Hillary Clinton is a prick (but I still may have to vote for her)
Joshua Frank has an interesting tidbit of info.
In a recent memo to receptive ears, the American Israel Public Affiars Committee (AIPAC), the same people involved in the Israeli/Pentagon spying incident, stated it was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies." The "Russian proposal" in question concerns an agreement between Russia and Iran that would let Iran continue to pursue and use nuclear power.
Apparently, Israel's some 200 nuclear warheads (that it won't admit to having) aren't enough to make it safe from Iran. The interesting thing of note here, though, is who the AIPAC is buying politically.
Hillary Clinton has now compounded her whole flag-burning nonesense by basically accusing Bush of not acting unilaterally enough on Iran. At her Princeton University speech (and interesting counterpoint to Gore's speech, he gave a good one, she seems to have been on powerful drugs), she accused BushCo of a whole laundry list of dropped balls regarding Iran and charged that he was willing to "outsource", aka hide behind various other nations, dealing with the Iran and North Korea questions. She supported throwing the whole thing to the UN Security Council for sanctions, which, frankly, seems like just more "outsourcing", but I wouldn't want logic to get in the way of a woman who rants like Kitty Dukakis on a drinking binge.
Interestingly enough, this is exactly what the AIPAC is calling for. And guess which Democratic darling, who appears to have undergone a recent values realignment of Kerry proportions, is the top Democratic receiver for AIPAC funds for 2006 or far?
Since October 31, 2005, Clinton has received $58,000 from the AIPAC.
Now, my grandmother was a wise woman and she always said, "The only two things you can't find in politics are coincidences and an honest man." Update "man" to "person" and the saying still seems to apply.
Oh, Hillary, someone needs to put you in a shopping bag because you've been bought and paid for. And, honestly, you were pretty cheap.
It is also interesting to point out, as a friend reminded me on his blog, that Bill Clinton is partially responsible for Iran's state of nuclear capability with the colossal intelligence blunder that was Operation Merlin. Of course, using this sort of logic, one could also damn Bush because Regan created both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein back in the 80s, but this entry is about Hillary and that fact that while she's talking about how big a threat a nuclear Iran is, she completely fails to mention that she knows because she was there when Clinton helped create it.
However, with all this said, I would still vote for her over any likely Republican candidates. I'd do it resentfully and I wouldn't campaign for her, but I'd still do it.
In a recent memo to receptive ears, the American Israel Public Affiars Committee (AIPAC), the same people involved in the Israeli/Pentagon spying incident, stated it was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies." The "Russian proposal" in question concerns an agreement between Russia and Iran that would let Iran continue to pursue and use nuclear power.
Apparently, Israel's some 200 nuclear warheads (that it won't admit to having) aren't enough to make it safe from Iran. The interesting thing of note here, though, is who the AIPAC is buying politically.
Hillary Clinton has now compounded her whole flag-burning nonesense by basically accusing Bush of not acting unilaterally enough on Iran. At her Princeton University speech (and interesting counterpoint to Gore's speech, he gave a good one, she seems to have been on powerful drugs), she accused BushCo of a whole laundry list of dropped balls regarding Iran and charged that he was willing to "outsource", aka hide behind various other nations, dealing with the Iran and North Korea questions. She supported throwing the whole thing to the UN Security Council for sanctions, which, frankly, seems like just more "outsourcing", but I wouldn't want logic to get in the way of a woman who rants like Kitty Dukakis on a drinking binge.
Interestingly enough, this is exactly what the AIPAC is calling for. And guess which Democratic darling, who appears to have undergone a recent values realignment of Kerry proportions, is the top Democratic receiver for AIPAC funds for 2006 or far?
Since October 31, 2005, Clinton has received $58,000 from the AIPAC.
Now, my grandmother was a wise woman and she always said, "The only two things you can't find in politics are coincidences and an honest man." Update "man" to "person" and the saying still seems to apply.
Oh, Hillary, someone needs to put you in a shopping bag because you've been bought and paid for. And, honestly, you were pretty cheap.
It is also interesting to point out, as a friend reminded me on his blog, that Bill Clinton is partially responsible for Iran's state of nuclear capability with the colossal intelligence blunder that was Operation Merlin. Of course, using this sort of logic, one could also damn Bush because Regan created both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein back in the 80s, but this entry is about Hillary and that fact that while she's talking about how big a threat a nuclear Iran is, she completely fails to mention that she knows because she was there when Clinton helped create it.
However, with all this said, I would still vote for her over any likely Republican candidates. I'd do it resentfully and I wouldn't campaign for her, but I'd still do it.
posted by QuakerJono | 10:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home