Hillary, Progressives and the NeoCon Line
You may have seen these articles, but here goes:
"I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President" by Molly Ivins.
"What Hillary Clinton Doesn't Know About Palestine" by Kathleen and Bill Christison
"Hillary Clinton, War Goddess: She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran" by Justin Raymondo
"Hillary talks Iran strike" by Glenn Thrush in Newsday
I really don't like what I see and hear of Hillary Clinton. Not progressive. Just different in degree from Bush.
Came across some interesting NeoConservative quotes:
What Iran needs is a Saddam Hussein. -- Jonah Goldberg
From National Review:
Thank goodness for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.-- Ilan Berman
From the Weekly Standard:
LET US STATE THE OBVIOUS: The new president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a godsend.--Reuel Marc Gerecht
Did you realize Iran was a threat to our country, say, oh, back before September 11, 2001? I admit I didn't know then and still don't. Back to Ms Clinton, I'll offer what I see as a telling couple quotes. From 8 paragraphs into her Princeton Speech of January 19:
The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East.
Around 22 paragraghs in:
A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond.
About 26 paragraphs in:
The United States plays the central role as the guarantor of Israel's security...
Israel is a tiny country brimming with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The Neocons got our soldiers into Iraq under the nuclear weapons pretext; finding no banned weapons leaves one to wonder at the coincidental nature
of US actions and those outlined in "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"- the realm being referred to is Israel, Perle Feith and Wurmser are the authors as well as some of the folks behind the attack on Iraq.
I'll leave you with his article from the Jordan Times (click link for full article)
DAMASCUS (AFP) — Syrian President Bashar Assad and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad closed ranks in talks between the two allies on Thursday, both nations facing growing international pressure.
"Iran has the right to build up nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," Assad said at a joint press conference after their meeting, in which he also called for Israel to renounce its alleged nuclear weapons arsenal.
"We also reject the pressure being exerted on this country" over its nuclear programme, the Syrian leader said.
"Israel is the only country which possesses nuclear arms in the region," said Assad, calling for a Middle East "without weapons of mass destruction.
"If WMD is the pretext of the West, then it should start with Israel."
I feel no country should have nuclear weapons. Not the US. Not Israel, the UK, India, Pakistan or Iran.
Reading deeply shows me the Neoconservative "Israel First" ethic that is endangering our world.
This quote from an article penned November 10, 2002 paints the picture of the NeoCon process we are seeing:
The prevailing view in the Israeli military is that Iraq will be quickly defeated by U.S. forces, and then likely split into two or three cantons. Israel's North American supporters, however, are still being given the party line that Israel is in mortal danger from Iraq.
Iran is a different story. Iran is expected to produce a few nuclear weapons within five years to counter Israel's large nuclear arsenal, and is developing medium-range missiles, Shahab-3s and -4s, that can easily reach Tel Aviv.
With 68 million people and a growing industrial base, Iran is seen by Israel as a serious threat and major Mideast geopolitical rival. Both nations have their eye on Iraq's vast oil reserves.
Israel's newly appointed hardline defence minister, former air force chief Shaul Mofaz, who was born in Iran, has previously threatened to attack Iran's nuclear installations. Thanks to long-range F-15Is supplied by the U.S., plus cruise and ballistic missiles, Israel can strike targets all over Iran. This week, Israel's grand strategy was clearly revealed for the first time, though barely noticed by North American media, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for an invasion of Iran "the day after" Iraq is crushed.
The information is out there for the googling.
ISRAEL’S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.
In an interview with The Times , Mr Sharon insisted that Tehran — one of the “axis of evil” powers identified by President Bush — should be put under pressure “the day after” action against Baghdad ends because of its role as a “centre of world terror”
Another article states:
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week that after Iraq, the United States should generate "political, economic, diplomatic pressure" on Iran. "We have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after" a war, he said.
A bit more on NeoCon aspirations for a Middle East conflagration for our troops to benefit Israel:
The War Won't End in Baghdad," wrote the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal. In 1985, as a consultant to the National Security Council and Oliver North, Ledeen helped broker the illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran by setting up meetings between weapons dealers and Israel. In the current war, he argues, "we must also topple terror states in Tehran and Damascus."
In urging the expansion of the war on terror to Syria and Iran, Ledeen does not mention Israel. Yet Israel is a crucial strategic reason for the hard-line vision to "roll back" Syria and Iran -- and another reason why control of Iraq is seen as crucial. In 1998, Wurmser, now in the State Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if Ahmad Chalabi were in power and extended a no-fly, no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would provide the crucial piece for an anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. "It puts Scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," he said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition."
Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli groups was "at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein." And Perle, Wurmser and Feith (now in the Pentagon), in their 1996 Israeli think tank report to Netanyahu, argued for abandoning efforts for a comprehensive peace in favor of a policy of "rolling back" Syria to protect Israel's interests. Now, however, Israel is given a lower profile by those who would argue for rollback. Rather, writes Ledeen, U.S. troops would be put at risk in order to "liberate all the peoples of the Middle East." And this, he argues, would be virtually pain-free: "If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support." Perle concurs on Iraq -- "The Arab World ... will consider honor and dignity has been restored" -- as well as Iran: "It is the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime."
Haven't the American People heard enough of this BS? Isn't it transparent?