November 21, 2008
Stop Hillary!
Yes we can!


We had a breather during the final stretch of the presidential election campaign, but the way is now cleared for a renewal of the propaganda campaign urging war with Iran. The latest salvo: a UN report claiming Iran plans on building 3,000 new centrifuges, and headlines are screaming – in the West, at any rate – that Iran will have enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb by sometime next year. Is this true?

Undoubtedly not. To begin with, let’s go through the news accounts: here’s a typical one, a Reuters dispatch, which reports a "stand off" between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), run by the UN, which monitors nuclear activities of member states. To the ordinary person just glancing at the headline, the assumption is that the "stand off" is over Iran’s unwillingness to keep its nuclear facilities open to inspection. Not so. Yet Reuters reports:

"An inquiry by the UN nuclear watchdog into alleged atom bomb research by Iran has degenerated into a silent standoff a few months after Tehran asserted ‘the matter is over’, UN officials said on Wednesday."

If your eyes glaze over at this point, and you don’t get much further than the lede, then the story seems to be describing Iranian nuclear research that will inevitably result in the production of a weapon. Reuters cites a whiny UN official, who complains: "We had gridlock before but until September at least we were talking to each other. Now it's worse. There is no communication whatsoever, no progress regarding possible military dimensions in their program." It isn’t until several paragraphs later that it becomes apparent to the casual reader that the program he’s talking about ended in 2003:

"The report said that unless Iran produced credible evidence for its denials that it tried to ‘weaponise’ nuclear materials, or permitted inspections beyond declared atomic sites, the IAEA could not verify Iran's enrichment was wholly peaceful."

Remember last year, when the CIA issued its definitive assessment of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat? It declared with "high confidence" that Tehran had ceased its military research program four years previously. According to the CIA, all those diagrams and dicey computer disks that somehow showed up in the hands of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), and were pushed by the War Party as evidence of Iran's perfidy, detailed a program that hadn't been functional for years. (At any rate, those documents turned out to be forgeries.)

In any case, the West, acting through the UN, turned this into yet another pretext for confrontation with the Iranians. Their reaction to this revelation was: Aha! So the program was ended – now turn over the documents verifying this, and confess your guilt! This demand, combined with the suspicions hanging over the stepped-up enrichment activities, is the new vise in which the Iranians are being squeezed – first, with the threat of sanctions, and later on, with the threat of war.

Drudge on Thursday featured a Jerusalem Post commentary that made the case for war in plain and simple terms: the author acknowledges that the "enriched" uranium in the Iranians’ possession is low-grade, and in its present form can only do what the Iranians have been saying all along they intend to do, which is fuel nuclear power plants to generate electricity. In order produce to weapons grade material, they would have to make some very visible changes to their known facilities. "This would make it very difficult for Iran to hide from the IAEA inspectors," the Jerusalem Post admits, but there’s a catch (isn’t there always?):

"Unless, that is, there are secret facilities where the low enriched uranium is purified, away from the eyes and knowledge of the IAEA. And this is very possible."

Of course, anything is possible – except, perhaps, that the Israel lobby will cease its relentless agitation for war. One thing about secret facilities, however, is that no one knows where they are. Oddly, the next question isn’t where are these "secret" nuclear sites, but "where do we go from here?" The author, one Meir Javedanfar, knows just where he wants to go with this:

"One can not also help but notice that such reports help those who want a military solution. This may not be around the corner; however, it is there. Even when Obama enters office.

"Many have accused the Democrats of being too timid and too compromising. That's not true. The difference with them is that they are likely to give negotiations a serious chance, before reaching out for their guns. And if they do, they won't do it alone. Just ask Slobodan Milosevic."

He’s right. And never mind Milosevic – just get out your ouija board and consult the departed spirit of Saddam Hussein. It was, after all, a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who pushed the Iraq Liberation Act through Congress, funded Chalabi, and started the process that ended in what the late General William E. Odom trenchantly described as the worst strategic disaster in American military history. Now the same pattern is taking hold in regard to Iran. The pressure on President Obama to humble Iran, and prove his "toughness," is going to be enormous, and one indication is that the War Party’s propaganda blitz, which should be reaching a crescendo by Inauguration Day, has already started in earnest.

With Hillary Clinton as Obama’s secretary of state, and a bevy of war hawks ensconced in key national security posts – just like the neocons in the Bush administration – the War Party will be well-represented in the foreign policy councils of the new administration. It looks like we’re in for a long, agonizingly drawn out drama, which may very well end the same way the last one did.

There’s just one way to preempt this and that is to show, early on, that the voters who gave Obama his victory won’t stand for this kind of betrayal. We don’t want another war – and that means we have to stop Hillary, the War Party’s chief Democratic asset, before she’s officially designated the new Secretary of State. If thousands (upon thousands!) of Americans protest, who knows but maybe we can stop it.

Yes we can!

So call the transition office, if you haven’t already, and say: No Hillary, no way, no how!

Call: 202-540-3000


NOTES IN THE MARGIN

I’m watching Chris Matthews wonder why all this drama over Hillary’s appointment, and her husband’s extended negotiations with the Obama transition team, is taking place in full public view, on the front page of the New York Times. And why, he wonders, is it taking so long, given that the offer is real and Hillary wants it? Are they just working out the details of her husband’s Byzantine finances, or can it be that our Stop Hillary campaign – started at the beginning of this week – is having some effect, and they’ve been getting a lot of protest calls at the transition office?

C’mon, you people: call! Tell them it’s a little too early for Obama to start reneging on his campaign promises. The guy hasn’t even taken office yet, and already we’re talking about a revolution betrayed. There’s just one way to stop the War Party from taking over this administration, just like they did the last one.

Call: 202-540-3000.

Stop Hillary!

~ Justin Raimondo

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13796

sorry,I think she'll make a fine Secretary of State and I'm sick of all the haters on both sides of the spectrum.

If you like war, she'll do just fine.

Personally I am sick of the ranting and raving from these columnists who have unnamed sources as their "facts" and the named ones are usually enemies of the attacked.People can be removed from a cabinet position as easy as they are put there.

I'm not a Democrat, and I'm all about peace, and I don't appreciate any name calling because someone disagrees with someone's perspective, blah blah blah. But, Hillary Clinton is not the problem here. And, frankly, even though I'm NOT a Democrat, I would have voted for her as she has such vast experience in and out of the White House and has proven her capabilities as a fit government official many times over. I think this type of conjecture that you chose to post is packaged hype and I agree with DevilsMom; it's just more of the same old hate garbage.

That's funny, sounded different when this was all against Bush.

I think without taking anything completely to heart, we should all pay close attention. According to the trustworthy people in congress Hilary is as much of a warmonger as Bush and Clinton. According to these people Obama has been bought and paid for and offers no change.

These are the people that warned us of this economic crisis years ago. These are the people that predicted a bad outcome when the U.S. started the Taliban, or giving money to Saddam for his military to fight the Iranians. They have been warning us of every unconstitutional legislation that has passed without "public" knowledge.

Maybe we should start listening to these people. Maybe? Seems only wise to listen to those that genuinely want to help...

This kind of stuff right here is why it sucks to know both sides of the right/left play for the same team. I'm a fascist when I criticize the left and a liberal loon when I Criticize the right.

Since when is Reuters, the Jerusalem post and Drudge "unnamed" sources?

The point is, Obama campaigned on bringing change to washington, however, he's hired just about every clinton throwback he could dig up and is putting Hillary in the White house.

Lets see: 8 years of VP Bush under Reagan, followed by 4 more years of a President H.W. then we got 8 years of a Clinton admin, we got behind that 8 years of a Dubyah group and now, with Hillary taking this job, we could have at least 4 more Clinton years. How is it that the White house has become a party joint for the Bush/Clintons to always be in the puff and pass circle for?

If what Mr.Raimondo is writing is packaged hype, then how come he was treated like such a visonary when what he was writing was about the warmongering of the Bush co. faction?

Well, I like and admire Hillary, I think she's a tough, strong, capable woman. However, had she actually been on the ticket, I'm not entirely sure I would have voted for her. I think she's earned a place on the cabinet, but I really don't think that foreign policy is her forte. I really believe that she would do much better in a more domestic capacity, such as Health and Human Services.

I freely admit I would be massively entertained to see what she would come up with if she were put in charge of health care.

I think the general idea of affordable healthcare for all is a good one, in a theoretical kind of way. If everyone had health insurance, I think we'd actually see a drop in healthcare costs, because the health system wouldn't have to increase costs for everyone in order to cover those who don't have it. More people would be able to take advantage of preventative medical care, which would in all probability nip problems in the bud before they become major issues, etc. What would be interesting would be to see if she or anyone can actually come up with something that's workable. I, for one, am tired to death of paying $600/month for my son's health insurance. And it only gets worse every year.

Health care is a rocket going out of control and will eventually explode. My co-premiums for mine are already getting unaffordable. Until we realize we are a great nation that wont deny care for the sick or dying and see what we are already paying for threw higher cost and premiums, it will continue to explode. If we don't get costs under control we will be bailing it out also. We have became a high price cure for a low cost disease. Look at the ERs..

Health care is a rocket going out of control and will eventually explode. My co-premiums for mine are already getting unaffordable. Until we realize we are a great nation that wont deny care for the sick or dying and see what we are already paying for threw higher cost and premiums, it will continue to explode. If we don't get costs under control we will be bailing it out also. We have became a high price cure for a low cost disease. Look at the ERs..


I agree, I just don't know what the solution is. The insurance companies (and their highly paid attorneys) certainly do not want universal healthcare, there go their enormous profits. The people, understandably, don't trust the government to effectively implement and run it. I think the best thing is some sort of combination of government and privately run insurance. But, who pays for it and how? Raise taxes? Everyone pays a premium through their job? What about those who don't work? I don't know, it's just gotten so big and out of control, it will be hard to come up with a workable solution.

Part of the problem has been government intervention in the market, whenever our "loving" government touches a market, they destabilize it and make costs skyrocket.
In every market, where technology gets better, prices go down, but not health care, why is that, do you think?

To many uninsured and not paying. Using the Ers as doctors visits. See to me we are already paying for the uninsured only at a much more expensive cost..JMO

I think you are so right. When doctors won't accept anything but cash up front, many people simply cannot afford to see the doctor, not at $100 or $150 per office visit. So, they wait and hope it gets better on its own, then when it doesn't, have to make an ER visit. I can't blame them, what are they supposed to do? I don't know about anywhere else, but around here, there is no such thing as free or sliding scale clinics or anything.

So we pay $1200 for an ER visit for them. We do pay!! There are a few here with a wait of up to a couple months to get in.

I've been very fortunate not to have an extreme amount of issues, but I do have nerve damage in my neck, so I could use the Socialized system, right away. However, I just don't trust the Government to run around in circles let alone control the Medical industry.

You know what was odd? During the Primaries one of the debate questions to the GOP was about health care. They asked McCain, Romney and Thompson about it, guess who they didn't ask?

The only Medical Dr. on the stage, Ron Paul.

Seems kinda stupid to not ask the Dr. about healthcare, but then again, it's our MSM, they haven't had much to say that didn't come from politicized editors or the pentagon in years.

Use the private sector to curb "our" costs and let it set its market that it can afford..If it dosnt we are all in deep poo!!! Ask Joe six pack if he would pay more taxes for it, I will bet the majority says yes!!!

I agree. There also needs to be a system in place to control medication costs. Not some government cap, but say you wanted a cure for Herpes. Okay, you put up a financial reward, one time only, with the understanding that taking that reward means there are not going to be upteen dozen patents placed on it, so that it can be placed in the generics programs right away.

Those who would refuse the rewards system, would show themselves to only be interested in their own profits and not actually interested in helping people. They might benefit financially in the short term, but they would be slitting their own throats longterm, because Americans would just not buy their products, if they could help it.
I'm sure there are some flaws in that system, but I've not put more than passing thought into that.

Sorry war kinda change topic on you..