Campaign 2008

[Dobbs 3K 0]

If the Democratic nomination isn't basically decided after today, and the issue resolved VERY soon, I think my head is going to explode.

[EricMM 0]

Shit's already resolved, but no one can MAKE her drop out...

[NoCalMike 0]

Now I know why Marney is backing Hillary...

 

Clinton warns Iran of nuke response

Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely include NATO

MSNBC

updated 8:07 p.m. CT, Mon., April. 21, 2008

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.

 

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/

Awesome. You go girl!

 

I'm only asking cause I don't know, but does Israel have nuclear weapons? If so, why wouldn't they use them against Iran? Why does America need to get involved? And when was Iran actually threatening to use nukes against Israel, and I am not counting the mindless "rah rah" rhetoric.

 

[EricMM 0]

Yes they do, I think. I'm fairly sure.

 

And they don't use them because they're barbaric, AND not to be wasted.

 

My god, can you imagine the international furvor if israel nukes anyone?

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Mike meant in a retaliatory fashion, I imagine, not a preemptive strike.

 

I have no idea what the Israeli arsenal is like. Ours is certainly the largest.

[Firestarter 0]

I'm only asking cause I don't know, but does Israel have nuclear weapons?

Yes, undeclared.

 

If so, why wouldn't they use them against Iran?

Your question lacks context.

 

Why does America need to get involved?

Because they're our friends.

 

And when was Iran actually threatening to use nukes against Israel, and I am not counting the mindless "rah rah" rhetoric.

This, right here, is the most dangerous aspect of the left: assuming that the enemy does not mean what he says. Chamberlain made that mistake in the '30s. Carter made that mistake in the '70s. We must not make it again today.

[snuffbox 0]

Plus, if we bomb Iran, we'll then get to spend several billion (probably trillion) to repair it ourselves. This is a perfect scenario for huge-govt fans such as old-school Democrats like Hillary Clinton and the current GOP.

[Firestarter 0]

Sadly, I can't disagree with you.

[At Home 0]

I'm only asking cause I don't know, but does Israel have nuclear weapons? If so, why wouldn't they use them against Iran? Why does America need to get involved? And when was Iran actually threatening to use nukes against Israel, and I am not counting the mindless "rah rah" rhetoric.

 

Yes. Absolutely. They wouldn't use them against Iran because it would be reckless to do so. The Arab countries have binded together in their refusal to recognize Israel as a state, and most have histories of attacking them. Essentially, the Jews are the sworn enemies of the Arab nations, but the Israelis aren't going to just launch a nuclear strike against them.

 

Israel's nuclear policy is this: if you come after the Jews, we will come back at you one hundred times harder, and take everybody with us.

 

That is because of the holocaust.

 

Have you ever seen Munich? The policy is spelled out right there; "The world must see that killing Jews will be from now on a very expensive proposition."

[snuffbox 0]

God damn religion.

[Firestarter 0]

It only concerns one "religion"/death cult. Mohammedanism.

[NoCalMike 0]

Oh, and yes I did mean in a retalitory fashion. If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, and Israel attacked them back with nuclear weapons, why does America need to step in and use nuclear weapons as well?

[EricMM 0]

To protect and aid Israel when the inevitable shit storm came back upon them? To aid them in dealing with the fallout when no one else would?

[NoCalMike 0]

This, right here, is the most dangerous aspect of the left: assuming that the enemy does not mean what he says. Chamberlain made that mistake in the '30s. Carter made that mistake in the '70s. We must not make it again today.

 

So then I guess the most dangerous aspect of the right is pre-emptively striking countries that pose no threat to America in the name of "spreading democracy"? So the right hasn't learned much since Vietnam.

[NoCalMike 0]

To protect and aid Israel when the inevitable shit storm came back upon them? To aid them in dealing with the fallout when no one else would?

 

So is it automatically assumed this can't be done without nuclear weapons? I actually kind of regret even engaging in this type of dialogue since I think the threat of nuclear weapons actually being used(at least weapons on the scale of Hiroshima) are greatly exaggerated.

[EricMM 0]

Oh no, certainly nukes are necessary. BUT they are as a deterrant (sp) and are needed as such.

[godthedog 0]

i predict a 5-6 point win for hillary. anything closer than 4% should be considered a big loss for her.

 

4% or above should also be considered a big moral loss for obama. not just for the disproportionate spending, but the endorsements he's gotten.

[SuperJerk 0]

She can win with a .0001% margin and she'd still claim a mandate. She's not stopping.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

God damn religion.

 

What did any of that have to do with "religion?" Hebrews are a race, not just a religion.

 

Seriously, your anti-religious rhetoric is pretty offensive sometimes.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Seriously, your anti-religious rhetoric is pretty offensive sometimes.

You mean kinda like your parental licensing rhetoric?

[Guest]

Ha.

 

You probably should've kept that last part out, Invader.

[snuffbox 0]

I kinda think massive bloc killings in the name of God or whatever is a bit more offenseive than words I typed, but whatever.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I kinda think massive bloc killings in the name of God or whatever is a bit more offenseive than words I typed, but whatever.

 

Israel is a secular state. Certainly the murder of Jews by Arab terrorists in the name of Allah is offensive, though.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Seriously, your anti-religious rhetoric is pretty offensive sometimes.

You mean kinda like your parental licensing rhetoric?

 

The only people that should really offend are probably too illiterate to read a message board, regardless.

[Guest blame that goot.]

"Hebrews" aren't a race.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

OK, I tried to get fancy and used a word other than "Jews". You knew what I meant.

[SuperJerk 0]

SO, HOW 'BOUT THAT PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN!?!?!?

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

CNN officially projects Hillary Clinton wins tonight in Pennsylvania.

[SuperJerk 0]

 

Bill Clinton denies 'race card' comment

Story Highlights

Bill Clinton in interview Monday: Obama camp "played the race card on me"

On Tuesday he denied he had accused Obama's campaign of it

Clinton: "When did I say that and to whom did I say that?"

A recording of former president's comment is posted on WHYY Web site

 

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton denied Tuesday he had accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of "playing the race card" during an interview Monday.

 

A recording of the former president making the comment is posted on the WHYY Web site.

 

It says he made the comment in a telephone interview with the Philadelphia public radio station Monday night.

 

Clinton was asked whether his remarks comparing Obama's strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign.

 

"No, I think that they played the race card on me," said Clinton, "and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along."

 

"We were talking about South Carolina political history and this was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. And you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist."

 

After the phone interview, a stray comment of his on the issue was also recorded before he hung up: "I don't think I should take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?"

 

But outside a Pittsburgh campaign event Tuesday, a reporter asked Clinton what he had meant "when you said the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?"

 

Clinton responded: "When did I say that and to whom did I say that?"

 

"You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your games today," Clinton added.

 

"I said what I said -- you can go back and look at the interview, and if you will be real honest you will also report what the question was and what the answer was. But I'm not helping you."

 

Clinton did not respond when asked what he meant when he charged that the Obama campaign had a memo in which they said they had planned to play the race card.

 

Meanwhile, at a Pittsburgh press availability on Tuesday, Obama was asked about Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use "the race card."

 

"Hold on a second,'' he said. "So former President Clinton dismissed my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it?"

 

"You better ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of mine.''

 

Clinton commented just before the South Carolina primary that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/bil...race/index.html

 

So...Bill Clinton denies saying something they have a recording of him saying...but its the media's fault...

 

[At Home 0]

Hebrews are a race, not just a religion.

 

Wrong. Jews aren't a race. The idea that Jews were a Semitic race began to gain ground with the hatred of the Jews. Then and only then were they began to be erroneously classified as a "race."