I want to take the time to write a separate post regarding Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about the middle east.

No matter how you may feel about the strategic implications of Hillary’s umbrella and obliteration policy, she has made a mistake by issuing such antagonistic comments. If she were to become the nominee, both major candidates for President would be vocally in favor of an attack on Iran. This gives Bush the cover to initiate an attack sooner rather than later.

The Umbrella:

Hillary first mentioned the middle east umbrella of deterrence in the recent ABC debate. I immediately thought that this idea was not sane. What the concept means is that she would pursue a treaty alliance with certain client states that would hinge on nuclear defense. Which states would fall under this alliance: Israel, certainly, as well as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Turkey is already a member of NATO.

NATO is historically remembered for being the treaty gateway into nuclear proliferation.

From Wikipedia:

During most of the duration of the Cold War, NATO maintained a holding pattern with no actual military engagement as an organization. On 1 July 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opened for signature: NATO argued that its nuclear weapons sharing arrangements did not breach the treaty as U.S. forces controlled the weapons until a decision was made to go to war, at which point the treaty would no longer be controlling. Few states knew of the NATO nuclear sharing arrangements at that time, and they were not challenged. On 30 May 1978, NATO countries officially defined two complementary aims of the Alliance, to maintain security and pursue détente. This was supposed to mean matching defences at the level rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact's offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms race. However, on 12 December 1979, in light of a build-up of Warsaw Pact nuclear capabilities in Europe, ministers approved the deployment of U.S. Cruise and Pershing II theatre nuclear weapons in Europe. The new warheads were also meant to strengthen the western negotiating position in regard to nuclear disarmament. This policy was called the Dual Track policy. Similarly, in 1983–84, responding to the stationing of Warsaw Pact SS-20 medium-range missiles in Europe, NATO deployed modern Pershing II missiles able to reach Eastern capitals within minutes. This action led to peace movement protests throughout Western Europe.

For example:

If Iraq signs on to a mutual defense pact with the United States, and US intelligence continues to find that Iran is funding the Shia resistance, then the US has a treaty obligation to defend Iraq, up to and including nuclear force.

Another example:

If Israel conducts a pre-emptive strike on an Iranian nuclear facility (as they did with Syrian non-nuclear factories), and Iran responds defensively, the US is obligated by a mutual defense treaty to respond with force up to that of nuclear obliteration.

Hillary Clinton is essentially proposing a unitary dynamic in a region where multiple world powers have a vested interest. She is offering nations, including those (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) with citizens who participated in the 9/11 attacks, an opportunity to participate in mutual defense with a proven history of nuclear proliferation. She is bringing nuclear war back onto the world debate table, specifically as a threat against Russia and China. Further, she is using Iran as the proving grounds for this reactionary philosophy by threatening their annihilation if they attack Israel, even as a defensive act. She is putting the US in the middle of a potential conflict and giving a ten year timeline for this situation to occur.

If Hillary were to become the nominee, Bush would have all the justification necessary to pre-emptively attack Iran. Between Hillary and McCain, there would be no major resistance to such a move since all of them agree that Iran should be attacked. She is once again adding her voice into the stew of violence against other countries. She is additionally contributing to greater world extremism by engaging in such reactionary rhetoric. Her candidacy helps to shield the Bush administration from its foreign policy blunders by adding legitimacy to the most outlandish ideas--ideas that should have been buried at the end of the cold war.

When you create scenarios where violence is inevitable, violence occurs. She has not once committed to peace in the middle east. She is not committing to energy independence if she continues to leverage the middle east and its resources with threats of military hegemony. There is nothing progressive or left of center about threatening the use of nuclear force. Further, she even denies Iran the opportunity to diplomatically resolve any sceniario. She will not meet directly with the Imams or Ahmadenjiad; instead she will execute force through a series of diplomatic yes-men who will not have the authority to enact meaningful resolutions.

Hillary Clinton is offering up more of the same by extending and expanding the neo-conservative foreign agenda. She is further emboldening extremists from around the world to act. Iran will now be emboldened to make further arms arrangements with Russia and China. Reform will be made more difficult as the people will rally around Ahmadenijand and the Imams for protection. Violence in Iraq will increase in order to keep the US military extended and weak. In short, Hillary Clinton is the wrong person for the job of Commander in Chief.

Hillary seems to be totally insane. She needs stopping. We have got to stop her.

As if our topic were not revolting enough -- now we have the notorious big BevD doing, well ... BevD !

the big BevD has evidently spent awhile studying her goddess empress and can already do her fairly well ... of course she practices all the time around here, lavishing her contempt on as many honest contributors as she possibly can ...