Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them.”




In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR


Endless wars are certain no matter who succeeds Obama. Clinton’s finger on the nuclear trigger should terrify everyone. ~ Oliver Stone filmmaker


By Stephen Lederman

Note: This piece which is of extreme relevance to the US election campaign was originally published in July 2015.

On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an “existential threat to Israel… I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program.”

Even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran. They are the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism.

They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and create insurgencies to destabilize governments. They are taking more and more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.

We…have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to reign in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness.

Fact: US and Israeli intelligence both say Iran’s nuclear program has no military component. No evidence whatever suggests Tehran wants one. Plenty indicates otherwise.

As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she addressed AIPAC’s annual convention saying:

The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests….shared ideals….common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel’s security.

(O)ur two nations are fighting a shared threat” against Islamic extremism. I strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.

I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas’ campaign of terror.

No such campaign exists. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.

Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas’ charter “calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”

“I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”

She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

The New York Times: Bernie Sanders’s Win in Michigan Changes Race but Not Probabilities


The New York Times

Excerpts from Mr Cohn’s article

Bernie Sanders managed to defeat Hillary Clinton by two percentage points in Michigan on Tuesday night, even though he trailed by at least 11 percentage points in every survey, and even though the demographics pointed toward a significant, if relatively smaller, advantage for Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Sanders’s win is so surprising that it’s hard to know what to make of it. Are we learning, for the first time, of a big latent advantage in the Rust Belt? Was it a fluke?

Yet one thing is clear: Mrs. Clinton still has a significant advantage nationwide. Her delegate lead is so solid that she would continue to win, even if Mr. Sanders’s ability to defy expectations the way he did in Michigan became a trend.



Bernie has already won the future of the Democratic Party


Bernie Sanders You are our hope!


As the Democratic presidential contest reaches the third state, what began as a coronation is now an exciting dead heat. Yet by one measure, Bernie Sanders is ­already a clear winner.

Regardless of whether the senator from Vermont captures the actual nomination, he has won the future of the Democratic Party.

Sanders is demolishing the last remnants of the old order, as represented by Hillary Clinton and her split-the-difference triangulation. It is Sanders, not she, who is the true heir of the radical politics of Barack Obama.

Calling a paradigm shift is like forecasting a recession — predict it often enough and you’ll eventually be right. Yet the developments unfolding before our eyes suggest the Democratic Party is undergoing a massive change. And a 74-year-old socialist is the architect.

A major piece of evidence is the enormous youth vote he attracts. In Iowa and New Hampshire, he beat Clinton by about 70 points — 84 percent to 15 percent — among voters under age 30. And despite the nasty demands by Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem that women must support Clinton, Sanders got 82 percent of the young female vote.

By contrast, Obama in the 2008 primaries typically beat Clinton among young people by about 20 points. With studies showing that most people stay in their first political party for many years, the young, ultra-liberal voters who turned out for Obama, and who are being joined by the Sanders wave, could dominate the party for a generation.

The implications are huge. Sanders’ call for a single-payer health-care system is a fantasy now, but it will outlive the campaign. His call for tuition-free public colleges won’t be forgotten, nor will his demands for enormous tax hikes on upper incomes. They’ll all be back as platform planks no matter what happens this year.

A second piece of evidence about Sanders’ impact is the way Clinton is jettisoning her incremental approach and embracing his anti-Wall Street, populist agenda. She’s calling herself a “progressive,” a word no one ever used to describe her, while also insisting that she is better able to get things done.

It would be an understatement to say the approach needs work. In New Hampshire, she urged voters to “bring both your heart and your head” on primary day — and promptly lost by 21 points.

There is, of course, an irrational dimension to the Sanders phenomenon. Obama is the most far-left president in memory, with his liberalism mixing higher taxes, an explosion of regulations and an expansion of social programs with a weak foreign policy.

The results everywhere are ­awful: The economy never fully recovered from the recession, and looks ready to slip back again. The world Obama tried to withdraw from is on fire, with talk of a global war growing louder.

America doesn’t need a double dose of the same bad medicine, but that is what young Democrats want. They believe Obama has been too moderate and see Clinton as even more old-school.

The party made this mistake before. After Lyndon Johnson ushered in the Great Society, a new generation furious about Vietnam pushed him aside for successors who were radicals at home and doves abroad.

Fortunately, most did not win the White House. Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern were rejected by voters, and Jimmy Carter probably would have been, too, were it not for the backlash over Watergate. After Carter’s disastrous term, the GOP won the next three thanks to Ronald Reagan’s pro-growth agenda and muscular foreign ­policy.

Dems won four of the last six elections, but Obama overplayed his hand. He scoffed at the center-left policies of Bill Clinton, and forfeited both houses of Congress. Now Sanders is going further by trashing the Clinton era in much the same way LBJ was trashed. He’s also daring to say Obama is not progressive enough.

Hillary is caught between Obama and Sanders, and, with the FBI probing her secret server and other issues, is under a cloud. ­Because of her trust deficit among voters, Sanders has more enthusiastic supporters.

Her message makeover is telling. Clinton initially hoped to build on her husband’s “third way” compromise between left and right, but no longer. Wall Street has gone from her piggy bank to her piñata.

Her husband, regarded affectionately by many African-Americans as the nation’s first black president, finds his welfare and criminal-justice record the target of angry young liberals. To save herself, Hillary last week discovered “systemic racism” in ­America.

Even if Sanders does not become president, the movement he unleashed is here to stay. So buckle up, America, the Dems are taking another hard left turn.

There’s a Rikers for a reason

City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito is on a mission to decriminalize many quality-of-life crimes, and hopes to close Rikers Island.

Her proposals are long on sympathy for people caught up in the criminal-justice system, but fall short on sympathy for the victims of the criminals she’s slobbering over. To her, only cops are bad.

Mark-Viverito, who engineered a raise for herself, from $137,192 to $164,500, is pushing legislation to wipe off the books 700,000 outstanding warrants for offenders who didn’t show up for court. They got initial summonses for urinating in public, breaking park rules, idling a vehicle, creating unreasonable noise or littering.

She called the move a continuing “quest for reform,” which might be true if the goal wasn’t a wholesale whitewashing of misdeeds.

Similarly, in her bid to close Rikers, she sounds as if the complex is another Abu Ghraib, the infamous Baghdad prison where American soldiers abused Iraqi detainees.

Top cop Bill Bratton negotiated with Mark-Viverito over her plans to stop many low-level arrests, and instead issue warnings. Bratton’s bottom line is that cops must retain the discretion to make arrests when they judge that appropriate.

In theory, that keeps a key policing tool intact. But cops already complain that City Hall undermines them, and the fear is that political pressure not to make arrests will lead the police to pull back on enforcement, as they have in other cities.

Gosh, ya think so?

Round up the usual denials. That was law enforcement’s first reaction when a Somali man named Mohamed Barry used a machete to slash four customers at an Israeli restaurant in Columbus, Ohio.

“There’s nothing to lead us to believe this is anything more than a random attack,” a police spokesman quickly told a local paper.

“Random.” That’s what Obama said about the slaughter of four Jews by a Muslim in a kosher market in Paris. “Random.”

Thankfully, the FBI soon took over the Ohio case and suggested terrorism was the motive. No kidding.

The one place they like Mike

Reader Ray Arroyo answers my challenge to identify a single state that Michael Bloomberg could win in a presidential bid. Referencing the former mayor’s campaigns against butter, salt and sugar, he writes:

“Bloomy wins the Nanny State…by a landslide!”






“Everybody knows what’s happening — who wants to know,” Bernie Sanders wrote in June 1972 in Movement, an irregular Liberty Union Party newsletter he edited. “A handful of people own almost everything … and almost everybody owns nothing. A handful of people make the decisions and the vast majority of people have virtually no control over their lives.” Dating all the way back to the 1960s and ‘70s in Vermont, a formative time for Sanders, the message of the surging socialist presidential candidate has been startling consistent. “The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and the vast majority in the middle are having a harder and harder time,” he said — in 1974, and ever since.

Above, 1963: Economic justice has been the central focus of Sanders’ 40-plus-year political career—as a young activist at the University of Chicago, though, Sanders agitated more for racial equality. In 1963 he was arrested during a demonstration protesting the city’s segregated schools. He also traveled to Washington—his first time in D.C.—to hear Martin Luther King speak at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

The Washington Post

“A Special Place in Hell”… For Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright?

By Gloria La Riva
Global Research, February 09, 2016
Liberation 7 February 2016
Region: USA
Theme: Crimes against Humanity, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: IRAQ REPORT, U.S. Election


Hillary Clinton screaming…

130612.jpgFeatured image: Albright, a fanatical advocate for genocidal sanctions and bombing campaigns, is in no place to lecture young women on “feminism.”

I am writing as a working woman, feminist, socialist, and candidate for President of the United States, and I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms the outlandish attacks by Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright on any woman working in support of the political campaign of Bernie Sanders. This attack, particularly on young women who are supporting Sanders in such large numbers, is a shameful and opportunist attempt to use the historic struggle for women’s rights for the narrowest political gains.

In a desperate attempt to reverse the growing support among young women and men for her opponent in the Democratic Party primaries, Hillary Clinton has enlisted the support of notorious war monger and advocate of mass murder, Madeleine Albright.

As Clinton looked on laughing and clapping, Albright told the media on February 6: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

If indeed there were such a “special place,” Madeleine Albright would most assuredly be going. And going along with her would be candidate Clinton.

As UN Ambassador and the Secretary of State in the Bill Clinton regime, Albright was a fanatical advocate of the genocidal sanctions blockade that killed more than a million women, children and men in Iraq, and of the 1999 U.S./NATO bombing war against Yugoslavia.

On May 12, 1996, nearly six years into the U.S./UN sanctions, Albright was interviewed on CBS “60 Minutes” by Lesley Stahl, who had just returned from Iraq, about the impact on the Iraqi population:

Lesley Stahl: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

Albright’s astoundingly flippant answer was nothing less than a confession to one of the most horrific war crimes in history, indicting not just herself but all the leaders of the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations who were fully aware of the lethal impact of sanctions on the people of Iraq.

In 1999, Albright played a key role in the war on Yugoslavia, engineering the failure of the negotiations that preceded the war. Albright presented the Yugoslav government with an “agreement” that would have allowed NATO to forces to occupy the entire country, with the unheard of provision that Yugoslavia would pay for the expenses of the occupation!

After the talks broke off, a “top official” (Albright) told reporters in an off-the-record session: “We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get.” When the Yugoslav government predictably rejected the ultimatum disguised as a “proposal,” the bombing began and continued for three months.

Thousands of civilians were killed, wounded and made homeless. As was true in Iraq, the entire population was traumatized, with women and children most severely impacted.

Like the assault on Iraq, the attack on Yugoslavia was a war crime, a “crime against peace,” the most serious of all violations of international law, a war of aggression against another state that poses no threat to the country launching the war.

According to her own words, Hillary Clinton joined in the war chorus: “I urged him [President Clinton] to bomb.”

In 2003, Senator Clinton supported invasion and occupation of Iraq. In 2011, as Secretary of State, she was chief advocate in the Obama administration in calling for the bombing war that killed, wounded and displaced unknown numbers of Libyans and devastated the country.

After the torture and murder of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi, Clinton laughingly told a CBS interviewer: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Albright and Clinton thus share much in common both with each other and their far more numerous murderous male counterparts in the top levels of the U.S. imperialist state machine. That they who have worked to destroy the lives of so many millions of women would now presume to lecture young women on “feminism” and attempt to shame them into supporting Clinton is a despicable travesty.
The original source of this article is Liberation

Copyright © Gloria La Riva, Liberation, 2016

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).  Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.