The Rude Pundit: To Hillary Clinton Supporters ...

[meegbear]

Your Candidate Just Said She's Prepared to Murder Millions of Innocent People

Okay, good and honest Hillary Clinton supporters, men and women, let's have a little history lesson for some context. Back in 1984, our then President, Ronald Reagan, no doubt in the early stages of Alzheimer's, made a little joke while testing a mike. Not thinking anyone beyond the studio would ever hear, he said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." When the quote got out, Reagan's lead over Walter Mondale slipped (very temporarily) by seven points. The Left was justifiably in an uproar over it. And Reagan was making a joke - a bad one, one that no doubt revealed his actual mindset, but, still and all, a joke.

For the third time now, Hillary Clinton, your candidate, has non-jokingly threatened to destroy Iran if that nation launches a nuclear strike on Israel. At the debate last week, she said Iran would face "massive retaliation." On Olbermann last night, she reiterated that and added, as if to clarify, that Iran's "use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."

Today, she took it even further, into territory that, c'mon, admit it, Clinton supporters, if a Republican had said it, you'd be going nutzoid about the fearmongering and paranoiac fantasizing. Said Clinton on Good Morning America, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Yes, she claims to be saying it only to offer deterrence. But, really, isn't that understood about the United States? That if we wanted to, we could "totally obliterate" most of the Earth? So, by saying it, Clinton accomplishes something of a pandering trifecta: she lets the Israel-humpers know she's willing to wreck shit for them, she lets the pro-military people know she ain't scared of shit, and she lets gun owners know she's willing to fire the largest gun of all. Who's got the biggest dick now, eh, Barack?

(Note: the above line is not unconscious and dunderheaded sexism. It is a deliberate and conscious use of feminist critical theory to demonstrate just how extreme Clinton has become in her embrace of the phallocentric policies of her male predecessors. Indeed, the entire trajectory of Clinton's campaign can be traced as a kind of reification of phallic power as a sad and unnecessary means of attempting to legitimize a female candidate to those enmeshed with the dominant patriarchy, those who might find such a candidate weak simply because of her sex. Such a tactic is bound to fail because by reifying such power, the female candidate merely justifies the perceived and false weakness. In other words, those who live by the Penn, die by the Penn.)

Sure, Obama said, "I have not ruled out military force as an option," but that's standard shit. Clinton took it to the limit: she said that if a nation that's not the United States has a nuclear missile launched at it by Iran - a possibility about as likely as a captured terrorist knowing where the suitcase nuke is that's gonna go off in five minutes and needs his knees shot out to give up the info - then she is ready not just to use targeted nukes against Tehran, but to go all in and to kill millions and millions of innocent people, many of whom don't even support the Iranian government.

The Rude Pundit's not sure, but he doesn't know that he's ever heard of such an extreme policy in support of an ally from a legitimate Democrat running for the Presidency. "Totally obliterate"? It's like the threat of a particularly demented child to an anthill if one of the little fuckers bites her.

Oh, and by the way, you stomp an anthill out of existence, chances are your foot's getting swarmed.

So there you go, Clinton supporters. Your candidate has told you what she believes about military force. She is willing to make the United States a target for nuclear retaliation and massive terrorist acts should Israel be attacked. Now that's a fuckin' way to tell people to take their hope and shove it up their asses.

Happy fuckin' Earth Day.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[redqueen]

1. Yes!

Thank you for posting this.

:loveya:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

39. If you see this thread, RECOMMEND!!!!! Hillary giving Bush the GO signal before election

don't let her get away with it.

Bump this thread, and RECOMMEND!!

[lilyannerose]

44. Silly Me

I always thought feminism should come down to the freedom to be "women" in every sense of the word and to be equal. Now Hill tells me it's about embracing :nuke: and not about embracing life. No thanks, I see nothing empowering about the ability to talk this talk.

[papau]

66. LOL - really - rejecting "the ability to talk" -? - then there is no reason to vote Obama

[texshelters]

97. Can you explain your comment

it doesn't seem reality based.

Tex Shelters

[merh]

150. isn't it amazing?

welcome to DU, please forgive those who are confused - it seems love of candidate trumps love of nation - love of gender beats love of peace.

[polpilot]

151. I am woman...see me BOMB!!

[papau]

65. NO - "Isn't that understood about the United States?" - the answer is No - the rest is crap

[texshelters]

98. Imagine we can't read your mind

and write so we can understand what you want to say. That is if you care to make a point.

Tex Shelters

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. You really think there is any head of state, any major player, or any

international terrorist who doesn't know that the US has 10,000 nukes?

You really are delusional.

[grantcart]

2. This is from the same guide book that she used on the IWR

Democrats have to sabre rattle

Democrats have to be more beligerent than Republicans


Democrats have to look tough by talking about thermonuclear war..




This is one of the saddest days in the history of the Democratic Party.

[Shae]

42. It would be sadder

if she was winning the nomination. But she isn't. And she won't.
In a couple of months, she'll just be 1 of 100 senators.

[Demeter]

45. And Shortly Thereafter, an Ex-Senator

[Ken Burch]

50. In a just world, Bobby Jr. would challenge her in the next primary and win.

n/t.

[Hutzpa]

55. Hopefully Bobby Jr would

not have to endure the Rovian style politics that she has become
accustomed to.

Fingers Crossed!!!

[cui bono]

121. Except he endorsed her presidential candidacy. n/t

[Shae]

59. well 4 more years

but what can ya do?

[texshelters]

99. They do have to saber rattle

it worked for Kerry, right?

It is a sad day indeed.

Tex Shelters

[polpilot]

152. I believe she's going after McCain voters. I predict she'll change parties and run as an Independent

Repub candidate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. Naw, she's going to join McCain's ticket.

That way, when Grampa goes off to the rest home, she'll step up to be president.

"Whatever it takes", right?

[cosmicsheep]

159. Maybe she and Lieberman.....

....could join forces.

[Zachstar]

3. At this rate she mise well just declare war on the Middle east if she becomes president.

Most of em hate America and if Clinton gets elected they will have more recruiting language than ever before.

[redqueen]

7. "if Clinton gets elected they will have more recruiting language than ever before"

There's an unsettling truth.

Jesus...

[Independent-Voter]

4. Hammer, meet Nail.

God damn Veruca.

[Hutzpa]

56. No sooner she opens her mouth she buries herself

how long can she keep doing this....:shrug:



:rofl:

[marylanddem]

5. She is such a loser.

[texshelters]

100. Could we keep out the name calling

I don't like her either, but I am trying not to stoop to the Clintonist level.

Tex Shelters

[Coexist]

6. I love the smell of Rudeness in the morning!

thanks, meegbear.

[FredScuttle]

8. She makes Curtis "Bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" LeMay look like a Girl Scout

pathetic.

[depakid]

70. If you knew even the slightest bit of history

you'd know that LeMay wanted to use nukes as a "conventional" weapon, as opposed to retaliation to another nations' nuclear strike (which in this case would indeed annihilate Israel.

Big difference between MAD and trying to "beat the commies" in Southeast Asia.

Never mind those pesky facts, though. On with Hillary hating....

[FredScuttle]

74. LeMay was batshit insane

and so is Hillary. She stated that she will incinerate 71 million people (the vast majority of which is innocent) without provocation against the US. I'm glad you can defend insanity like that.

[depakid]

76. She's simply stating what Obama would likely do as well

which is retaliate against a nuclear strike against the innocent people of one of our allies.

What would you propose under those circumstances? Economic sanctions?

[jonnyra]

85. Well...what I would NOT propose

is nuking another 20 million innocent people. Thats what I would not do. If you think killing/maiming/burning/melting/searing another 20 million or so is an appropriate response or a "necessary" response then I guess Hillary's your president. And McCain. And Cheney. And Bush and any other evil fucking war monger. My thinking is Obama would have begun a search for peace and trust that would prevent such a scenario. To not even have to consider the question is in my mind the smartest thing to do. Problem is there are no smart people in the white house. Maybe...just maybe...Obama would end up being that smart person this nation so desperately needs. It obviously is NOT Hillary.

[depakid]

114. What would you propose then?

it's easy to blather on self righteously....

[jonnyra]

119. Umm...I think I proposed dialog...

communication...striving for peace by diplomatic means thereby removing the need to ever have to consider the question. That is my proposal to the issue and that is what I believe Obama will do. That didnt sound that self righteous to me.

[chknltl]

95. Let the world make that particular decision.

It ain't yours or mine or ours to make. The world made the right decision in WWI, WWII and in the Gulf War. Would you rather we said the hell with the world and went our own 'maverick' way back then??? The world has gotten sick with that bully America acting aggressively without the world's support as of late. Much of that world has condemned our actions these days in the Middle East but because we have that 'BIG STICK' there has not been much that they can do. Good thing We The People are not at all dependent on that world, huh?

Think about it, what would the world do if ANY nation dumped a nuke on ANY OTHER nation unprovoked? What would the world have done if Saddam had actually gotten a nuke prior to our invasion and actually used it on one of his neighbors, (including Iran). We have history to look to here, when Saddam, while under notice by that same world for prior missteps, invaded Kuwait what happened? Saddam KNEW THAT. He KNEW that his life expectancy would have been measured in days not months had he dropped a nuke on ANY of his neighbors back then. There was NO way that he was about to bomb Israel with a nuke...nor would Iran. (Others have been quick to point out that Saddam used WMD against Iran prior to the first gulf war but even the most kool-aid filled freeper admits that Saddam would have been toast had he retried that stunt after the first Gulf War and ESPECIALLY after 9-11).

If there is ANY reason for Iran to want nuclear weapons it would be for economic or defensive reasons only. North Korea plainly demonstrated the economic reasons for wanting to make nukes but look at the defensive ones: Would we have invaded Iran this time if Saddam had nuke's to throw at our armies WITHIN his borders? Likely not. So the REAL reason Iran would want nukes would be to keep the bully at bay and away from THEIR oil. They are NOT out to seal their ultimate destruction but to stay alive in a world made incredibly hostile by the bush crime family.

It is time for America to withdraw from the position of the threatening bully and the well equipped thief. If we want to be the world cop that is one thing, but we are not the judge and jury-( VERY crooked ones in this case). Would you want our cops to be that way? I suspect not. Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are BOTH aware of this, so is Senator McCain and President bush. So WHO are the ones making threatening gestures at Iran right now? I am supporting the one who is making the LEAST threatening gesture among those four and for the safety of America I suggest that everyone reading this do the same.

[depakid]

115. "The world made the right decision in WWI, WWII and in the Gulf War." ????

[chknltl]

118. First one, yes!

[Why Syzygy]

111. Peace in the Middle East. If the Palestinian issue can be resolved, none of them will be nuking.

[D23MIURG23]

125. Glib sloganeering about nuclear destruction is perverse.

Its bizzare that she would bring this up in these terms - particularly as a campaign theme.

[krispos42]

164. Israel has their own nukes

And the means to deliver them.

All of this is irrelevent anyway. Iran does not have nukes, they are not working on nukes, and they won't have nukes while Obama or Clinton are in office.

[texshelters]

103. The fact is

Clinton threatened millions with annialation. History won't change what she said.

Thanks fer educatin' us from using facts about what Clinton said and all. However, she did say it, but pointing that out is "hate"? That's crap.

Tex Shelters

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Thank you Rude Pundit for pointing out Clinton's Happy Fricking Earth day message

The International papers are picking up on that statement and it is
not playing well in Europe our closest allies. Way to go Hillary!

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. BBC, Reuters, Canadian, French, etc has pick this threat story up

And it is not playing well on the diplomatic side.

[redqueen]

Please post those as OPs

People here need to see it... they are just tightening the blinders.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. Here are the links

I placed this news from Reuters and others on LBNs and it was removed

UK and Ireland
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080422/tpl-uk-usa-politics-iran-81f3b62.html

BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7359957.stm


Reuters which is french
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2224332720080422


It is hitting the international press hard

[redqueen]

17. Thanks... I can't do another OP till this afternoon.

If these aren't up by then... I'll do one.

Maybe call it: International Reactions to Hillary's Reckless Sabre-Rattling

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. The story just broke internationally expect

much more to come out of it.... Not a good reaction so far.

[redqueen]

12. delete

dupe

[texshelters]

104. If you have any links you could share

I would love to pass them on.

Tex Shelters

[Divernan]

147. Also Germany and Australia - pesky nuclear fallout doesn't recognize borders

[libnnc]

10. I like the feminist theory part.

The Rude One is correct.

[liberalcommontater]

80. Feminist theory crap

What needs to be done in any given situation should not be constrained by the need to appear to have a pair. If it needs to be done, it needs to be done.

Remember Bosnia and the high altitude bombing? The Republicans attacked Clinton for wagging the dog, but he went ahead and did what was right anyway. Hillary would too.

[bigbrother05]

13. kick

[Maddy McCall]

14. What I find simply astonishing is the depth of ignorance of people on the net.

They act as if Hillary invented the five-decade-old strategy of deterrence.

[dionysus]

18. thats sabre rattling and posturing, not deterence...

[Ken Burch]

53. Deterrence simply means having the weapons. It's never acceptable to threaten to use them.

It's enough just to have them there.

[liberalcommontater]

79. I beg to differ...

during the Gulf war James Baker explicitly told Saddam that he faced massive retaliation if he used chemical or biological weapons on American troops. This was a threat that worked. Kennedy made it clear during the Cuban Missle Crisis that any attack on the United States by Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States requiring a full retaliatory response. This was a pretty clear threat. Did the Soviets want to put their entire country in the hands of the Cubans? I don't think so.

Other examples come to mind, but let's look at Isreal. Isreal is our ally. Diplomacy is the way to get things done. Let me repeat, diplomacy is the way to get things done. However, a nuclear Iran pursuing the interests of Islamic extremism is a fact we will have to contend with. However, Iran will need to be in a box on this issue. The deterence is only effective if Iran believes that we will really use the weapons. If they believe this, it will make their weapons much less powerful as threats. If they then do not use them, mission accomplished (cringe). If they use them anyway, it is a guarenteed suicide mission.

Hillary could have said something like, well we take the security of Isreal extremely seriously and any threat to it will require a proportionate response. Veiled, yet clear.

Some other issues come to mind. What if the attack on Isreal is not govt policy, but the actions of a faction? What if is an accident - targeted, but unintentionally launched? The whole question of a nuclear Iran is destabilizing. However, while I agree mostly with Hillary's statement, I don't think we will have to do anything. Isreal has nukes of their own and I suspect they would be on their way before the first Iranian nuke hit Isreal.

Wonderful world, huh?

Edit:
On making us a target for terrorist attack...we already are.

Edit again:
A nuclear attack on an ally compared to a bite from an anthill?
Perhaps she just meant that we would nuke every Iranian military installation...???

Maybe if Iran nuked Isreal we could offer our lack of response to the Iranians as a sign of our good will. They would love us then.

Sorry my friend, I am a liberal and anti-war, but there is a time to kill.

[Ken Burch]

87. But there's a difference between a time to kill and a time to cause World War III

There's no way we could use the Bomb now without causing the whole planet to be wiped out.

[Schema Thing]

92. A time to kill *everyone*?

I don't think so. Go sell freeper somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

[liberalcommontater]

108. What would you have us do

in the face of a nuclear Iran? Having already nuked Isreal. Threatening to nuke any other Arab state that did not fall in line. Talk about hegemony.

Freeper. My wife just laughed. I'm the most liberal person she knows!

I do think you would agree that we all hoped that the end of the Cold War would lead to less of a nuclear threat.

We are already a target. What would make us less of one? I sincerely ask, because I think Dean was right, we are not any safer now. I didn't think so at the time. We are less safe because of the policies of the current administration. I've often thought that our actions against those who would harm us should be much more deliberate and effective and much less provocative. We do have enemies and we do need to be willing to do what is necessary. This includes actions by our own government and business community that are harmful and provocative. Kind of rambling but I think neither of us wants nuclear war. How do we best avoid it?

[Heathen57]

149. One little fact that you all have forgotten

is that according to our own people (CIA and others) Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons. It is in the damn report that Hillary says she doesn't believe.

The assessment was not written by the Iranians, or is it based on propaganda. Hillary is just like Bush in ignoring what our intelligence sources have gathered and studied. He wanted his war and he got it.

Now Hillary is using the same tactics of threatening instead of listening, ignoring any facts that don't go her way, and then lying about the country she wants to invade and occupy.

She has shown herself to be a warmonger, plain and simple. You can spin it any way you wish, but her words and actions are there in view of all.

[Gman]

122. Good God! Someone here GETS IT

good post and exactly the correct answer.

[ut oh]

62. What I find simply astonishing

is that you equate what Obama said to "we'll obliterate them"

There's no f'ing way you can honestly try to spin this as if they're saying the same thing...

Hillary might as well pull out the cowboy hat and six shooters at this point, if she's going to pull this kind of BushCo sabre rattling...

[texshelters]

105. Who said that?

We only said we don't like it, not that she invented it. Maybe we expected better of Senator Clinton.

Ooops! Our bad.

Tex Shelters

[bigtree]

16. obama says ALL options are on the table regarding Iran. That includes nukes

The dishonesty in this attack on Clinton's position is stunning.

Obama to AIPAC: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3371763,00.html

“The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy,” he said.

Even though all options were on the table, Obama said the utmost efforts should be devoted to “sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions”.

Obama stressed the importance of preventing Iran’s nuclear armament, which could lead weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorists, inevitably causing other Middle East nations to join the race for nuclear weapons. “


and this:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said that he would work to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians but that he would "take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region."

Iran need understand, he said, "that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, ...one whose security we consider paramount, and ...that would be an act of aggression that...I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clintons-umbrel.html

[GDAEx2]

21. There is huge difference

between Obama's understated diplomatic rhetoric and Clinton's outright belligerence.

:nuke:

[XemaSab]

26. "Appropriate action" vs. "obliterate them."

Huge difference in language.

[americanstranger]

34. 'Take no options off the table' does NOT equal

'We will attack Iran' and 'we will totally obliterate them.'

As someone already said - that ain't deterrance, that's fucking crazy talk.

- as

[CakeGrrl]

38. At least Obama considers alternatives versus Hillary's "Totally Obliterate" overcompensation

The world IS watching, Hillary - and they already think you're a nutso war hawk.

[beezlebum]

68. where does it say he *would* use nukes?

he also said, "scratch that," that "it would be a profound mistake to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances," and that nukes were not on the table, and continued by stressing that concentration on “sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions”.

again, while i, for one, am not 100% certain obama would avoid war at all costs, i do think he values diplomacy more than clinton, who has said no to diplomacy outright, and now we have clinton making it clear that "obliteration" is on the table.

[texshelters]

106. Pointing out what Clinton said is not dishonest

Obama said, "all optoin are on the table". That is true. However, he didn't say he would anniliate Iran. That is a difference.

He's less likely to bomb Iran, but he's not a real peace lover either. That doesn't mean that pointing out what Clinton said is an act of dishonesty. This kind of exaggeration is dishonest.

Tex Shelters

[mhoran]

112. Completely different

Keeping all options open vs. totally obliterate. Not the same, not by a long shot.

[Zuiderelle]

157. You are correct. Hillary justs state it more clearly, while he equivocates.

I so tired of his talking around things when he means exactly the same thing. This, like nearly every other issue, shows that these two candidates are exactly the same.

[joeybee12]

19. There's a difference between saying you'd obliterate someone and noting

that the US has the capacity to obliterate them...Hilary used this to emphasize that Iran would be foolish to provoke Israel and in turn the US.

Ah, but what the fuck, you bots will lie and spin any way you want.

[Ken Burch]

52. It's not much of a difference. We don't need to ever again use the JFK foreign policy.

Nothing could justify another October '62. Nothing.

[liberalcommontater]

81. I understand your concern

about going eye to eye with the Soviets over nukes in Cuba when we had them in Turkey. But, having them in Cuba was an escalation and a challenge to our security. I am sure the Soviets would have manned them, but as with any foreign based weapon system, given enough tension between Cuba and the US, which the Cubans may have felt empowered to engage in, do you really think just accepting them there would have been the right thing to do?

[Ken Burch]

88. We should have done at the start what we ended up doing at the end.

Which was take our missiles OUT of Turkey in exchange for the Soviets taking theirs out of Cuba.

Their missiles were only IN Cuba because JFK had stupidly gone ahead with the Bahia de Cochinos invasion attempt, an attempt that was always doomed to failure because, at that time, the Cuban people would never have supported the Miami exiles against the Revolution.

The life of everyone on Earth was put in the balance for a week, when a simple quiet phone conversation could have prevented the whole thing.

It was never worth jeopardizing the survival of the planet just to avoid looking like we were compromising.

And, at the same time, we should have accepted reality and recognized Fidel as the legitimate leader of Cuba.

Forty-six years of pointless confrontation would have been avoided.

And U.S. politics would not have been held hostage by a small, arrogant reactionary group of exiles in Florida.

[liberalcommontater]

101. Hi Ken

I had the conversation many times about the Cuban Missle Crisis. Given the reality in Europe between the end of WWII and early 60's, the vulnerability of the Western and Southern European governments, efforts to undermine and intimidate them, and given what the world had just gone through, a strong deterent was necessary. By 1962, did we need the missles in Turkey? I don't know, but it is an oversimplification (imo) to simply say, swap the Cuban ones for the Turkish ones.

I do agree that our influence over Cuba would have been much greater with more engagement. Look at China!

Thanks for commenting.

[newamericanpatriot]

135. liberalcommontater, you've got it wrong, brother....

My friend, you're portraying IRAN as the aggressor over ISRAEL. This shows an jaw-dropping lack of background knowledge into Middle Eastern history.

Holy fuck, if I was living anywhere within 600 miles of Israel, I'd love to see them eliminated as a threat too.

You haven't perchance, heard of a little region known as the Gaza Strip have you? The Golan Heights? Egypt?

Have a little looky-loo HERE my friend....

Oh, and let's not forget HERE and, um HERE....

[liberalcommontater]

142. If Iran nuked Isreal

then Iran would be the aggressor.

The Arabs and Jews fight by the same rules. You hit me, I hit you. But, that does not even the score. You hit me last so I have to hit you again and on and on and on. Just because Isreal is a more powerful state does not mean they have to do nothing in the face of attacks.

BTW, I have been a supporter of Palestinian statehood since 1986 when I looked at the issue seriously. The best outcome is peace and a two state solution. Unfortunately this does not serve the conservative interests in Isreal nor the radical interests in Palestine.

I am sure we can find pictures of dead Isrealis too. They both need to stop.

[cap hill]

133. with Kruschev?

"The life of everyone on Earth was put in the balance for a week, when a simple quiet phone conversation could have prevented the whole thing."

mmm...simple quiet...?

hindsight is a wonderful thing

[joeybee12]

20. There's a difference between saying you'd obliterate someone and noting

that the US has the capacity to obliterate them...Hilary used this to emphasize that Iran would be foolish to provoke Israel and in turn the US.

Ah, but what the fuck, you bots will lie and spin any way you want.

[truedelphi]

134. But she is saying that she will obliterate them for their use of nukes that they

Don't even have!!

It's rhetoric on her part to make herself look strong and overcome the gender gap.

She doesn't seem to understand that it makes people the world over lose sleep over nightmares of thermonuclear war.

[kenny blankenship]

22. "Clinton's campaign can be traced as a kind of reification of phallic power"

So that's why she always acts like a dildo. Wow, once you explain it in simple terms like that it makes perfect sense:
Dickish
Fake
Plastic
Poor commodified substitute for a human relationship
That's Hillary!

[juno jones]

91. Just wish the damn batteries would wear out already.

Had enough wargasm for one lifetime, thanx.

[LSK]

23. K&R

[futureliveshere]

24. K&R

[Scurrilous]

27. K & R

:thumbsup:

[mckeown1128]

28. Not just Israel... today on faux news her campaign guy

said it applied to ALL middle eastern countries.

[n2doc]

29. How long before we see her holding hands with the Saudi king?

She has really gone off the deep end in the last month.

[XemaSab]

30. Hillary sounds just like my friend's dad

The guy's a retired marine, and he's a foamer when it comes to attacking people. This guy believes the Vietnamese started the war and we were honor-bound to put them in their place. He basically never saw a problem that didn't have military force as a solution.

The last time I had a long talk with him we talked about when the use of military force is appropriate. He was saying that if Iran nuked Israel we had a duty to nuke their whole country and turn their cities to glass. I was sort of appalled at this, and I was trying to argue that killing a civilian population of tens of millions of people was pretty horrific, but he was just like, "Well, that's what happens in war and if they don't want that to happen they shouldn't attack Israel."

Very interesting to hear Hillary using the same language and rationale.

[zulchzulu]

31. Why do you think she liked Goldwater? That was your first clue... n/t

[lyonn]

60. ahhh, good thinking, she was a Goldwater Girl in the good ol' days nt

[uponit7771]

32. She is bringing the character of those around her down.

[jmondine]

33. Correct me if I'm wrong...

But aren't nuclear weapons radioactive? And isn't Iran right next to Iraq, the country we're trying to apparently liberate? And wouldn't dropping so many nukes on Iran to totally obliterate the population generate so much radiation that millions of innocent people in Iraq, not to mention dozens of surrounding countries, would die and the entire region would be uninhabitable for centuries?

And to pander to what the right wing really cares about, wouldn't it also contaminate the richest oil reserves in the world?

Just saying.

[juno jones]

93. Sure gonna piss off countries down wind, let me see...

Pakistan, India, USSR, China, to name a few, and they have nukes too, in case anyone has happened to aquire an 'I don't recall' memory from being exposed to the current bunch of idiots.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[natrat]

36. happy fuckin earth day :) :)

[brindis_desala]

37. Sorry Hillary: Words matter

[Deep13]

51. You would make an excellent parrot.

:eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

40. TRP is a treasure.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

41. kicking this and bookmarking the Rude Pundit

for future wisdom.

Gawd!

[stevenleser]

43. K&R'ed

:yourock:

[democracy1st]

46. K & R

:kick:

[Lugnut]

47. K&R n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Blood loss can make you say funny things.

So if you spend a lot of time in hotel rooms somewhere shitting blood this is bound to happen.

[Deep13]

49. Dear America. I'm prepared to murder millions of innocent people. Love, Hillary.

As usual for Obamism, your statements are dishonest. She said no such thing.

[Ken Burch]

72. Pointing out that we could do it is the same thing.

And even you would have to agree that there will never be a morally justified reason to use nuclear weapons.

[texshelters]

109. She said she would annihilate them, or was it obliterate?

close enough in my book. Clinton would kill tens of thousands, Bush has killed hundreds of thousands, Obama might only kill thousands will bombing. Gobama!

I don't trust any of them. Can we vote for Kucinich and his Peace Department again, please?!

Tex Shelters

[Kurovski]

54. And a happy fuckin' Earth Day to The Rude Pundit, dammit.

K&R.

[liberalcanuck]

57. Great post. K&R. This is an extremely provocative remark and not worthy

of a person seeking this nation's highest office. I can't wait to see Jon Stewart's reaction.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

58. "admit it, Clinton supporters, if a Republican had said it, you'd be going nutzoid" n/t

[gmudem]

61. And he is completely right about that

It's a sad state of affairs when liberals are defending statements like this one. Imagine if Cheney said this?

[Gman]

123. No, I would have been reassured that someone knew what they were doing

as opposed to the crap we have now as foreign policy. Just like I felt Poppy Bush responded appropriately in Gulf War I.

[OwnedByFerrets]

63. Once again, you nailed it....k & r

[styersc]

Strong Leadership!!!

You go Hillary!

[Tarheel_Dem]

162. Surely you jest?

Otherwise, your avatar belies the sentiment of your post.

[styersc]

64. Strong Leadership!!!

You go Hillary!

[Broadslidin]

67. Is malignant narcissism treatable...?

:nuke: :patriot: :nuke:

[TragedyandHope]

69. For some reason I cling to the hope

that there is still some good in Hillary or at least she isn't that bad, but almost every day she comes out with something new that just beats that hope a little further into the ground.

[NC_Nurse]

71. The Rude Pundit nails it once again.

This kind of belligerence cannot be tolerated. Get a clue, Hillary.

[JAbuchan08]

73. The standard of evidence against Iran has always been very low

we have everyone and their brother talking as if it is a guarantee that Iran WILL have a nuclear weapon. This is not a safe time to be electing someone so eager to prove that they are courageous.

[CakeGrrl]

75. Another thing for the Super D's to consider

Is THIS who they want representing the Democratic party abroad? Judging from initial reaction, no.

[meow mix]

77. K&R

Happy fuckin' Earth Day.
:spray:

[ForeignSpectator]

78. Is she up for reelection in the senate this year?

Cos she needs to be removed from anywhere near power. There is nothing good I can imagine that this fear- and warmongering asshole could do in the senate.

[Heywood J]

94. No. She was up in 2006.

[bpeale]

82. MY REPLY? FUCK OFF RUDE PUNDIT.

[NC_Nurse]

90. He'd love that!

:) You should send it to him.

[Heywood J]

96. Your eloquence astounds me.

He makes a point about her stated policy, whether you consider it true or not, and you're reduced to "Fuck off!"

When that's all you've got, you've already lost.

[bpeale]

130. i've got news for you, we ALL LOST when the MSM chose our candidates

eat that one asshole

[Window]

83. Hillary has lost her mind.

:nuke:

[ORDem]

84. And we think that McCain is a loose cannon!! nt

[Political Tiger]

86. "War. It's not just for Republicans anymore."

Hillary's new slogan?

[NC_Nurse]

89. I like it. Maybe she can make that her next campaign ad one liner -that

Truman line about the kitchen is getting really old. :silly:

[Catherina]

102. ! Rude Pundit speaks for me

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[frogcycle]

107. She's not "my" candidate

and I don't "support" either one of these with any enthusiasm.

That said, I found her comments refreshing. No pussyfooting around, as George Wallace used to say. She simply stated what we all know to be the truth. The US's superpower status, with its nuclear arsenal is the the last resort as a deterrent to people of ill will who would do harm. Extreme though it may sound to say it in so many words, those of us who grew up with Mutually Assured Destruction understand it quite well, and I am glad to hear her tell it like it is. I am ALL FOR dialog with Iran, just as we had dialog with the USSR, even during the missile crisis. But you'd better believe JFK's willingness to use the "big stick" is what put an end to that mischief. With all the (highly justified) antiwar sentiment and publicity, it is good to make sure that those who do not understand how our system works "get it" that being against bush's adventurism does not mean being the world's patsy.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming....



obaaaaaammmaaaa! obaaaaaammmaaaa! obaaaaaammmaaaa!

[Why Syzygy]

110. Whoa! That's a bite in all the right places.

[mhoran]

113. Methinks Mrs. Clinton...

...is rapidly going batshit. Bizarre...and sad to witness her decline.

[Snarkoleptic]

116. k&r

[rosesaylavee]

117. Is it just me?

Or does the Rude Pundit seem less and less rude? Is he mellowing or am I just harder to shock now? When I first read him - I have to admit I was shocked at his language. Now? feh. It ain't so bad. That's what a few years on DU will do to ya.

:P

[Gman]

120. The rude pundit is an idiot, Hillary is 100% correct that

a massive nuclear response is completely appropriate against Iran if they nuke Israel. There is no other response. There is no other reaction. If there is no "you can bet on it" nuclear response to Iran, then Iran can do what it wants if it were to achieve nuclear weapons.

The far left may not agree with that, and they have the right to be dead wrong. Fortunately, we don't have to be wrong with them.

[D23MIURG23]

124. The issue is that Iran has not nuked Israel...

and we don't have any imminent reason to believe that they will. She is glibly brandishing extreme worst case scenarios as campaign talking points to prove her toughness.

Its extremely poor taste, and I don't believe it does anything to help our situation with Iran. They already know what they risk if they attack Israel without our rubbing their noses in it.

[Gman]

126. The real issue is

Hillary said it and that's enough to piss people off regardless of how ignorant, even stupid they are about world affairs.

[D23MIURG23]

128. Or maybe you just can't justify the comment.

How many foreign policy savants walk around making unnecessarily bellicose comments about anything? None.

They understand that shitting in other countries faces tends to undermine diplomacy.

Maybe you should keep your insinuations about stupidity on world affairs to yourself if you can't grasp that concept.

[yurbud]

127. kick

[Khaotic]

129. She's beyond rational thinking

WTF?!!!!

I have a hard time seeing the rational thought of those who support her.

There's really only one reason.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for reelecting Bill.

It's as close as it gets to putting the last successful Democrat back in the White House.

That's it ... period.

She knows it, but doesn't give a fuck.

Pathetic.

I will take great pleasure when she finally has to concede.

[cap hill]

131. Catch 22

Damned if you do, dammed if you don't.

[dana_b]

132. great post!!! she's indeed a war hawk. I really don't see any difference between her and McCain

on this issue. That's scary and I hope Obama calls her out on this.

[newamericanpatriot]

136. You don't know the half of it....

Unfortunately, most mistakenly portray IRAN as the aggressor over ISRAEL. This shows an jaw-dropping lack of background knowledge into Middle Eastern history.

Holy fuck, if I was living anywhere within 600 miles of Israel, I'd love to see them eliminated as a threat too.

You haven't perchance, heard of a little region known as the Gaza Strip have you? The Golan Heights? Egypt?

Have a little looky-loo HERE my friend....

Oh, and let's not forget HERE and, um HERE....

[VotesForWomen]

137. yeah, IF they attack first, and if they do, they should know there will be consequences. nt

[guyanakoolaid]

138. With their imaginary nukes? Will they deliver them on unicorns?

:eyes:

[davidpdx]

139. What we need is a video of her saying that

split screen with John McCain singing "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". They make a great duo!

[Alii]

140. That was great!

I don't know where to begin, e.g., allow me to plagiarize you verbatim and pretend that I copied and pasted it here as my own.

It appears that 29 North Carolina legislators are going to get it right...considerably more intelligent than the Pennsylvania political machine and the sheep that blindingly follow Hillary Clinton. The majority of the Pennsylvania newspapers got it right...but one must first assume that many PA voters, et al., know how to read and comprehend that that is wrote.

"You deserve a Commander in Chief that will finally bring you home." Just forget that I was on the flight line bidding you a fine farewell.

Sixty percent of the people in this country find Hillary dishonest and untrustworthy and yet...

I give up...

Let's nuke 'em all, rattle our swords...

Better yet, let's wage a war against ignorance, prejudice, bigotry and sexism.

Is there HOPE?

[quickesst]

141. What the rude idiot.....

is trying to say, is that HRC is still a threat to Oba-Eden, and we have to pull out all stops to destroy her by any means necessary, because, deep down inside, we're scared shitless that the American people may begin to wake up too fast, before we can get the savior of mankind in there. Ha Ha. Desperation breeds some wierd shit in Obaworld. "Israel humpers" indeed. Pathetic. Thanks.
quickesst

[Donna Zen]

146. Okay...fine

Enjoy your next war because this is not how someone who wants to solve problems diplomatic speaks. This will have the same effect on Iran as the "Axis of Evil" which brought about the rise of the hardliners in Iran. Is that what you want?

Your trying to rationize that which cannot be defended is exactly what republicans have done to allow bush to continue his policies.

Senator Clinton has chosen to surround herself with a team of uber-hawks: Lee Feinstein (her #1 foreign policy adviser) Gen. Keane (her chief military adviser who just happens to be one of the people who planned this damn war & the surge) and then the more war now, Michael O'Hanlon.

Since you seem to approve of cowboy diplomacy and a continuation of bush's foreign policy rhetoric, then you should enjoy the next war.

[Tarheel_Dem]

163. And you'll be the first one high tailing it to Canada, and removing

your kids and/or grandkids from harm's way. I hate you people. Neocon trash. Let's just cluster bomb, and nuke our way to world dominance if people don't do what we say. This country deserves better than you.

[Bentcorner]

143. You mean Obama wouldn't respond to a nuclear strike against one of our allies?

If Obama wouldn't respond militarily if Iran started nuking other countries, I sure hope he comes out and says so.

[OzarkDem]

144. Responding to a pre-emptive nuclear attack

is going to require something pretty strong.

In the scenario presented to her, if Iran engaged in a preemptive nuclear attack against another country, we would have to consider responding in kind.

Whether or not that would happen is debatable.

But like her husband, Clinton believes in diplomacy to prevent such a scenario from becoming reality.

[Perry Logan]

145. "If Iran nukes Israel, I will just stand there with my thumb up my butt."

[1776Forever]

148. After the Iraq Vote, The Kyle-Lieberman vote and all her backing from Corporate Pac's!! WHY???

How can anyone support a candidate who has been proved to lie and vote for WAR????? I am amazed at how naive and sheep like her supporters are! Using the facade of voting for a woman????? And one that is married to one of the BIGGEST lobbyist for Dubai and Saudi Arabia too!!!!! Where the H is there brain in this????

:crazy:

[BrklynLib at work]

153. Now, she scares the hell out of me.

[BlueJac]

154. Hillary "Nuker" Clinton

WTF, that is not what Americans want. We need to abolish her husbands trade deals, re regulate the Telecom Industry, and return America to it's once great self.

[info being]

155. See I thought it went without saying

Any nation that preemptively uses a nuke on another should be obliterated.

[jmpnfool]

160. god help us

they are all insane

[Pappy]

161. After those comments she made about Iran, only a moron would vote for her now!

Well she just proved with that statement what we new all along, thats she a Neocon, and only a fucking moron would vote for a Neocon.