Going for the hat trick!

[-mmm-]

Because obviously screwing up 2 wars isnt just enough for this administration.

Link

To make a poker analogy, this would be going all in when you are dealt a 7-2 offsuit.

[spoc22]

Let's not forget this one too:

I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.[emphasis added]

Who said this?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/state...fm?id=250529&&

She could always have Bill teach her how to bomb and aspirin factory. I'm sure that will drive Iran to it's knees.

[hork]

oopps so much for that iran - iraqi arms connection.....

so when do we invade rome?

[-mmm-]

Yep. Her diplomatic non-answer answers irritate me in ways I cant really explain. I really do hope one of my buddies is right in saying that the netroots is a better indicator for what the Dem primary will be like as opposed to the national polls, since she has almost no support there (her best mark on the Daily Kos's straw poll is like 9%). Hmm who knew the far left and far right had so much in common?

Anyways, to abruptly change the topic, I came across this and since it sort of somehwat fits in with this thread here's what Dick Cheney had to say in an interview with the AEI (American Enterprise Institute, very neo-con think tank) back in 1994:

“Because if we’d gone to Baghdad, we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us — it would have been a US occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world.

And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it…uh…the Syrians would like to have in the West. Part of the eastern part of Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north, you’ve got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a…it’s a quagmire, if you go that far in trying to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Uh…everyone was impressed with that fact that…uh…we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the President in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got that right.”