion dollars in tax money since 1978. so, our politicians give them our tax money and in return AIPAC stuffs their back pockets.

i don't believe for a second that these corrupt politicians and lobbyists are actually reporting all the money. I'm sure they all have front corporations set up to receive the tainted money without oversight from congress. After all, the US senate is a club of millionaires and that's precisely who they help.

the correlation between taking AIPAC money and supporting two illegal wars is very strong.

since 1978: AIPAC has pumped 35 million into congressional races supporting almost 1800 candiddates.

the dems take most of the AIPAC money these days. as of 2005 here are the names that pop up:

---Tom "i'm history" Daschle............$534k

---Ron "Mossad" Wyden..................$256k

---Joe "the arab killer" Lieberman........$287k

---Dick "I can't see it" Durban...............$330k

---Max Baucus................................$320k

---Shelly Burkley..............................$245k

---Bingaman, Jeff.........................$263k

---Conrad, Kent...............................$255k

Clinton and Pelosi have both taken small amounts of money as well. They are both currently featured on the AIPAC web site, but both report only taking small sums from the lobby. Hmmmm......

the list goes on and on. one must question the loyalty of those who have taken large amounts of cash from Israel to this country.

here's the complete list of who's who of AIPAC ball lickers:

pictures of Ron wyden, Barak Obama, Cantwell and the rest partying with AIPAC:


good quote 06.Feb.2007 20:59


"Public diplomatic exchanges between the major powers today are on a level of childlike petulance which would be ludicrous as interactions between adult persons, but are nonetheless discussed with complete seriousness by perfectly intelligent individuals."

Philip E. Slater "The Glory of Hera' copyright 1968

So the situation may have changed, but the fact is that we as humans seem to have a concept of 'leaders' that is infantile. But, then, the culture America wants to export globally is exactly that, isn't it? Infantile. We're very, very sick children playing with guns. What Slater seemed to miss is that the kind of intelligence that real peace and diplomacy requires isn't native to narcissistic, self-absorbed children either at the time of the quote's writing, or of ours.

political independence 06.Feb.2007 23:39


yes the republicans and democrats are the parties of the slaveowners-- how to remedy it?

contrary to popular opinion, electoral politics doesn't have to be owned and operated by the elite. It is possible to have a political party that is built and steered by the working class; principles and organization is all that is needed. Unfortunately, many on the left frown at both of these words.

Working-class indepenence before its too late.

Israeli "aid": who actually gets the $ 07.Feb.2007 13:09


from  http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/21/1432202

"...essentially the United States provides 20% of the Israeli military budget on an annual basis, and then about 70% of that money that is given from the United States, from U.S. taxpayers, to Israel is then spent on weapons from Lockheed Martin and Boeing and Raytheon."

"...when you're talking about 20% of the Israeli military budget, you're talking about a huge fulcrum of leverage, right? The United States could today say, you know, "This incursion into Lebanon, the killing of civilians, the bombing in Gaza, all of this is not internal security, all of this is not self-defense, and we're cutting it off." And they could cut it off tomorrow."

Think about it. The argument that the "lobby" is responsible for US congressional crimes is based on the idea that our nonrepresentatives are controlled by monied interests, something I agree with. But what makes you think that, were the "lobby" to disappear tomorrow, the willingness of these nonrepresentatives to sell themselves to other monied interests, ones far more powerful than AIPAC, would also disappear?

Our enemy is empire and its need for control of resources. This is what is driving U.S. policy, not ethnic lobbies, even the despicable ones.