Monday, April 23, 2007

On the Table

Having been a registered democrat for all my voting life I am surprised how easy it is for me to say I find I can no longer support the democrat party. Am I unfair in my criticism of the democrats? Perhaps, but I must admit I do not believe that to be the case. Hillary Clinton is an unabashed war monger. John Edwards admits to making a mistake but he seems quite willing to make even bigger mistakes and Obama is willing to do what he perceives as essential to becoming prez, and like Edwards and Clinton is willing to leave nukes on the table when it comes to Iran.

Norman Solomon points out the hypocrisy embodied by the top dem front runners in this column.

The Pentagon’s most likely next target is Iran. Hillary Clinton says “no option can be taken off the table.”

Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is “a threat to all of us” and “we should take no option, including military action, off the table.”

John Edwards says, “Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.” And: “We need to keep all options on the table.”

A year ago, writing in The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: “One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.”

For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all “options” should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten — and possibly follow through with — first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington’s policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.

These are the people that are going to stop Bush and the Iraq War? Okay, agreed, no sane person wants to see nuclear weapons proliferating throughout the world but it is it really the end of the world if Iran developed nuclear weapons? And as I have said in a previous post I have serious doubts that Iran actually is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

And while we are on the topic of war let's connect a few dots just for yucks. The dems have done very little in any concrete manner to actually stopping the war. They have huffed and they have puffed but they have not blown down Bush’s house of war. It is also quite clear from the above quotes from Norman Solomon’s column that they are quite willing to use military measures against Iran. So if this is the case why should we expect them to bring the troops home from Iraq? If the plan is to attack Iran then it would seem much more likely that the dems would leave the troops in their present holding pattern in Iraq just across the border from Iran. However the true democrat agenda comes into play as we see all three of our dem contenders are willing to use nuclear bombs against Iran. This is nothing less than insane and there is nothing on God’s green earth that would make me vote for such candidates as this motley crew.

The dems are not against imperialism at all. In fact they tow the same party line as the republicans when it comes to the Middle East and the criminal use of the military abroad. It would seem all the dems have done so far is to assume a position that takes up Bush policy and draped it around their shoulders like Olympic atheletes passing the torch in a marathon race of endless corruption and violence.