Couple thoughts about Hillary’s interview with O’Reilly. Yeah, he’s an asshole, God knows, but I’ll say this for him: he didn’t fart around with meaningless incidentals about whose flag pin is shinier, he actually grilled her about, so help me, issues a President might be expected to deal with when in office. Yikes!

That said, Hillary gave him measure for measure, and to my eyes at least, kicked his ass up one side of the street and down the other, despite his constant interruption of her responses. Damn, she’s good.

And so are you. Thanks again.

So, that’s where I start, it’s the cancer undermining every single political system out there, trying to be a “player.”

It’s like dealing with the boys who surround women like Britney Spears, or Lindsay Lohan.

You know, Kevin Federline, or Rick Solomon.

But dumber.

No.

At least most whores are smart, not that crew, though.

And given how an enemy can “pick pick pick” at a set objective, ie the American standing army, wouldn’t we just see a continuance of what we now have, for instance, a psy ops of a central command not fully prepared to fight a guerilla war, for instance, (it is possible, it is a part of defense…)

Would a solution involve a political, military and economic tact, and would it have to take into account factors not usually considered, ie, Russia, the mafia, China, say, the greater asymmetric war, corruption, all factors in our current Iraq and Afghanistan losses?

Just food for thought, nice to see the discussion…

“in Iraq we are still viewed as occupiers” Gee, do ya think maybe that is because you ARE occupiers?! (And by the way, as long as Hillary and Obama plan to keep troops in Iraq, and maintain that collosus they risibly call an “embassy” (aka regional imperial command and control center) in Baghdad you will continue to be occupiers.

“A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.”

Right on!

“there are some red lines that should [I would say MUST - Shirin] never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ that, if she were president, she would ‘totally obliterate’ Iran if Iran attacked Israel.

“…the foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, said of Clinton’s implication of a mushroom cloud over Iran: ‘While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons [excuse me, Lord Mallock-Brown, sir, but there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is or ever has been developing nuclear weapons!] and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably not prudent in today’s world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country.” [pardon me, Lord Malloch-Brown, sir, but how do you obliterate a country without obliterating the civilians resident in that country?!!!!!]

“The Saudi paper called Clinton’s nuclear threat ‘the foreign politics of the madhouse,’ saying, “it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations.‘

I have to agree. Not that Obama is better overall than Hillary, but at least he has not - so far - threatened to obliterate anyone.

And by the way people should look more closely at Hillary’s AND Obama’s non-withdrawal “withdrawal” plans. They no doubt intend have the U.S. military and its empire in Iraq as long as McCain does, but are just hoping to reduce the presence to a level that will be less noticeable, and therefore more tolerable to the American people (but probably NOT to the Iraqis, who have a low tolerance for foreign domination, in case no one has noticed).

Obama is all idealism and no wisdom. He never considers the consequences of his actions,instead he consults his political agenda.