If you're thinking there isn't a hair's-breadth of difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, think again. And think hard. Hillary Clinton represents the same empire, military-solves-all mentality that threatens to put our country on the fast track to total collapse. Is this the "Democratic" candidate you really want?
Hillary wants to play warmonger with Iran at a time when those with greater knowledge say that would be the worst possible mistake:
The book All the Shah's Men (authored by Stephen Kinzer, interviewed for truthout by Maya Schenwar) reminds us that, when it comes to Iran, the backseat is probably where we should be sitting. The US was responsible for the 1953 coup that toppled Iran's democratic government, replacing it with the repressive Shah regime, which hastened the Islamic Revolution of 1970s, inspiring the rise of radical groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Yet the US has not yet taken its Middle East history lessons seriously. Kinzer noted
that our attitude toward Iran and Iraq is symptomatic of the US's overriding
tendency toward using military force to shape economic policy - in this case,
oil management - to its advantage.
Kinzer's most recent book, Overthrow, shows how the "regime change" model has developed over the past 110 years. In our interview, he discussed the motivations behind that empire-driven mentality - and why, ultimately, it's doomed to fail.
Hillary has joined John McCain and the Republican-led warmongers into another dangerous and obviously disastrous adventure in threatening Iran. Her interest, presumably to "look tough", and bodes more of same if she took office.
And then here on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, Hillary extended her "as macho as McCain" new look, or should I say, same old outlook. Check this great diary on that interview. Here's a sample from that interview:
And one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going
to permit them, if we can prevent it, from becoming a nuclear power, but were
they to become so, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a
nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would
prevent it from happening, and that we would try to help the other countries
that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran because they were
a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."
To which author ab2kgi said on Dailykos,
This talks about using our nukes to defend an entire region, arguably the
most unstable in the world. Beyond the lunacy of offering our nuclear
arsenal to an entire region of the world, she misplaced a couple of facts along
the way. The most glaring of which is the last NIE(reported
on here) that stated that Iran suspended it's nuclear weapons program in
2003. She also seems to forget that meeting Putin had with Ahmadinejad(reported on here), where they stopped just short of "we will defend you if you are attacked."
It would seem that Russia is developing ties with Iran that would
certainly play into any nuclear intervention with Iran and would likely be our
demise should Russia attempt to launch nukes at us.
This kind of irresponsible machismo is exactly what women claim to be tired of and why we might like to have a woman president. But it does the exact opposite to exhibit the worst qualities associated traditionally with men in order to get their supposed votes. She promotes macho values in order to supposedly win as a woman. Possibly even worse yet, she doesn't even logically evaluate the absurd proposition that Iran could attack Israel with nuclear weapons. That kind of proposition is exactly the mindless concept held by many who still say "yes" to solving all the world's problems militarily. Are we going to take a giant step backward into neocon more-bang-less-buck land? Say "no" to Hillary and her nukefest-frenzied More of Same campaign.