Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack, John... and Whitewash
By Norman Solomon
The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran.
Hillary Clinton says "no option can be taken off the table."
Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of
us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."
John Edwards says, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to
have nuclear weapons." And: "We need to keep all options on the
table."
A year ago, writing in The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh
reported: "One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the
White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a
bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against
underground nuclear sites."
For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all "options" should be
on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It
signals willingness to threaten -- and possibly follow through with --
first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among
Washington's policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with
longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.
This year, with their virtually identical statements about "options"
and "the table," the leading Democratic presidential candidates --
Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- have refused to rule out any kind of attack
on Iran.
If you're not shocked or outraged yet, consider this:
On Feb. 22, the national leaders of MoveOn sent an e-mail letter to
more than 3 million people with the subject line "War with Iran?"
After citing a need to give UN sanctions "a chance to work before
provoking a regional conflict," the letter said flatly: "Senator
Hillary Clinton has provided some much needed leadership on this."
The MoveOn letter quoted a passage from a speech that Clinton had
given on the Senate floor eight days earlier: "It would be a mistake of
historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002
resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of
force against Iran without further congressional
authorization. Nor should the president think that the 2001
resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any
way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration
believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the
president must come to Congress to seek that authority."
But, while quoting Hillary Clinton's speech as an example of "some
much needed leadership," MoveOn made no mention of the fact that the same
speech stated: "As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy
must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not
permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this
threat, as I've also said for a long time, no
option can be taken off the table."
Earlier this year, David Rieff noted in The New York Times Magazine
on March 25, "Vice President Cheney insisted that the administration had
not 'taken any options off the table' as Iran continued to defy United
Nations calls for it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The
response from Democrats was not long in coming. Senator Clinton
helped lead the charge, reminding the president that he did not have the
authority to go to war with Iran on the basis of the Senate's
authorization of the use of force in Iraq in 2002.
"But what Senator Clinton did not say was at least as interesting as
what she did say. And what she did not say was that she opposed the use of
force in Iran. To the contrary, Senator Clinton used virtually the same
formulation as Vice President Cheney. When dealing with
Iran, she insisted, 'no option can be taken off the table.'"
To praise Hillary Clinton for providing "much needed leadership" on
Iran -- and to mislead millions of e-mail recipients counted as
MoveOn members in the process -- is a notable choice to make. It
speaks volumes. It winks at Clinton's stance that "no option can be taken
off the table." It serves an enabling function. It is very
dangerous.
The stakes are much too high to make excuses or look the other way.
______________________________________
Norman Solomon's book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death" is out in paperback. For information, go to:
www.normansolomon.com


The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens
The Case for Impeachment
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying
Verdict and Findings of Fact
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Admin- istration
The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America































www.VelvetRevolution.us
Hillary asked about her Iraq vote AND Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ezDV3Mmy6M
Hillary and THE BIG LIE..Thanks Yank
Hillary states that "knowing what she knows now" she would not have authorized the use of force against Iraq. She also says the fault is with Bush..who "misled" her/US into the vote?
This really begs the question of her credulity. First...
We are asked to believe that this woman who was in the White House
for 8 years and was lied to by her own husband about something as
common as an affair, would not suspect a worst case scenario from
"the vast right-wing", who persecuted her husband, that this
scenario might include a "ruse" to justify it's Neo-Con
agenda? An agenda that was speculated on before King George
even took the throne as his own? One that was documented in
the PNAC papers as needing another "Pearl Harbor", many of the
authors/signers just "happened" to work for the administration?
So why didn't she know "then" what she "knows" now? And what
does she mean anyway? that it would not turn out well or that
she really didn't think we would attack? Either way...why the F
not? This is a blunder so immense and yet people are thining of
giving her the White House? What fool believes this BS?
This is THE BIG LIE! Is it really so hard to accept that Hillary
has the same Imperial ambitions? Different approach, same goals?
So is this the future we deserve? I hope not!!!
IMPEACH REMOVE INDICT