The country, or some of it, therefore wants Hillary to be seen: as a sitting President, known to be asking her husband Bill for help with the Presidency at difficult moments, or at least for his visible support of her presidency. He himself has recently said he would be a roving ambassador for her.

This is the fantasy need. They need to see the First Family healed. It is a drama people crave, because of their own personal dramas.

If Bill were not around – either deceased, or sick enough to not be mentally aware, Hillary’s candidacy would lose its usefulness to this unconscious psychological symbolism. It would vanish in a moment. Indeed, she would be expected to retire to take care of him, to fulfill the same fantasy.

(She would retain some supporters who want a woman president, or just like her, but the real point is the child-of-divorce fantasy.)

IMHO

I don’t think Sen. Hagel has actually said he believes resolving the I/P conflict will cause a Utopian wet dream in the middle east, I think he was characterized as believing that resolving the conflict was CENTRAL to bringing about peace in the region. That is to say, you won’t have peace WITHOUT the conflict being resolved.

The Sunni/Shia divide is manifesting itself VERY strongly in Iraq, but it is doing so in a radically political way. There is not another example of this happening anywhere else in the world; Iraq is a special case for a number of reasons. It should be noted that despite how they use their money to attack each others interests, the Saudis and the Iranians have normalized relations. The religious foundations of the conflict between the two is minimal, the political exacerbation of that conflict is obviously much more concerning. These two epicenters of power, one Shi’i, one Sunni are trying to position themselves as centers of the Muslim world, not because they hate the other’s theology, but because they want that POWER.

I would say that outside of Israel (which is all that Rosner was talking about), obviously resolving the DISASTROUS Iraq situation is also CENTRAL to Middle East Peace. Unfortunately, I/P seems to be the EASIER of the two to actually resolve. This is saying a lot.

because anyone who believes such nonsense is too naive to run our country. Does he actually believe resolving the I/P conflict will reunite the Sunnis and Shias in a warm embrace? This sounds too much like the garbage coming out of Bush’s or Blair’s mouths…

Of course!! See, while Clinton was president, all it took to take out bin Laden was simply paying attention and wanting it to happen, so the reason bin Laden wasn’t captured then is that Clinton just didn’t do enough. But since Bush has taken office, the entire United States military has been mobilized in an actual war for a longer period of time than it took to defeat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and still the imbecile still can’t do a goddamn thing about bin Laden. The 9/11/ attacks not only took place nearly a year after the Republicans had stolen the election, but Bush received a specific and explicit warning about their intended plans and still did nothing. Every American murdered on 9/11 is the direct responsibility of Republican fanaticism, incompetence and corruption, and the only challenge in determining responsibility for the event is to assess whether Republicans are most allergic to honesty or personal accountability.

Elon is precisely correct, this and similar recent legislative efforts are nothing more than the noise of the neocon propaganda machine and the endless campaign for war in Iran. The Democratic Party is, indeed, a aggregation of gutless collaborators whose central purpose is to co-opt and diffuse widespread public disgust with Republican warmongering. Fortunately, that purpose ultimately will be at least somewhat frustrated, given the fact that – as ck rightly notes – there is simply no chance whatever that a Republican has even the remotest possibility of being elected president next year. Everyone with a brain knows it, and yet every member of the media and both political parties has an obvious vested interest in pretending that isn’t the case, the media to maintain the illusion of objectivity, the Democrats to keep the contributions coming in, and the Republicans to prevent the complete dissolution of the party on a national level.

The only point with which I’d quibble is the assertion that the neocon priorities regarding Israel are “silly.” Yes, the designation of Hagel as “anti-Israel” because he believes in the importance of achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians is incredible and obscene, but it isn’t in any way “silly.” What it is, instead, is the perfect manifestation of neocon ideology. The egregious mistake is imagining that the neocons have any interest in peace whatever. Accordingly, the answer to Elon’s question, “can someone PLEASE tell me how bombing Iran makes Israel more secure?,” is that of course it doesn’t, a fact of which the neocons are completely aware. The most obvious reasons are twofold. First, just as is the case in America, the real objective of the Israeli right is to keep control of the government out of the hands of their domestic enemies, a goal accomplished by maintaining a constant state of war and national emergency. Moreover, disrupting even the possibility of peace allows the Israeli right to avoid its most terrible nightmare, i.e., the day of reckoning when they may be required to relinquish their repellent kosher empire in the West Bank. Politically, that eventuality can be put off indefinitely so long as the right can sustain the fiction that the Palestinians and Muslim world as a whole are Nazi’s whose only goal in life is the extermination of the Jewish People.

Finally, like so many deformed political movements before them – fascism, bolshevism, syndicalism – the neocons love war. But while the followers of those earlier ideologies at least had the basic human decency to participate in their own wars, what distinguishes the neocons is their appalling chickenhawkery.

Thus, we have the question, ”So is Hilary a hawk or a dove? She wants to use violent means to stop evil, but is she willing to put soldiers in harms way? Or is she the kind of hawk that her hubby was – send in the cruise missiles and see what is left afterwards to mop up?”

Ahh, yes, that Bill Clinton, what a pussy! I’m not sure what kind of hawk Hillary Clinton is, but I can sure as hell tell you what kind the neocons are. They are bloated, pig-faced sacks of shit like John Podhoretz or bloodsucking vampires like Rudolph Giuliani, whose personal cowardice and consuming ambition always made them just a hair too busy to do any fighting themselves, but who never let that circumstance interfere with the intensity of their empty macho posturing. And they are like the billionaire founders of the new war cheerleading oiutfit Freedom Watch, who – like Mitt Romney – have a real taste for sending the children of ordinary Americans to die in their crusades, while their own children stay home and count their goddamn money.

It’s the war drums beating, isn’t this fun! Afghanistan and Iraq have been so successful, our glorious leader and his friends have decided to attack Iran.

Hillary essentially guaranteed that she will not be receiving my vote. Barack either. Any candidate that can’t show up to vote on a de-facto declaration of war against Iran is not going to receive my vote. This is too important. Once again my former party has screwed the pooch and let this criminal Administration move a step closer to starting war with a sovereign nation.

And can someone PLEASE tell me how bombing Iran makes Israel more secure?

Funny story, the Iranian majlis just announced their decision to name the CIA and the US Army terrorist organizations. Boy, Premier Bush sure knows his diplomacy!

As for the “Israel Factor”, I can only say that ranking Chuck Hagel as the worst for Israel because he:
“Believes that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to bringing about Middle East peace.”
Should probably give folks an idea of how silly Rosner is. …unless you are under the impression that resolving the conflict is bad for Israel, or that Middle East Peace is bad for Israel.

Great link. I think I’m especially impressed because it’s from al-Ard. Looks like Rudy may be my man after all. Or maybe Mitt.

Black Panthers could be kinda sexy. I’m in.

Me neither, and I’m American (amongst other things).

ck, if you are voting Democrat and discussing the candidates, fine. Beyond that any political discussion should include the other party, regardless of who you think is going to win the presidency. You don’t really want a one-party system, do you?

They restrict the politicians to democrats only, because otherwise every other republican (except Ron Paul and John McCain) would be more pro-Israel than them.

hahaha, I love it!!!!!!!!!!

Go Carter Go!!!