Pro-war so called media beating the drums of war again

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just like they did to get us into Iraq.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/10/04417/0435

Fool the really stupid people once, shame on you and them. Fool them again, shame on just them.

[Rob]

We're going to end up attacking Iran, if Hillary and Edwards have their way.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We're going to end up attacking Iran, if Hillary and Edwards have their way.

Why? Are they trying to fight over Lieberman's one vote in the primary? That would be pretty retarded of them.

[Rob]

Well, Edwards wants to invade Iran because it's a threat to Israel. I couldn't tell you his motives.

[Ebowed]

We're going to end up attacking Iran, if Hillary and Edwards have their way.

Agreed.  Which is why Democrats should steer away from GOP-lite candidates like them.

[Beet]

I love Mitt Romney's comments on Iran. He says the solution is "imposing tough sanctions, [and] effecting diplomatic isolation" then he says "We must cultivate and empower moderate Muslim countries." Doesn't he realize that action #1 undermines goal #2?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, Edwards wants to invade Iran because it's a threat to Israel. I couldn't tell you his motives.

Well then he's an idiot. Us liberals weren't fooled by the propaganda about Iraq, and we're not about to be fooled by the propaganda about Iran. If Edwards won't take a strong stand against warmongering, then stick a fork in him.

For 6 pathetic years, the Democrats have been enabling Bush's batsh**t insane agenda. If they can't stop in the 7th year, then it's time to destroy the Democratic party. Fascist-lite doesn't cut it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's an article from September 2002 from the same Michael Gordon in this same pro-war rag (the NY Times).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/middleeast/20040526CRITIQUE.html


Michael Gordon must think that the average American barely has two brain cells to rub together. He might be right.

Here's the latest in the pro-war propaganda drivel:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Democrats need to condemn this now. Not tommorrow, not 5 years from now. Now.

[Rob]

The Democrats need to condemn this now. Not tommorrow, not 5 years from now. Now.

Edwards claims to regret his war-cheerleading back in 2002, but he's now calling for a war against Iran on eerily similar pretexts. This guy is an opportunist slimeball.

As for Hillary... well, she never saw a war she didn't like. Read Hillary the Hawk, a disturbingly informative article published in a paleocon mag.

It sure would be nice to have an opposition party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It sure would be nice to have an opposition party.

I've been waiting over 6 years for that. The Democrats are just as much to blame as Bush for what's happened. Tepidly criticizing the war they voted for in Iraq when Bush has a 72% disapproval rating on Iraq isn't cutting it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's what the Democrats running for President had to say.

I'd say the 3 most reasonable are

Kucinch
Richardson
Clark

in that order.





http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/4/141925/8841

[Rob]

Richardson

Whoa! Between this and his call for Iraq withdrawal, Richardson has been impressing me lately. He's easily in my top tier now, and possibly my favored candidate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Richardson

Whoa! Between this and his call for Iraq withdrawal, Richardson has been impressing me lately. He's easily in my top tier now, and possibly my favored candidate.

Here's what he had to say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kucinch is unelectable, so right now the two best anti-Iran war candidates seem to be Richardson and Clark. They know their stuff, they're not newbies to foreign policy. We'll see what the others have to offer.

I think TexasIndy is going to bookmark that page now.

[Rob]

Richardson also wants to close Guantánamo:

''Prisoner abuse, torture, secret prisons, renditions and evasion of the Geneva conventions must have no place in our policy,'' Richardson said. ``If we want Muslims to open to us, we should start by closing Guantánamo.''

Richardson '08 is sounding pretty good right now.

[Padfoot]

Richardson '08 is sounding pretty good right now.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Gustaf]

Why wouldn't it be media???

[Colin]

I agreed with everything that Richardson said in that prior interview posted by ferny. It would be nice to have a President with a large amount of foreign policy experience for once.

[Boris]

Richardson '08 is sounding pretty good right now.

Gore 2008 would be better.

Rob, I think you're looking way into one article. Edwards won't invade Iran unless they actually attack U.S. military personnel. Hell, one could actually argue that they are actually currently attacking U.S. military personnel, yet the warmongers in power haven't lifted one finger against Iran. Here, let me analyze that article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is this warmongering? Ahmadinejad has openly called for the destruction of Israel. Unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, they actually have strong ties to Al Qaeda.  Obviously, they cannot be allowed to get nuclear weapons. That statement is merely stating the obvious; it certainly isn't advocating for a full-scale Iran invasion. There are ways to stop Iran from ascertaining nuclear weapons that don't involve invasions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, if Iran launches a nuclear weapon at Tel Aviv (although meh, I'm no fan of Israel), the United States, or a NATO nation, then sure, they should be attacked. Don't read too much into one statement. If Edwards is elected President, 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's not veering right on Iran at all. Nor has he moved "left" on Iran either. Take yourself out of the those two-dimensional terms. He has merely stated that Iran is a threat, something that both the "left" and the "right" can agree on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the author is reading into this too much. This is nothing but speculation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? If the Average Democratic-Primary voter read Edwards' words in an  un-biased setting, they really wouldn't give a sh**t. There is nothing substantive in this article that suggests Edwards is a pawn of the military-industrial complex and intends to invade Iran. The source of the article is also lousy; I don't trust these left-wing sites any more than I do the right-wing sites, although, admittedly, I'm more suspectible to left-wing propangda than I am to right-wing. 

Hell, if any Democrat brings back Clinton's former members of the CSG (Counter-Terrorism Security Group) back to the table, many of whom ended up resigning when Bush was preparing to invade Iraq, he'll have an array of advisors opposed to any usage of military force against Iran unless absolutely necessary (i.e. they attack U.S. targets). 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Okay, if Iran launches a nuclear weapon at Tel Aviv (although meh, I'm no fan of Israel),

I'm no fan of the Chicago suburbs, but I wouldn't think "meh" if someone nuked them.

People are still people, even if you don't like their views or how they live their lives.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's kind of a moot point though. Iran just isn't going to nuke Israel out of the blue. Israel would easily flatten them in the counter-strike.

[Boris]

Okay, if Iran launches a nuclear weapon at Tel Aviv (although meh, I'm no fan of Israel),

I'm no fan of the Chicago suburbs, but I wouldn't think "meh" if someone nuked them.

People are still people, even if you don't like their views or how they live their lives.

lol, that's not what I meant. Actually, reading back into my words, that was a rather dumb spot to insert an "I'm pissed at Israel due to their actions in the Lebanon conflict" comment. My apologies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's kind of a moot point though. Iran just isn't going to nuke Israel out of the blue. Israel would easily flatten them in the counter-strike.

Yes, I know that. MAD theory all over again.

[??????????]

It's kind of a moot point though. Iran just isn't going to nuke Israel out of the blue. Israel would easily flatten them in the counter-strike.

Yes, I know that. MAD theory all over again.

Expect, of course, is that the big difference here is that most of the Iranian leaders don't care if they die or not. And actually dying is thier GOAL.

[Gabu]

Why wouldn't it be media???

I've wondered the same thing myself.  There's something I'm missing with this "so called media" bit.

[Alcon]

I've wondered the same thing myself.  There's something I'm missing with this "so called media" bit.

Stop pointing out the senseless topic, you so-called Gabu.