digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Clinton Has ‘No Regrets’ Concerning Her ‘Obliterating Iran’

guardian.co.uk — Barack Obama yesterday accused his rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, of adopting the language of the Bush presidency in her approach to dealing with a nuclear Iran. Asked by George Stephanopoulos, whether she had any regrets over her Iran remarks, she replied: "No, why would I have any regrets?"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • IrishJoe, on 05/06/2008, -19/+255Because you are advocating the wholesale slaughter of 65,875,223 men, women and children (according to the most recent US Government estimate) all but a tiny tiny fraction of whom wouldn't have had anything to do with a decision to attack Israel. You'd be guilty of genocide more than 10 times worse than Hitler. By murdering an entire nation of mostly civilians you'd be guilty of a war crime greater than any in the history of the world. That's why you might consider regretting it you madwoman!
    • LloydBentsen, on 05/06/2008, -70/+10You really think that she was advocating precisely that? Really? Sure, Senator Clinton may have screw loose, but you seem to have a few loose as well.
      • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -7/+67"You really think that she was advocating precisely that?"

        When Ahmadinejad calls for regime change in Israel, it's interpreted as a call for the extermination of all Jews. So why shouldn't Iran interpret Hillary's threat to 'obliterate Iran' as a call for extermination of all Iranians? Why the double standard?

        Iran will never launch a nuclear strike on Israel for three simple reasons. 1) The Iranian leadership isn't that stupid, 2) Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and 3) Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. I know that's really two reasons but I felt that last one was so important that I should mention it twice.

        Threatening to obliterate a country for something they can't ever possibly do, nor would even want to do, is nothing but warmongering. It's the same type of BS that we expect to hear from despots clinging to power, not from American presidential candidates.
        • Dragular, on 05/06/2008, -29/+5"Threatening to obliterate a country for something they can't ever possibly do, nor would even want to do..."

          Yes because I'm sure the Iranians really just want to hold hands and ride the merry-go-round with the Israelis, right?
          • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -1/+14Why do they have to be buddies? Obviously there are religious issues that prevent the two from becoming close allies, but that doesn't mean that either side is seeking genocide. Israel and Iran had a relatively good relationship under the Shah's regime, proving the two countries don't hate each other.
          • foopirata, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Kooft, I completely agree with you, but I have to call up on your previous comment that destroying Israel is something Iran couldn't possibly do. We both know that mad mullahs with atomic weapons are an unknown and untested quality, and that to predict their behavior based on past models is quite impossible.
          • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Sorry, but that's absurd. The phrase 'Mad Mullahs' completely undermines the point you were trying to make and you come of sounding like those anti-Israel zealots that write about 'Joooos' and 'Zionofascists'.

            While I don't support them, the Ayatollahs aren't crazy. To strike Israel with nuclear weapons is to sign their own death warrant and let's face it, the thing they want most is power and you can't have power if you're dead.
          • foopirata, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Well I apologize for that. I was under the impression that "mad mullahs" was an accepted euphemism referring to those that in their expectancy of the Mahdi are willing to bring about a conflagration. If you found the term abusive or offensive, please accept my sincere apologies. I won't repeat the mistake.

            Unfortunately, I'll have to take exception with your view, as learned as it may be. I think that over the years we have seen enough acts coming from extremist elements either from Iran or linked to Iran that show how prompt they are to ruin their faces to spite their nose. It does not give me any security or safety at all to learn that they wouldn't be willing to vaporize Israel for their own safety - remember we are talking about people with no compunctions that sent kids to their death with plastic keys to paradise walking over mined fields in the Iran-Iraq war. I am sorry, but to me, that speaks madness. I for one wouldn't trust people like that with nuclear weapons.
          • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2"...remember we are talking about people with no compunctions that sent kids to their death with plastic keys to paradise walking over mined fields in the Iran-Iraq war. I am sorry, but to me, that speaks madness. I for one wouldn't trust people like that with nuclear weapons."

            As I stated, I have no compassion for the Ayatollahs as many of their previous acts have been despicable. In fact, my family has been personally (negatively) affected by their actions; which is why I probably resent them more than most.

            It's always nice to throw up a quip about children 'clearling' mine fields as an example of how 'evil' the Ayatollahs are, but what about the US? Not only was the US responsible for that war on the first place, America held Saddam's hand as he gassed these very same children with sarin and/or mustard gas.

            Doesn't this speak madness about the US? Yet we're supposed to trust them with nukes? Better yet, given the lengths the US will go through to kill Iranian civilians, how can we expect Iran to trust the US?
          • foopirata, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I can see where you're coming from - but for heavens sake, can you put a brake on the moral equivalence? Do you you really think that geopolitics (don't know about the US being responsible for the war, I think that's a bit sanctimonious, but even if) compare to sending your own citizens (future citizens) to certain maim and death ? Not even trained and equipped as soldiers? Sorry, I don't swallow that one.

            So no, I'll have to go ahead and say that no, it does not speak madness about the US. So, as to the trust with nukes - as many times as nuclear war raised its ugly head during the Cold War, rational minds prevailed and nothing happened. I am not willing to give that same degree of confidence to people that use their own children as pawns with such abandon.

            Please keep in mind I am referring solely to the Iranian government. I am sure the Iranian people have much to say about that sorry chapter in their story.

            And please accept my sympathies for your family's plight in the hands of the Ayatollah's government.

        • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+16There are millions of Iranians opposed to Ahmadinejad and Senator Clinton has no problems obliterating them, along with millions of women and children.
        • MxM111, on 05/06/2008, -8/+3"1) The Iranian leadership isn't that stupid"
          But is not it because they know the US response could be "obliteration"? If it was not for US, do you really think that they would be "not that stupid"?

          • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6What you're describing is known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and has proven to be an effective deterrent to war. The problem is that the US doesn't need to threaten obliteration because Israel is capable of defending herself. This makes Hillary's comment an unnecessary threat and thus only complicates the issue.

            Iran may begin to feel that they are facing imminent destruction and decide to take drastic actions (not unlike the US justification for invading Iraq). So, is it really worth further alienating Iran to bring in the 'shoot first, ask questions later' voting demographic?
        • timlump, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2RED DWARF REFERENCE!!!
      • coffeebaby, on 05/06/2008, -2/+23i guess it depends on what your definition of obliterating an entire country is.
        • Tssst, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7Well, the Clintons do have troubles with definitions:
          "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is"
      • stellarceltic, on 05/06/2008, -5/+15Shutup Hillary
        • Ryanr14, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5It really is as simple as that, she has a hard time understanding...
      • wendelgee2, on 05/06/2008, -3/+9I knew Lloyd Bentsen, and you sir are no Lloyd Bentson.
      • Gemfinder, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Do you understand what "obliterate" means?
        Here's a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of it. Read carefully:
        obliterate
        Main Entry:
        oblit·er·ate Listen to the pronunciation of obliterate
        Pronunciation:
        ə-ˈbli-tə-ˌrāt, ō-
        Function:
        transitive verb
        Inflected Form(s):
        oblit·er·at·ed; oblit·er·at·ing
        Etymology:
        Latin oblitteratus, past participle of oblitterare, from ob- ob- + littera letter
        Date:
        1600

        1
        a: to remove utterly from recognition or memory
        b: to remove from existence : destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance of
        c: to cause to disappear (as a bodily part or a scar) or collapse (as a duct conveying body fluid).

        So yes, "obliterate" DOES mean the genocide of 65 million + people, trumping the Holocaust, not to mention laying waste to a large sector of the Asian continent.
    • ender7074, on 05/06/2008, -41/+6Yes but pansies like you wont let us take out the people calling the shots either. If Iran attacks one of its neighbors, it deserves anything it gets.
      • reuscel, on 05/06/2008, -3/+29You sir, are an idiot. You sound no different than all of the extremists in the Middle East who scream "Death to America!" in response to the US Military's actions around the world. Iran is a country with a government that may make regrettable decisions. Killing their innocent citizens won't solve anything. The last thing we need is more enemies in the Middle East.
      • sum33t, on 05/06/2008, -2/+17So i guess America should be obliterated?
        • sadilak, on 05/06/2008, -7/+10In a way, yes. America is supporting israel, who in turn are treating the palestines like slaves. They have literally cut off food supplies to palestine/Gaza strip and to make things worse, fenced the area off. I am surprised that they are not seeing the likeness to what happened to the jews before the end of WWII . And if the USA is supporting Israel in this, I am sorry, USA is evil.
        • Smogtdi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5from time to time it cross the mind of the rest of the world I'm sure
      • gullydwarf, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11If Iran attack Israel, then Israel will retaliate in full force. There is no need for us to intervene and start a whole sale war with the middle east.
      • bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -2/+16So by advocating obliterating some other country, you're somehow not a pansy?

        Yet another armchair tough guy.
      • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10"If Iran attacks one of its neighbors, it deserves anything it gets."

        So, because the US overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister in the 50's and started, and participated in, a proxy war against Iran during the 80's that the US deserves anything it gets? No? Oh, that's right, only people _you_ don't like deserve what they get when they act like you. Best foreign policy ever.
      • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Okay ender, you stupid ***** internet tough guy, I want you to get up out of your chair right now and go enlist in the military, so that you can help fight this next war that you want to start.
        If you can't do that, then shut the ***** up. Go ahead, we will wait.

        Don't bother coming back with "I'm too old" or "if I could I would"
        if you're not already part of the military or on your way to the recruiters office, STFU.
    • cerberes, on 05/06/2008, -24/+4STFU
    • OpenIntro, on 05/06/2008, -28/+7The sad thing is, this imbeciles comment is actually being dugg.
      • Flawless, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6But the happy thing is, that yours is being buried.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -27/+6Um THEN IRAN shouldnt attack Israel, If they attack Israel conventionally.... Iran will get attacked conventionally.
      If they decide to use a nuke, they will get nuked.

      The problem is you are condoning that a CRAZY nation that had no problem using children to walk across landmines and had a fountain of blood to celbrate martyrs is SAFE if they decide to attack another country with Nukes.

      By saying that they are SAFE FROM ATTACK, then you are SUPPORTIING IRAN'S AGRESSION!

      By saying that you will retaliate, does NOT MEAN THAT YOU WANT TO !

      What a fricken OBAMATARD! That or a fanatical/blind Muslim that thinks they can do no wrong!
      • Risingashes, on 05/06/2008, -2/+15It's a bloody nation with millions of people.
        Isn't it totally obvious why nuking a country is wrong?
        What is wrong with you? This isn't a Hillary vs Obama thing- this is a rational human being thing.
        • Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1So what do you propose the US does if Iran nukes Israel?
        • dude001, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2since when does iran have nuclear weapons. isreal has twice as many nukes if they do.
      • topgigmedia, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6I agree - the Iranian gov't. is screwy to say the least and needs to be dealt with one way or another but what part about the slaughter of 65,875,223 INNOCENT men, women and children don't you understand YOU FOOL!?
      • rodrigo74, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Looks like you forgot your medicine today.
      • TheUngod, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3How could I be so silly, all this time I thought two wrongs didn't make a right.
      • lordmetroid, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Crazy dictator, I doubt the people approved.
        • avothecat, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1He's not a dictator, but definately somewhat crazy.
      • pushmouse, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3How compassionate you are about the Iranian children. So how do we get the children out of Iran before we nuke them? Idiot.
    • MxM111, on 05/06/2008, -14/+7I thought that the average digger was smart enough to see that this is campaigning for conservative voice, not the call for Iran obliteration.
      • freeth1nker, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4That still doesn't make it okay.
    • plhearn, on 05/06/2008, -14/+5Hillary isn't stupid. The only reason shes threatening Iran is so she can steal republican votes. You pussies demanding an apology are just giving her more opportunities to stand firm on the issue and win over more GOP voters. Good job.
      • PabloMac, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4As if.
      • roosevans, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2I believe Hilary's hard line rhetoric to Iran's current hard line regime is much more than political expediency. President Ahmadinejad is a revolutionary and radical anti-Zionist who denies the historical reality of the Holocaust and feels Israel will be "wiped off the map" by Allah. In my opinion it is appropriate rhetoric to tell the current Iranian regime the consequences for attacking Israel before we sit down to the negotiating or diplomatic table.
      • Speed, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2But in the November election, those GOP voters will still go for the GOP candidate. When you are a democrat, you don't want your candidacy to rely on republicans.
    • Sogui, on 05/06/2008, -16/+7When did she say she'd be focusing on civilian targets?
      • TheKillDoctor, on 05/06/2008, -2/+19When did they create bombs that can tell the difference between a civilian and a soldier?
        • CrackyJSquirrel, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3We first air drop special rainbow suites that repel nuclear blasts, duh..
      • TheUngod, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13If you're using a nuke, you're going to hit any and everything. Focus is unnecessary.
      • Sogui, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I love how Diggers act like they know how a nuclear attack against Iran would work out, because we have so many precedents set for post-WWII Nuclear warfare.

        As for my comment, I was replying to the original comment that somehow every last man woman and child in Iran would be wiped out. The fact is that nuclear weapons are also the only weapon that can reliably destroy entire underground facilities such as the ones that Iran has been working in. So believe it or not, not all strikes would be flying into civilian centers.
        • TheKillDoctor, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2So you've visited these underground facilities and know their depth. Wow, I think you should be talking to the government instead of posting on digg. Plus your knowledge on radiation fallout and its repercussions is simply amazing.
    • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -11/+6The issue was what might happen after Iran nuked Israel......
    • nickrollout, on 05/06/2008, -11/+7Did you forget the original question? No one is suggesting Iran be nuked because we don't like the color of their hair. I do not know how effective it would be to say "hey if you nuke our ally, we will start some really tough negotiations with you".
    • prgrmmer1000, on 05/06/2008, -19/+2Wow, I wish all you p*ssies would go to Europe and quit weakening America with your "Let's talk it over" BS. Feel free to go to Iran, wonder around until you get an audience with Ahmadinejad and talk him out of hating/killing Isrealis or Americans. Oh that's right, you'd be scared ***** to wonder the streets of Iran by your lonesome. Why is that? They're reasonable people right :)
      • paulsmith288, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5dont see you there doing it.
      • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -5/+6yeah, I wish all you armchair internet toughguise would join the military and quit talking out of your ass about this lets perform a preemptive strike *****.
        Oh that's right, you'd be scared ***** to have some DI sticking his dick up your ass while forcing you to do 50 pushups because you put the roll of toilet paper on the roll backwards while you were doing latrine cleanup duty for being a ***** who couldnt fold his underwear properly. That's just bootcamp you're scared of. It's okay it's only a game, the real fun begins when you actually have to say goodbye to your family when you're getting shipped off to fight a STUPID war.

        Don't talk *****, *****, you're a bitch and don't have the balls.
        • reuscel, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I agree with what you're saying, but take it down a notch.
      • Uberinuka, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0ok, and i bet you would be scared ***** to roam around America's dangerous cities, they have rapists, theives, serial killers walking around with you in a much more packed population, its just the radicals that are the pieces of ***** in that country the normal civilians however are the ones that should live
    • Zippo, on 05/06/2008, -3/+31Man, if she wins the Democratic candidacy and the vote comes down between McCain and Clinton, America is *****.
      • OUberLord, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well and truly, even.
      • ErikHarrison, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1no ***** man, no *****...... I too am scared and praying.
    • volfvolf1, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1America? What is it? Where is?
    • BuryIt, on 05/06/2008, -10/+2This is why I don't respect women!
    • robbob, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1In other words, she'll be #1
    • Disregard, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12Iran has zero intention of nuking Israel. There would be at least two massive nuclear arsenals just waiting to answer whatever handful of 1950s era proto-nukes it could scrape together.

      They're pursuing nuclear weapons (and let's be honest, they are) for the same reason as every other country - self-defense and deterrent. Given the outright threats of invasion coming from the likes of Bolton, they've got more of a legitimate claim there than just about any other country on the planet.
    • xDynaBlade, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I wish someone would have the balls and the opportunity to tell her that face-to-face.
    • richmomz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4What's shocking is that there are still a sizeable number of people out there that think she is fit to run this country. Fortunately those people are in the minority - may it ever stay that way.
    • jerrycurley, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1Ummm..no she isn't you *****...All she is saying is that if IRAN NUKES ISRAEL, that we are not going to let them get away with it. what the ***** do you THINK we should do if our ally is attacked WITH A NUCLEAR WEAPON? Ask them not to do it again?

      If a leader takes the nuclear option off the table even in a situation where an enemy ATTACKED WITH A NUCLEAR WEAPOON, then having nuclear weapons is meaningless.

      You will noticed all my caps, becuase they are very important. She ONLY said she would do it if Iran attacked with a nuclear weapon. And any president who wouldn't say that should never be president.
  • InTheBurbs, on 05/06/2008, -7/+176When Obama says he'll talk with Iranian leaders that's irresponsible, when Clinton threatens to nuke them it's OK?
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -39/+4Yes because one is supporting and legitimizing Iran's agression, one is standing up to it.

      Kinda simple unless... you're simply retarded!
      • jbettineski, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8There is no aggression.

        They simply do not want Israel as a country. They don't want them dead, they just want it given back to the Palestinians, who's land it properly is anyways.

      • Ryanr14, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Standing up to a country doesn't mean obliterating it. By that definition of "standing up" to a country shouldn't every country in the world obliterate each other?
      • oldgal, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5You don't change things by disengaging. Just because you carry the big stick doesn't mean you have to use it or talk about it every chance you get.
      • pintomp3, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2ahmadinejad called for regime change. sound familiar? he doesn't have military authority anyway.
      • reuscel, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Calling the opposition "retarded" is a sure fire way to lose an argument.
      • jbella, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Point 1:
        If your child went around clobbering other kids to get what they wanted.. you would discipline them and teach them that there are better ways to go about getting what you want.
        Why is this kind of behavior okay for counties?

        Point 2:
        There has been no aggression. There has been a lot of heated rhetoric between the two countries, but so far no aggression. Unless you count the fact that we invaded their neighbor.

        Point 3:
        Iran has a high literacy rate, a semi-functioning democracy (by middle east standards they are a pinnacle of democracy) and probably the largest pro-american population in the middle east.

        • jbella, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Oh.. and lets not forget Point 4:
          Israel has nuclear weapons, and can nuke Iran by itself. It really doesn't need the US to do it for them
          • SlyMm, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2People always seem to forget this, i dunno why so many Americans feel the need to protect Israel. Stupid AIPAC
      • InTheBurbs, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I was going to make a political argument here but others have beaten me to it. Instead I'll just say that those who equate threats of nuclear annihilation to "standing up to" a country probably shouldn't be throwing around accusations of retardation.
    • reuscel, on 05/06/2008, -1/+24Welcome to the modern world of political discourse. ***** depressing, isn't it?
    • markgl, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3yes.
    • volfvolf1, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2***** depressing, ***** brain, ***** politics. ***** world!
    • MrNibs, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4They're both somewhat irresponsible for suggesting either of those things in the way that they said it. The reality is that The leader of Iran believes the Holocaust never happened. The Iranian leadership's hatred for Israelis in the Middle East is well know, and unfortunately for Israel, they don't have many friendly neighbors. I'm not sure what the exact question was that was thrown at Clinton but her wording should have been more careful. I have Iranian friends that do not share the governments ideals, just as I currently am not too fond of mine. When you say you will obliterate Iran, you're saying you will level it's people. Not a good choice of words. Look, if Iran messed with Israel, both presidential candidates would retaliate with considerable force and the government of Iran DOES need to know this. I just think you become a far more effective President when they understand that you too are listening. Disengaging is the dumbest tactic our government uses in an effort to look tough. Having said that, I still think Clinton is Dick Cheney in a pant suit and scares the crap out of me.
      • InTheBurbs, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I agree, the President needs to take a tough stance with Iran. Possessing nuclear weapons in itself is a statement that a country is willing to use them under certain circumstances. Iran knows that, so does every country.
        My problem here is that Clinton didn't make the statement to send a message to Iran. Instead she simply threatened to kill countless million people in a desperate attempt to win a few votes.
    • SacraBos, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Yes. And No.
      Yes, it's irresponsible to "negotiate" with Iran, since it's essentially extortion. How much are we willing to give up or pay them to stop making Nukes? How much of our taxpayer dollars are you willing to give to the Iranian government so that they may delay their decision to drop one on us. Just like giving the school bully your lunch money to keep him from beating you up.
      Yes, it's also irresponsible to indiscriminately nuke Iran, even if they toss a nuke at Israel. The collateral damage in Iran, and potential radioactive fallout across the region would be horrific.
      Keep in mind, that despite being oil-rich, there are some severe economic problems throughout Iran. Even well educated people have high jobless rates, and gasoline over there is getting expensive to subsidize, and is at times severely rationed (they don't have the refining capability to turn much oil to gasoline). Like the RIAA, they have a failing business model, and are using threats to boost themselves financially and politically.
    • richmomz, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Obviously, murdering someone is much more reasonable than reaching a peaceful consensus.

      /sarcasm
  • Happy_Phantom, on 05/06/2008, -21/+10One Hundred Years!
    • mistergoodburge, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5TO ROCK N ROLL
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4DEBUNKED - watch full question and answer - or remain the ignorant tard you are.
  • Rotzooi, on 05/06/2008, -41/+9The irony is that Bush got elected on tough talk like this.
    Now that a woman is spouting that same rhetoric, Digg goes *****.
    • LloydBentsen, on 05/06/2008, -2/+38If I am not mistaken, Bush got elected in 2000 by campaigning with a somewhat peaceful tone, speaking out against the concept of nation-building and meddling in the affairs of other nations.
      • Dragular, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7More importantly, no one involved in the Hillary v. Barack bickering would have ever voted for Bush regardless of what he said.
      • PabloMac, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7And, of course, we have seen what has taken place since then, but that's beside the point.
    • ninetimes, on 05/06/2008, -2/+23Yes, surprisingly Bush got elected based on promised of "a humble foreign policy" which would do away with notions like "nation building". In 2000, he was also running on a platform of fiscal responsibility. Weird, huh?
      • bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I was thinking more along the lines of Tragic than Weird.
      • noahhoward, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Not like anything happened between then and now to change his mind right?
        • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5yes, but the jews plot to crash two planes into the twin towers had nothing to do with saddam hussein having weapons of mass destruction
        • GhostyBoy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Most evidence supports the notion that Iraq was planned long before 9/11. The event served as a pre-text for continuous war, and evidence exists which implicates complicity in both domestic and foreign elements. Some sources suggest Israel's mossad, some suggest Islamic extremists. The investigation is incomplete.

          If Bush was not complicit, then he was certainly unequipped to keep his cool under the circumstances, and made some hasty and disastrous decisions.
      • Disregard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Hell he was half-way to being Ron Paul in 2000.
    • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7yeah, STFU! if Digg was around back then, it would have 'gone *****' then, too.
    • BXRWXR, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7That's because he completely screwed it up.
  • cg4et, on 05/06/2008, -10/+105She didn't regret her vote for Bush's war either.
    • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -19/+9Bush's war? Did not a large majority of congressman, a large majority of Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats support it? Shut up.
      • SSUK, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11It wasn't completely President Hoover's fault for the Great Depression, yet they still wore Hoover Flags and slept in Hoovervilles. However, he was the figure head of American government at the time and the buck landed on him. Same will apply here.
        • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3Yes, and it was wrong then as it is now.
        • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1yeah, poor george for getting the blame.

          he may not have been alone in starting this thing (thank you very much Hillary!), but he's pretty much down to fumes with support. its called Bush's War because HE is perpetuating it, and 50 years from now, it will still be viewed as the evil war that started on his watch, by his hand, and with his administration's planning.

          you cant duck it--its Bush's War.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6Exactly. Look how many initially supported. Look how many of them supported additional funding for the invasion, and the BS patriot act. Some of them may claim to no longer support it, but until their actions match their words, I don't believe it.
      • pintomp3, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6yes, bush's war:
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

        the vote for war was put forth right before elections, at a time when the country was still in the middle of a nationalist fever, thanks in part to the media. the choices were A. vote your conscience and be labeled anti-american. B. vote for it and keep your seat.
        • pathouston22, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4'Bush's War' doc seems to make me think it was more like "Cheney's and Rumsfeld's War"
        • pintomp3, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6btw, most democrats in the house voted against it.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passa ...

          Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote. Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House. "This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."
          But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal. "Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.
          In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.
          http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/ira ...

          a debate in the senate about the iraq war:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al-d7efZWC4
    • noahhoward, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3She wasn't voting for Bush's war, she was voting for her husbands war. Operation Desert Fox and the Iraqi Liberation Act, look them up.

      Here, I'll save you some time
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28De ...
      • pintomp3, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s200 ...
        • noahhoward, on 05/06/2008, -1/+42002 happened after 1998. The Iraq war was set into motion in 1998 by the Iraq Liberation Act. The vote is 2002 was simply an end result of that effort in my opinion. Or do you think Bills plan was to offer to share Monica with Saddam in exchange for surrender?
    • shadovvman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Bush's war? America's war. Like it or not, it still belongs to the US and can't be shunted off to the side as one person's responsibility.
    • barkus, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I don't think she's ever owned up to any mistake she's made. Like Bush, she seems to want us to believe she's infallible.
  • PeoplesChoice, on 05/06/2008, -5/+83While she's obliterating Iran, Obama in his spare time, has been working behind the scenes to stop sniper fires in the Niger Delta, not making up stories about sniper fire in Bosnia.

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Seems_To_H ...

    By the way, that's also a more effective way to bring down the price of oil.
    • Sogui, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Sniper fires are the worst, I mean mean when they're aren't shooting people now they're starting fires?
    • ptxyz, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2I'd take Obama over Hillary any day, but ... we care about Niger Delta because ... ?
      • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10Maybe because you are not a selfish *****, but the benevolent, good, Uncle Sam who only wants people to live in peace and harmony, and who does the right thing to stop injustice and suffering. (At least this is what the press releases suggest in the last 60 years.)
    • contigo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10"we care about Niger Delta because"

      oil
  • coffee200am, on 05/06/2008, -25/+10Maybe we could have a "Death To Iran Day!"...sort of like Iran's "Death To America Day!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRjG36WGvWM
    • pintomp3, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11"death to" is a bad translation. "down with" is more accurate. of course "down with" is less useful for fearmongering.
    • sw33tsarin, on 05/06/2008, -3/+15Please, Do you remember the candelight vigils the Iranians held for us immediately after 9/11? If I remember correctly there were thousands of Iranians in attendance. Just because a small part of a group holds a horrible viewpoint doesn't mean they all do.
  • chanop, on 05/06/2008, -18/+6Can we please get more articles about the same thing submitted to the front page please?
    • MaddieCakes, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6You got it!
    • Tssst, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2careful what you wish for
    • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3they keep coming up because the majority of Diggers want them. you cant tell people to stop digging articles they feel are important. nor can you stop people from participating in the discussions.

      oh wait! if Hillary would shaddup, this subject would go away! i forgot!
    • BXRWXR, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1How about more articles about whine? Would you like that?
  • shyboy2008, on 05/06/2008, -28/+11Go Clinton!!! Dont let anyone change your mind. Always stick with your gut feeling and dont let negative forces sway you when you know whats right for this country. Take it all the way to the convention and than all the way to the White House.
    • ObamaWins08, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Obligatory Howard Dean-style "yaaaggghhhhh"!
      • shyboy2008, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4I wonder if Digg allows you to change your screename to ObamaLose08 when Hillary wins the nomination?
        • ObamaWins08, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Already got a back up plan, you may soon know me as "Hillarycheated08"
    • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7did this post mysteriously reappear from Digg in January 2008? last i heard, Hillary had as much chance of winning as i have.
    • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2has got to be a troll.

      or a female to male transsexual. if you're a "boy" as your name suggests, then you need to relenquish your man card right now, because what you just said, that's some ***** that a ***** female would say to another female. amirite?
    • withoutamartyr, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Go back to your bridge, troll.
    • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Don't you mean Shygirl? I don't know a single man under 75 voting for Hilary.
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/06/2008, -19/+13Who cares if the reason you bombed Iran was a lie.
    After a 1000 lie war in Iraq, can't the terrorist United States Government get away with anything?
    • ender7074, on 05/06/2008, -10/+2You people and your belief that someone lied to you. You're funny. Keep on hammering out those CNN talking head comments.
      • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7Have you ever seen CNN? They don't sound anything like that. Keep watching O'Reilly and wolfing down Big Macs, moron.
      • usgovterrorists, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7On these 935 separate occasions, the database’s authors write in their introduction, officials “stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration’s case for war.”
      • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -7/+4@pap ...what Big Macs? Why don't you go back to Mediamatters, Moveon.org, Thinkprogress, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, HuffingonPost, Rawstory, Crooksandliars, Firedoglake, and all the rest of your "news" sources.
        • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3All far less reputable than your dugg sources such as: lawhawk.blogspot.com, foxnews.com, and the always reliable worldnetdaily.com. Now please go back to studying for your GED.
          • patpl22391, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I graduated from high school a year before my friends. I have two years of college under my belt and I'm barely 18. Thanks for the insults. I have never visited worldnetdaily and lawhawk.blogspot.com. I rarely ever go to Foxnews.com. Drudgereport is my favorite.
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/06/2008, -5/+9You should be more than angry. You should be in a rage. You should be in a rage no less than that of the families of those young men and women who have been killed and maimed in this war started with a lie.You need to be in a rage and you need to act on that rage because even as I type these words, the same government that lied about Iraq's nuclear weapons is telling the exact same lies about Iran's nuclear capabilities. The writing is on the wall; having gotten away with lying to start the war in Iraq, the US Government will lie to start a war in Iran, and after that another, and after that another, and another and another and another because as long as you remain silent, and as long as you remain inactive, the liars have no reason to stop.

      As long as you remain inactive, the liars have no reason to stop.
      • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6Your rage is childish. Get a grip on yourself and discuss these issues calmly and intelligently.
  • chrissku, on 05/06/2008, -4/+95Is it just me or is she more of a Republican than John McCain?
    • shyboy2008, on 05/06/2008, -28/+2IS IT ME OR ARE YOU A BIGGER DOUCHE THAN OBAMA
      • reuscel, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10The Caps Lock button is just below the tab button, and above the left shift button. Look into it.
        • bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9All caps has become the equivalent of the dramatic chipmunk.
      • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6speaking of douches, man does your mom stink! like a bucket of carp in the sun! like the men's room on a shrimp boat! like a barrel of pig assholes!

        speaking of pig assholes, hows your dad?
    • orangefly, on 05/06/2008, -4/+8pretty much every dem i know will vote for mccain over that nutball woman....
    • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+17Why do you think most of her supporters are Republicans?
    • plhearn, on 05/06/2008, -10/+1It's just you.
    • topgigmedia, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10It's not just you.
    • oldgal, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Many of the foreign policy experts (both liberal and conservative) believe her foreign policy will be very similar to Bush's. For verification check out this excellent set of lectures: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/new_search.php?search_ ...
    • markgl, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3is that how you define parties now.
    • richmomz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5It's not just you; Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Fox News feel the same way. She's a neo-con in democrat's clothing; I thought that was obvious to most people by now.
      • Amadeus2490, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Anyone who feels that it would be okay to police the world and kill >thousandsof ethnic people seems pretty ***** evil to me. But that's just, like. . .my opinion, man. /rose-colored spectacles
  • fishbeef33, on 05/06/2008, -4/+52It's very odd how much Hillary is echoing Dubya right now. From her political attacks on Obama to her complete inability to admit making mistakes, Clinton is, I think, the REAL Bush Part 2 - not McCain.
    • plhearn, on 05/06/2008, -8/+3She and Bush also both have an "H" in their names. Even more evidence that they are very much alike. Even though she wants to immediately bring the troops home and McCain wants to keep them there. But those are minor details.
      • Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4she also came under sniper fire, maybe she 'mispoke' about bringing the troops home.
      • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Yeah she wants to bring them home so we can send them back to Iran and then nuke them all. This woman is a madman and dangerous. No wonder our reputation around the world is *****.
      • withoutamartyr, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Interestingly, 'Obama sounds like Osama!' was a completely serious attack on Barack. You're satire falls short.
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Hilary does not stand for bringing the troops home immediately actually.
    • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3maybe her plan to beat obama now is to swing to the other side of the spectrum of democrats who actually want war in iraq, and get all 14 or 15 of them to vote for her, because up till now they didnt have a warmongering candidate to vote for, unless they wanted to vote republican.
    • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Clinton and McCain are both Bush Part 3.

      I really believe Obama when he says we will get nothing productive done in this country until we change the way we do politics, or change the way we reward self-preserving politics. I dunno if he can do it, but I'm willing to let him try.
    • richmomz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2She's a neo-con in democrat's clothing. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Fox News love her so much?
  • jontalisman, on 05/06/2008, -28/+6Good for Hillary! I guess Obama would just pat Iran's figurative hands and tell them to quit being such bad boys after they nuked Israel. Yeah right!
    • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Yeah let's kill innocent women and children to defend Israel! Woohoo!
      • jontalisman, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3So it's okay with you if Iran nukes innocents? If not, would you rather we completely destroy their country or shall we just wait and let them do it again to one of our other friends?
        • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5
          ***** israel, they can take care of their own *****.
        • withoutamartyr, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4So it's okay with you if America nukes innocents?
          • jontalisman, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Yes, if Iran or any country should nuke Israel or any other close friend of the United States, it's absolutely okay with me if we nuke them into oblivion. As long as other countries know that that's what will happen to them if they drop the bomb on us or our friends, it will most likely prevent them from doing such a stupid thing in the first place.
        • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0Epic fail. Try again.
    • jkoke, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4I'm not sure if you've ever heard the term "false dichotomy", but you don't make a strong argument when you present the only two choices as "roll over for Iran" and "nuke Iran". There's an entire continuum of choices involving diplomacy and force in between.
    • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Israel owns the United States. Why is it that they are our biggest ally when we don't trade with them, etc.? Israel has its own nuclear weapons. They can wipe out Iran if they wanted to. They don't need our help with that.
      • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Israel doesn't 'own' the United States. As a matter of fact, if you look at national debt, China and Japan own the vast majority of U.S. debts. What Israel does have is a very convenient location, for united states economic (oil) and military interests in the middle east. Strategically, since the U.S. has its crosshairs aimed at middle eastern territory, they need a soverign and powerful neighbor that they can use as esentially a tactical shield to launch assaults on middle eastern territories.
        With that being said, i agree totally with your position. Iran doesn't need our help to defend themselves. They are a wealthy country with one of the worlds major weapons manufacturers, and furthermore, they have their own top of the line nuclear weapons program.
        Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a liar and a slimey gimmicky politician who will say anything at anytime to get votes. She obviously said that she would "obliterate" Iran because she wanted to illustrate that she would be tough and firm in her foriegn policy, she knows what to say to get the coward's vote. Nobody said a damn thing in response that she just admitted to the fact that she would instantly make the decision to kill millions and millions of innocent men, women, and children. If you obliterate a country, that means you will completely destroy it and effectively wipe out it's entire population. Does she think that sound appropriate? If so, she should thank god that the rest of the world hasn't obliterated the United States for its atrocious actions modernly and throughout history. Keep in mind that so far, the United States has been the ONLY country to use a mass nuclear weapon (two of them actually) in war against another country, so by clinton's logic, we shouldn't even exist...
    • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4you need to question the source of your information that iran is GOING to nuke israel. (not speculation that they might be trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that they're so crazy and stupid that they're going to use it)
      if the source is related to CNN, FOX, or MSNBC I want you to try again.
      If it's mike savage, then you can't be helped, just go throw yourself off a building.
      • Doriath, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I don't like Hillary at all.

        But you need to question the source of your information that Hillary is GOING to nuke Iran.
    • iticu, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Iran DOESN'T HAVE NUKES.
      Say that twenty or so times, and then look at what you just wrote.
  • mafftom, on 05/06/2008, -24/+2I can't see a problem with nuking Iran, regardless of anything to do with Israel. It's about time the U.S flexed its muscles once more. Nukem just cos you can.
    • BeforeSputnik, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Nuke the whales?
    • sw33tsarin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6We've been flexing our muscles for about 5 years in Iraq now, I think our muscles are getting tired.
    • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I hope one day you get nuked. Remember, the Russains are looking for every chance to go to war with us. Sending a nuke to Iran is the start of WWIII. Don't be a moron. We can't have anymore war-hawks in office.
      • mafftom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The Russains? are they similar to the Russians?
        • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Nice one, spelling Nazi... Now it's my turn.
          "The Russains? Are they similar to the Russians?"
          The first word of each sentence begins with an upper-case letter. /smartass.
    • MrNexus, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2You are quiet simply an idiot. Go marry you're cousin.
      • withoutamartyr, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2*Your.

        Or were YOUR parents cousins?
      • mafftom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0oh and I see a minor error in your punctuation, who's the idiot now? Go back to school you hippy.
        • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"Oh. By the way, I see a minor error in your punctuation. Who's the idiot now? Go back to school you hippy."
          G-R-A-M-M-A-R. If you want to act like a smartass, you should expect to have people act like smartasses back. /smartass
        • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0LOL. It's supposed to be hippie, not hippy.
      • mafftom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Just in case you you haven't got the idea, when you go back to school ask YOUR new teacher how to spell QUITE too, ha ha ha ha and I'm the idiot, jeez!!!!!!!!!!!
  • ObamaWins08, on 05/06/2008, -1/+17Just out of curiosity, really, I'm not being sarcastic here, what would a good response be to a country who just nuked another as a tactical, first-strike move?
    • orangefly, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10republicans cheering....
      • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -12/+0A serious questioner hopes for a non-sarcastic answer and a typical mindless pro-Obamite gives a typical sarcastic answer. Welcome to DIGG!
        • wendelgee2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Hey, dumbass. The "serious questioner" is an Obama supporter too. Look out! You're surrounded!
    • OpenIntro, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Definitely a trade embargo of some sort.
    • Taciturn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+23Swift and overwhelming international retaliation on military targets *only*. Bombing a civilian populace is never acceptable, whether with nukes or cluster bombs.
      • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Taciturn, you hit the nail on the head. BTW, the Russians are finding every reason to jump into a war against us. Last I heard, they are backing Iran. We've got big problems if we nuke Iran.
    • ScaredOfTheMan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+15Obliterate... Their Army, their air force, their navy, special forces, their nuclear facilities, their ministry of defense, and most of their non humanitarian government ministries. Anyone left standing from these groups or who had anything to do with the nuclear program is tried for crimes against humanity, with the death sentences handed down to all found guilt. There would be regrettable civilian casualties, but nothing on the scale clinton is suggesting.
      It would also serve as a deterrent to other nations to use their nuclear weapons.

      This is a moot point, in the even of an attack, Israel would mangle Iran well before we got a shot at them, and they probably would obliterate them (population and all) as an eye for an eye retaliation.
    • absurdist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Please... do you really believe that if Israel is attacked (including nuked) by Iran, they're not completely capable of defending themselves, right up to the point of obliterating Iran without the U.S.'s help? If you do, you haven't been paying attention to world events and, specifically, Middle East nations' defense capabilities for, oh, say, the past 25 years or so, and really should get up to speed.
    • enchanterku, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7I have to agree with Taciturn, mostly, and OpenIntro, as both of the options would be probably come into play.

      Were the USA to perform the first-strike, I have no real idea at how effective a military retaliation by the world would be-- I say that because I have no idea of missile defense capability etc. I would lean towards heavy economic sanctions, but once again, I don't know how willing some foreign countries would be to lose American support.

      Were it a smaller country to perform the preemptive, I'm sure that America would default to its role as world policeman and swiftly do to the offending country what America did to Iraq, that is, destroy the current government and infrastructure and attempt to build a new, more reasonable government.

      Were it a large nation, say Russia or China, then I imagine that retaliating with the nuclear option would be a poor choice, as nobody really wants World War Three to happen. I'd have to say that some strategic conventional bombing, combined with a trade embargo, and probably some heavy UN sanctions (not that they particularly mean anything).

      Nuclear weapons scare the ***** out of me- I hope we never see the day when one is launched, whether through anger or strategy. I don't trust anybody enough to not retaliate with unnecessary force if we've just been attacked, and I fear that the unnecessary force will cause MAD.
      • OpenIntro, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I was being sarcastic, but thanks!
    • jontalisman, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2Send Obama to Tehran. He'll give them a sweet speech and the whole world will be at peace again in no time, I'm sure.
      • jellygraph, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Hillary, what are you doing on Digg? Everyone hates you here. It would probably be best if you leave.
    • rendersan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15Apparently, the only winning move is not to play.
    • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5are we talking about iran nuking israel? i think maybe we should thank them, that would be just the cataclysmic event that would spark the rapture and cause jesus to come!!!!11oneone
    • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -9/+1Barrack Hussein Obama would have us all convert to Islam and would then ask Iran to please not nuke us too......
      • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5oh god, you're one of those ***** idiots. our president can't get us to stop smoking weed. but b HUSSEIN obama is elected he's going to make MILLIONS upon millions of people convert to a religion they don't beleive in.
        you obama bashers say he's junior and has no experience and won't be able to get anything done and is nothing but 30 second soundbytes and empty promises. and in the SAME ***** breath, say he's going to implement sharaia law and turn us all into moslems.

        please explain to the rest of the class how he's going to do that.
    • jellygraph, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Better question yet... how do you respond to a country that just threatened to nuke you? Especially when they are using a media lie accusing you of wanting to nuke another country you have no intention of actually nuking?
    • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Moron. Obama isn't a ***** muslim. You probably wank off to soundbytes of O'Reilly making comments about Reverand Jeremiah Wright, and still don't have the ***** braincells to piece together that Obama is a christian. If you don't see that connection you really are dense. Oh, and by the way, not all muslims are bad people. In my opinion we should be just as worried about having a christian or catholic leader. Visit your local mosque and talk with some real peace-loving muslims in your community and realize that Islam isn't the terrorist organization that the newsgroups make it out to be. I'm an atheist from a catholic family, and i've met countless peaceloving and intellegent muslim people. I've also met many awesome persian/iranian people in my life and if you had known some of these people you would think twice about thinking that every innocent man, woman and child in iran should be nuked.
  • plhearn, on 05/06/2008, -23/+7Yea Hillary sucks and shes a heartless bitch! Now lets all go suck Obama's dick.
    • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3lol, k
    • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4you go on ahead. we'll watch.
    • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Ok. We can do it after we stop sucking Hillary's dick. /shemale
    • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0I believe Hilary's is much larger.
  • mogebier, on 05/06/2008, -12/+6We will not have to do anything about Iran.
    Europe will finally pull it's head out of it's ass and take care of the mess that's closer to them than to us.
    • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2Let's be honest, when was the last time Europe has ever done anything. They are all in the pockets of these dictators.
      • theicecrime, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Why should we do anything? We don't like war, unlike the U.S. And look where it has brought you... At least we have learned from all the wars in the past. Or maybe we should invade a random country because their leader is a dictator that doesn't support us anymore. Oh wait, that sounds familiar, but not applicable to Europe. If anything, I hope we never become like the U.S, who believe military power is everything. It's not. Europe is a great place to live, and we don't have to spend billions of dollars and lose thousands of soldiers in a pointless war to prove that we are important.
        And as for being in the pockets of dictators: check your history records, and your CIA records. You might learn a thing or two.
        And I believe that if the VS can possess nukes, everyone can. I know the VS has its own twisted logic, but you can't deny other countries the "rights" you choose to reserve for yourself. Maybe the VS could be the responsible one and get rid of its nukes? No? Then don't expect other countries to do it because you ask. I know it's not safe that everyone has nukes, but at least those countries will be able to defend themselves when the U.S. randomly invades another country. To liberate the people, of course.
        • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The U.N. is the most corrupt organization in modern time. There is no oversight within the organization and their resolutions are a joke (nations with invested interest in that nation veto any strong language. Also don't forget the "Oil-for-Food" scandal. On top of this, America foots 25% of the bill. It took America to stop the genocide in Kosovo because Europe couldn't come up with a united stance, they always have looked to Washington for leadership and will continue to do so!
        • mogebier, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Europe will be forced to do something when you get hit by more and more terrorism. Remember: YOU ARE CLOSER to them than the US is. You are an easier target. And the longer you turn your back on them, the messier the hits will be when they decide you are all chumps.
        • Lhurgoyf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0@mogebier
          Europe is used to terrorism, for the IRA (who a fair number of Americans supported), to Eta, so I don't think Europe is unduly worried about terrorism as oposed to issues such as climate change, and energy shortages.
      • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The U.S. doesn't like war.... The right-wing morons in the U.S. are the ones that like war. (Oh and to respond to the original comment. Europe doesn't need to respond to this ***** because europe didnt start it.)
    • SSUK, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Oh, I'm sorry for Europe being so damn arrogant, thinking we don't police the world. How silly of us.
    • msbeckman, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0You never shut the ***** up do you?
  • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -16/+6Oh please..digg is so biased, seems only probama headers of even old/dead subjects make it to the front page...obviously those diggs are misleading, as if the man has to faults..
    • Risingashes, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Feel free to post a story about a substantial fault.
      Something other than sensationalism.
      Hillary wants to be responsible for the largest nuclear arsenal in existence- I wouldn't want the fate of the human race in the hands of someone who was willing to nuke civilians for the actions of a government.
      • rodgerse, on 05/06/2008, -3/+0For one thing, she only said IF iran nukes isreal we MIGHT retaliate..

        And I know you want to dismiss the inexperince argument, but when's the last time a junior senator got elected president.(hint:last non-governor/vp was jfk who was atleast a full senator).
      • SlyMm, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1.
    • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I agree! Intellegence has a liberal bias!!!
  • FearFactory, on 05/06/2008, -4/+17Hillary Rodman is definitely Bushlingual.
    • bobdigi, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Don't you mean Hillary Rodham?
    • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3He can't say "ham" for religious reasons. =P
  • AndrewDB, on 05/06/2008, -4/+22God, today's the day of my state's primary (Indiana), and I can't wait to see how the process turns out.

    Will I be, for the for the first time in my life proud of my state, or ashamed of it like always?.. If Obama gets at least 40% of the vote I'll be proud of it..

    Go Obama.

    Both my father and I voted for you early, please nuke this bitch off the map like she plans to do to Iran.
    • ICWeener, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1I suggest you move.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -12/+2I think you need to go to Iran if you think its such a great place. Maybe one of your relatives will be recruited to be a martyr and walk over landmines or carry a bomb into a crowd.
      • theaceoffire, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4You are part of the reason people are pissed off at us.
        • Monk22, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1im not too worried what people think of me
      • tidu, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Exactly, we know about all the bombs going off in IRAN.
    • jontalisman, on 05/06/2008, -11/+2Another dude on Digg that can't stand strong women so he calls 'em a bitch. I bet your dad still beats your mother.
      • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2yeah, calling her names just denotes anger. you need to deal with her on a more intelligent level to get through to people. i dont like ad hominum attacks--you need to take someone for what they espouse, not for being a woman.
    • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I hope so too. I think Indiana is too smart to fall for her garbage, but, we will see.
  • Senturion, on 05/06/2008, -1/+33Looks like Clinton is pandering to the same middle America majority than won Bush two elections.
    Idiocracy indeed.
    • AndrewDB, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5The strange thing is, according to this graph: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm , last updated 10/23 of 07, only something like 15% of American's still actually approve of Bush. That may be even lower now!

      If she's pandering to those middle class, its a fail-fail situation for her.-- Thank whatever deity you choose to believe in for that too!
      • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The strange thing is Hillary is even with Obama in national polls, when Obama is outspending her by 3 to 1 in campaign ads.
        • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2The other strange thing is a lot of these primaries are rigged. Did you hear about the over 1,000,000 voters who were purged from the Indiana primary? Yeah, 2 and 1 does not equal 4.
        • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2whats more impressive is that he has been winning against the person chosen by the party and the presumed candidate. the fact that it could be done at all impresses me. he has come from nowhere and now is holding his own.

          hes to be commended for doing all this. the money helps, but its really about being the better candidate. poor Hillary. she thought she had it sewn up. guess not!
        • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Does it surprise you that he needs to advertise himself more? 12 years ago virtually nobody had heard of Barack Obama, everyone had heard of Hillary Clinton. Clinton has a headstart in "brand" recognition, whereas the average american hadn't even heard of Obama until a while ago.
    • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Watch out, you might be called an elitist for admitting that maybe backwoods redneck beer-can-shooting heartlanders aren't at the top of the intellegence chain. OOOOPS.
  • mynameisrobert, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5Hillary is also proposing that the US creates a NATO like structure in the ME, which means that you guys are going to be knee deep in all the ***** over there forever.

    And you think NATO was a pain in the ass.

    Good luck, idiots!
  • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -21/+8Clinton Bad.
    Obama Good.
    Me vote Obama.
    • choppasizzle, on 05/06/2008, -15/+2typical Obamakin, no substance at all...go back to worshiping Obama's austerity program...a word you probably have no idea the meaning of.
      • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Can you tell me what Hillary is all about? I really would like to know, because out of all three candidates, Obama is the best one on policies, integrity, honesty, and leadership. The only thing Hillary is good at is bashing a former colleague in the Democratic party. She really is a republican in sheep's clothing.
        • choppasizzle, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Obama is the best? Are you kidding? He is a creation of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission for heaven's sake! He is a wholly owned puppet, and his policies are all about austerity and the killing off of the middle class...
          • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Really, I would like to see the proof of your statement. I've studied all three candidates, and of all three, Obama is the best on foreign policy, energy policy, the Iraq war, and the economy. Now I'm not saying I agree on his every policy (his pro-choice policy being one of them), but at least he is honest, can admit he has made mistakes, and has integrity.

            So, until you show me proof of your statement, I am not going to change my vote.
        • choppasizzle, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/04/prweb855704. ...

          Proof that Brzezinski is running the Obama show...

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#2 ...
    • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -7/+0Me like Obama.
      Him Goooooood.
      You not kno what word is Good?
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Good to see you realized Hilary literally can't win.
  • gweller, on 05/06/2008, -11/+5Clinton saying she would nuke Iran because they nuked Israel is perfectly OK. Why do you think no one has used nukes since Nagasaki? It's because there is fear of nuclear retaliation. We need Iran to have this fear too. Anyone who doesn't realize this is a ***** moron.
    • mynameisrobert, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11I think Isreal can take care of itself. And everybody, including the Iranians, knows this.

      So why did she make the comment? Does it actually HELP the situation?

      Nah, another Hillary pose. You guys deserve her or McCain. I figure 8 more years of Mismanagement and I can buy another house in the USA cheap, and rent it out to some American family. Let them pay for my mortgage.

      You see, Hillary and Bush and McCain are benefiting me.

      They're killing you guys. But you seem to like it up the ass.
      • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Israel has their own nukes. I can't believe people still fall for this "I'm always right, never wrong" tough talk. That is not how you deal with people. That is a law engraved in our bodies and all of humankind. People who know when to be nice and when to be tough are the intelligent individuals who know how to get things done. That's why I like Obama, he is very even-keel. He knows when to be nice and when to be tough (all while having a poker face). That's what I want in a leader. Not some bully. Response to bullying is always negative, response to an intelligent compromise always comes out positive.
        • gweller, on 05/06/2008, -3/+0Duh, Israel might not have any nukes left if it gets nuked by Iran first.
    • jontalisman, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Well said, Gweller.
  • pintomp3, on 05/06/2008, -3/+10she is pandering to the israel lobby for support. all of the candidates have done this, some more than other:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtm ...
    • geekee, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1One again you've proven you're clueless.
  • fleischner, on 05/06/2008, -18/+5James Carville: If Hillary gave Obama "one of her cojones, they'd both have two."
  • aphexcoil, on 05/06/2008, -5/+21This bitch needs to drop out already and give the Democratic party enough time to regroup before the general elections.
    • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Yeah, that's what I've been saying since January, after she lost my support.
    • kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3thats just bad language. deal with the issues, dont call her sexist, women-hating names. you are as bad as any right winger using the N word with obama when you call her that.

      Omama in 08!.
  • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -13/+8McCain/Clinton 08!
  • kamtsa, on 05/06/2008, -15/+8I can assure you that Hillary will much more responsible with The A Button than Achmadenijad.
    One Chamberlain was enough.
    • bshock, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9Wow, a history lesson! And by an illiterate child who has apparently never studied history, no less.
      Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Nazi Germany is a favorite point of bellicose rhetoric from U.S. Corporatists (ironically enough). In fact, negotiating with hostile foreign powers has a much more extensive track record of effectiveness than simply threatening to obliterate them.
      • jbettineski, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Your reply was much better then mine was going to be.
    • asspants, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1untill it's that time of the month, then Arminejihad will tell her she looks fat in those pants and she will bring up some ***** he said 6 months ago, and he will admit that he had sex with her mother, and she will press the button.
    • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Exactly. I always think of John F. Kennedy and the Cold War. "You should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate." - John F. Kennedy.

      If he did not negotiate with Russia at the time, I don't think I would even be alive right now, along with all you other people.
  • rob3, on 05/06/2008, -3/+17please will you Americans think of everyone else besides yourselves for a minute? The people that you elect have a big impression on the world; if you elect Hillary Clinton then you not disrupt your own oil supplies but you also create a much more unstable world. Please vote someone sensible into office instead of another mentally-insane lunatic.
    • sb66, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8nice thought, but if most americans were sensible they would not have supported the iraq war or elected bush again.
      • Risingashes, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Hopefully China will replace them within the next decade.
        They'll be nothing but a fanatical wasteland that outlawed biotech enhancements due to them not being the will of God.
        • Monk22, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2no one outlawed biotech, they just turned down federal tax money funding of it. there is more than enough private investment in the field.
          • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Our money would be far better spent on anything besides this crappy war which takes up $5000 per second. I'd rather that money go to future sock research than ***** bombs. Anything but god damn war.
      • GrubFisher, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Maybe Americans don't have as much control as they think they do.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -12/+2Someone like Obama that supports terrorist nations?
      These countries are NOT REASONABLE (they would rather died and sacrafice their own citizens then talk or compromise). Iran and countries like them live (or die) for the sole ideal that if they cant have their way ( all the way) then no one will have any way.

      But Obama's inexperience only shows that he thinks different. A vote for Obama means additional wars in the future - garanteeed!
      • rob3, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Stop with the sensationalist rubbish. The country that's being unreasonable at the moment is the USA, refusing to go into talks with Iran. The USA were the ones not reasonable to join the Kyoto agreement. The USA were the ones not reasonable enough to invade two middle eastern (oil rich countries) masquerading under the banner of bringing freedom. Do you have a superiority complex that makes you see things only one way or is this the facist indoctrination that you're experiencing throughout your lives?
        • Swift2, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Thank you. That is the Bush administration, and it is coming to a definitive end. Hillary's remarks are a signal of that. And by the way, Obama would do much the same.
      • Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2as opposed to the NON STOP wars you have now?
    • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1As though the rest of world only has sensible leaders....
      ---Are you a Robert Mugabe supporter, by the way?
      • rob3, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5The fact is, these leaders like Robert Mugabe are in very poor LEDC (lesser economically developed countries) such as the one that you've pointed as as Zimbabwe and North Korea also. Your country is a highly developed one so there really should be a difference in politics between the two.
      • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Because the U.S.A. should be comparing themselves to the worlds worst leaders instead of the worlds best leaders? That's like if you get a C on an exam and then say, "the ***** next to me got a D+, so its alright.".... Lets try to go up against the best of the best instead of the lowest common denominator.
  • bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -0/+19What concerns me is that Hillary never admits to any regrets or mistakes. If the Bush administration has drilled into us any lesson, it's that we need humble, sensible leaders who can admit and learn from their mistakes.
  • bshock, on 05/06/2008, -15/+10I regret that Hillary the Whore was ever born.
    • choppasizzle, on 05/06/2008, -12/+4typical Obamazoid, no substance at all...go back to sucking on that austerity your perfect master preaches...moron
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0As compared to this substance-filled gem?
    • jontalisman, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3I feel the same about your mother.
  • atact88, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2the problem with Hilary is that she's too moderate. Americans want politicians on the extreme ends of their political platforms, not leaders who can revise their decisions based on evolving circumstances (that's political career death). We call it "flip-flopping." McCain is also a fairly moderate Republican.
    I'm not voting for Hilary, for various reasons, but that's the truth.
    • Monk22, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1if that were true ron paul would be the gop candidate. people do not like change.
  • konsole1981, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6When Obama spoke about this at length on Meet the Press his message was essentially "That is what I would do to Iran but those are not the words I would chose to say it." Mr. Obama doesn't like double-plus-ungood language.
    The top 3 candidates share much of the same viewpoint in regards to foreign policy, which I believe to be further evidence of GOP/DEM convergence.
    I tend to prefer the second opinion of Dr. Ron Paul.
  • curtisag, on 05/06/2008, -11/+5Iran is defiant on their nuclear program. They have vowed to wipe Israel off the earth, therefore it's not unreasonable to tell them in certain terms, if they nuke Israel they might as well be nuking themselves because that will be the response by the U.S. If you think Obama is going to convince Iran to stop their nuke program, you are sadly mistaken. The Europeans are great at diplomacy, and they haven't gotten anywhere with Iran. They view their nuclear program as a point of national honor and will never relent.
    • pintomp3, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10have you actually looked at the history of iran? they haven't invaded or attacked another country in hundreds of years. we, on the otherhand, overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator. when they overthrew him and took our embassy, we threw a hissy fit and declared sanctions. we then paid saddam to go to war with them and gave him chemical weapons which he on them and his own people. we blew up one of their passenger airlines. despite all this, the reformist government helped overthrow the taliban in afghanistan and then offered us a truce back in 2003, which we ignored and declared them part of the "axis of evil". this lead to the election of ahmedinejad. he's crazy and confrontational, but he never said "wipe israel off the map", he called for an end to the regime which occupies palestine. not that he can do anything about it, he doesn't have military authority. our own NIE found that iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. guess who does have them? israel. go learn some history instead of spouting idiotic talking points.
      • spongya77, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Why waste time on him? Apparently huge portion of the population refuses to use their brain, and to do some critical thinking. They hate "elitists" (ie people who know stuff), and they love law-and-order and love militarism.
        These people didn't lose Vietnam -Jane Fonda did. (Strange echo of the backstabbing, ain't it?) These people do not care about evidence, facts, about logic.
        I waste my time arguing with them, but it will not change them. They're just an enormous waste of space.
      • Swift2, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Have you looked at the modern history of Iran? At what's been going on there since the mullahs took over?
        There is not a nuclear threat. Right now. Why were they developing it, until 2003? And who wants Israel to use its air force again to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities and create an international incident, or to have Iran suddenly smuggle nukes into Haifa harbor, or whatever? This is just a warning: don't develop nukes because you will not get any strategic advantage. Nobody's killing anybody. In fact, this threat is in the context of withdrawing from Iraq and starting up regional talks with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Saudis -- everybody affected, in the region. I'm quite sure that Hillary would start up peace talks in the area. This threat is conditional on Iran's actions, and they're a long way from actually having a weapon, and from using it against Israel.
  • AndrewDB, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I'm sure everyone is curious:

    Most of Indiana is in the eastern time zone; polling stations in 80 of the state's 92 counties will close at 6 p.m. eastern time. Twelve counties -- six in the northwestern part of the state and six in the southwestern part of the state -- presently observe central time, so their polls will close at 7 p.m. eastern time. Gary and Evansville are in central time, but South Bend, Indianapolis and Fort Wayne are in eastern time.

    So flip on your tv about 5:55 EST so you can watch the race! :)
  • choppasizzle, on 05/06/2008, -9/+3moronic Obamazoids wake the hell up! she has said IF they were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons! Obviously Iran is nowhere near having these, so the question is irrelevant...move on to your next attack ploy Obamakins!
    • MWeather, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1What if they steal Israel's nukes?
      • toowired77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Is she running to be president of Israel? Israel has its own nuclear weapons and its army is still pretty good. She is trying to send a signal to the Israel lobby. Israel had better wake up. America is a very proud nation. They better play their hand very carefully. Too much influence is not a good thing in a country (America) that will soon have to face very bad things.
  • LZeppelinJ0, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3Dugg for the word "has"
  • TomT223, on 05/06/2008, -14/+3Obviously she has more balls then Obama.
    • jontalisman, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Obama has balls? News to me...
    • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0Soooo, man-ladies are good now? I see how you like your cookies.
  • mkaylor, on 05/06/2008, -11/+2Nuke'm all and let GOD sort them out!! Turn that little ***** country into the worlds largest glass factory.

    First positive post about Hillary that I've read on here.
    • kenedamick, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Spoken like a true brain-dead dick munch who lives his life as though it were Grand Theft Auto
      • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Ummm. What does Grand Theft Auto have to do with this? Except for the fact that 99% of everything in those games is complete satire. As a matter of fact, they often go out of their way to make fun of militarism, xenophobia and biggotry. If you're too dense to realize burlesque and satire I don't think you should be expressing your opinions in the public domain. We don't need more people blaiming video games on the worlds most complex social issues. Whats next, calling Steven Colbert a neo-con? Don't be so damn thick in the head...
        • kenedamick, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I'm not trashing GTA, guy - you're missing the point. I was saying that his post resembled someone who valued life in the real world about as much as I do while I'm running over innocent civilians and blowing ***** up in a tank when I play GTA.
  • Bodhinature, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8Warmonger? I hardly know 'er!
  • sandman979, on 05/06/2008, -8/+9What should anybody care if Iran attack the Zionist invaders? Really, who cares? Why do we think we have the right to police the world like this? Israel has a better army, tons of money and yes, nuclear weapons. They can defend themselves. Israel is a historically bad neighbor nation anyway. They are just harvesting what the have cropped. Hillary is just showing she has hair in her chest too.
    • BXRWXR, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1English. You don't speak it very often, do you?
    • Plantagenet, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2----not many people speak out these days in favor of the right of countries to use nukes and commit genocide against the jews.
      • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Yeah it's only cool to use nukes to commit genocide against muslims.
        • katanaswordfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Do people not see the sarcasm in your comment? Morons.
    • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -6/+2The reason we defend Israel is because the United States created Israel in the 1940's. Look it up.
      • jamesLankford, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4you are an idiot, israel was created by the UN dumbass
    • jamesLankford, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2"is a historically bad neighbor nation anyway." dumbass, when all your neighbors refuse your right to exist and they all claim their goal is to drive you into the sea, then you have every right to be a "bad neighbor"
      • MisterChirish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3When the new kid in town moves into half your house because the authorities in the rest of the town say its ok, then (because you're not too happy about him being there, and start fighting to get him out) he tries to take over your yard and starts beating you, your wife and children to extend his own part of the property - he's probably not the best neighbor either, and you would want to drive him out of your house by whatever means necessary too.
        Before you start calling people dumbass, maybe take an objective look at the history behind Israel. Neither the Israelis nor the Arabs in that region have clean hands, and neither side seems very interested in making an honest effort at the peace process.
        Go ahead, digg me down for being "anti-semetic" - I believe that is the popular response when somebody dares to claim that Israel isn't the innocent victim in the Middle East.
  • mkaylor, on 05/06/2008, -14/+0Nuke'm all and let GOD sort it out! Make Iran into a glass factory!

    This is the first Pro-Hillary post I've read on here! Tides are turning