Monday, October 29, 2007

Hillary, Israel and AIPAC

Source: Des Moines Register, Iowa
Posted by: NewHorizons
on Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:53 pm

Hillary's Feb 1, 2007 speech to AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] makes it abundantly clear that she would go to war against Iran for Israel, her recent protestations that she was only signing on for diplomacy notwithstanding. Every statement in that speech parrots AIPAC's talking points about why we should bomb Iran as soon as possible. As Philip Giraldi, former CIA station chief and counter-terrorism expert wrote, "[A]IPAC's formulation that the option of force 'must remain on the table' when dealing with Iran has been repeated like a mantra by numerous politicians and government officials, not too surprisingly as AIPAC writes the briefings and position papers that many Congressmen unfortunately rely on."

How Iowans can even think of ushering in another warmonger like this is beyond me.

She thinks taking positions like this makes her look manly and presidential. Commander-in-Chief-ish. I think it makes her look like she is easy to lead around by the nose. She needs AIPAC's support, so she bows to it, to the detriment of US national interests and our military, which will be caught in the cross-fire as soon as the first nuke hits Iran. The thought that she would even contemplate pre-emptive nuclear war with another country is frightening and ought to terrify anyone even remotely considering her as a candidate.

The Republicans want her as the nominee so badly they can taste it. They are praying that Iowa will stick her out front. Praying. Like the 'Let Mikie do it' commercials. Because Republicans know one thing -- and I used to be one of them: if she is the nominee, she will not win the general election. She will win the NY vote, maybe Miami and LA. But it's a big big country between NY and CA. And people would rather have a solid Democratic Senate and Democratic Congress with a weak Republican President than Hillary running that show. With a Dem Congress and Dem Senate, they dont need Hillary as Prez, because they already have the veto power. And a lot -- a LOT -- of Republicans in both houses are going to lose their races. We responsible ex-Republicans have had it up to our eyeballs with what this Republican admin has done.

___

JG: Hillary is assuming a more warmongering stance, since she is beholden to AIPAC money contributions. She might lose the election because she is a very polarizing figure with very high negative opinions of her. Obama or Edwards would be better choices.

No comments: