It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


[UNBELIEVABLE] Hillary Clinton Laughs Hysterically About Possible War Against Iran

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by elrem48

Well, my Grandpa said his father used to rant angrily over the voting system and that was back in the 1800's. With everything we have seen of voting frauds and lack of any real candidates, we cannot be held accountable, just look at what they did to Dr.Ron Paul!

When I watched the democratizing of the middle east and saw them cast their votes for the first time, I felt a horrible sinking feeling because I knew that even though they were literally forced to vote, the winners were already in the bag. There is a huge difference between democracy and a republic. I feel like I am watching the democratizing of a republic when I see the US voting system and that is so scary for the future.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by sonnny1

You are dead on there. I mean, Hillary is a snake. I never would have expected, but she is straight up killin'em. Like.. seriously.. killin'em.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

But unless you buy into the whole all the partys are a illusion that does the bidding of the same puppetmasters, then the idea of them (Hillary and Romney) in the same fold is a bit nuts.
Hillary isn't going to be in Obama's second administration anyhow from what I understand...she is quitting last I heard after the first, going fishing or something.


posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:30 AM
Spin this any way you want but then Google Hillary Clinton laughing at Gaddafi's murder. Here are her words -Quote "We came, we saw, he died" Unquote --and then a great big gleeful laugh. -- Can't spin that one cause it is still on internet. Even my worst enemy deserves a fair trial and fair sentence. Not murder. And this empty skirt is your leader? She may be your pick of brilliance but she sure isn't mine.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:13 AM
Comments like "this administration", "that administration" are stupid, they are all the same or you already forgot Iraq? This lady is evil as every corporate politician out there, they all need to go.

Also, I first listened this clip on Pete Santilli show here, jump to 1:05:00 (very strong language be aware):

I like the guy! Listen to the other podcasts, I think you will like him too.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:39 AM
Hillary Clinton once said that she would 'obliterate' Iran. I wish she would stop being so 'vague'...
edit on 10-10-2012 by sweetooth because: i am dyselxic

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by Wonderer2012

almost 100% positive i've seen a thread or two on this already

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by gladtobehere
Believe you me I've never like her and don't know why(well I do now)most times I don't give them a second thought normally I just see them as politicians(or a herd of cattle?lol),not her.
I swear I knew her in another life or something and didn't like her then.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by Wonderer2012

Wow, this video just blows me away. She wants to provoke an attack so they can unify the country and legitimize an attack so that we can stay in power there for an indeterminable amount of's like saying "I hope the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor so we can drop nukes on them."....that's pretty much what happened with 9/11 too, and while I don't think Pearl Harbor was a false flag event, I do think that 9/11 was and she's pretty much suggesting that she believes an attack on the U.S. like 9/11 would be ideal so we could attack and control this country. She couldn't be flaunting our countries political goals any more if she tried. Have we become so corrupt that such an evil blanket statement can be made about war with Iran and no one is making this more of an issue in the MSM. No one is chastising her publicly in a place other then a forum? Really? Are people so blind?

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Listen again! When she says the bit about unifying us and legitimizing our regime...she is talking from the Iranian side! That is what THEY say but she's saying it as if they are saying it...she says there are those that say...

And we KNOW it isn't us because we are not a least not that I've heard.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:15 PM

The youtube clip is selectively edited.

The transcript of the whole interview/debate is available here.

Here is the part which the youtube video creator has used to patch together the clip posted in the OP:

SECRETARY BAKER: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said if Israel hits the Iranian nuclear facilities, we’re going to lose a lot of American lives in the region. Many people in the Israeli national security establishment have come out publicly now and questioned their leadership’s view that maybe Israel ought to do it. And they say no, Israel shouldn’t do it. There are a lot of unanticipated consequences that could follow from that, not least of which is strengthening the hand of the hardliners in Iran. I mean, you don’t want to do that. They’re having troubles now. The sanctions are not complete yet. We want to squeeze them down more. But they’re having an effect. And the government is having some problems, and you don’t want to lose all that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: In fact, I mean, what Jim is saying is a really important point, because we know that there is a vigorous debate going on within the leadership decision-making group in Iran. There are those who say look, these sanctions are really biting, we’re not making the kind of economic progress we should be making, we don’t give up that much by saying we’re not going to do a nuclear weapon and having a verifiable regime to demonstrate that.

And then frankly, there are those who are saying the best thing that could happen to us is be attacked by somebody, just bring it on, because that would unify us, it would legitimize the regime. You feel sometimes when you hear analysts and knowledgeable people talking about Iran that they fear so much about the survival of the regime, because deep down it’s not a legitimate regime, it doesn’t represent the will of the people, it’s kind of morphed into kind of a military theocracy. And therefore an argument is made constantly on the hardline side of the Iranian Government that we’re not going to give anything up, and in fact we’re going to provoke an attack because then we will be in power for as long as anyone can imagine.

SECRETARY BAKER: And Charlie, let me just explain why I said I don’t think the Israelis can do it but we can. The reason I say that is the Israeli Government came to the prior administration, the Bush 43 Administration, and then they asked for overflight rights, they asked for bunker-busting bombs, they asked for in-flight refueling capabilities. And the administration said no, that’s not in the national interest of the United States today for you to strike Iran’s nuclear facility. My understanding is they made the same request of this Administration. I don’t know the answer to that for sure. The Secretary would. But whether they did or not, that’s the reason I say if anybody’s going to do it, we ought to do it because we have the capability of doing it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And hopefully we won’t get to that. (Laughter.) I mean, that would be, I think --

Now, compare that to what you hear in the video clip...lots left out and a few bits out of order, it seems.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:16 PM
I think Hillary was laughing because the ball was in her court… I’m certain she takes the whole thing extremely serious, she isn’t a stupid woman. As far as the governmental officials being lunatics, you’d have to be to take on the job… And to subject yourself to scrutiny online and be able to take it when every word, comment, laugh is so easily taken out of context. Too bad~ she isn’t our president, perhaps we’d be better off right now. No offense meant towards the poster I can see how it could be misconstrued I really feel this isn’t a laughing matter but some people laugh under pressure.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:17 PM
Forgive me guys.

I have a question. Is this the same website that claimed some time ago that China and Russia were going to defend Iran in case of an American or an Israeli invasion?

In that case I see her point exactly. She's obviously not eager to go to war with Iran. That being said, she may still be *interested* in trying to get sanctions to work on Iran to back down from a possible nuclear program.

While China and Russia may have voiced their support for Iran, it is also highly likely that they won't let Iran provoke a war and drag them in. If China/Russia wanted to go to war with Israel or the US, they can start one themselves.

Which makes it reasonable for the US or Israel to defend themselves if they are provoked by an Iranian attack.

In this video, I am taking a wild guess that when Baker suggests taking them out, she is put in an awkward position, in that she may not mind taking Iran out... except that there are extenuating circumstances... which is why she immediately comments - we're working hard on it (ie a peaceful means to get Iran to comply), but if Iran throws the first punch, it would make our lives much easier.

Just IMHO, of course.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:00 PM
She is creepy as hell no matter how you interpret this video. And for some reason I have this notion when I see her that she gets together with Dick Cheney and drinks fetus smoothies trying to delay the aging process.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:09 PM
[UNBELIEVABLE] The OP here has no comprehension of what Hillary is saying and has taken the OPPOSITE assumption from what policy she is pushing.

The LAUGH was with the look and the way Charlie Rose addressed her -- it had nothing to do with Iran. She mentions; "[Iran] would like nothing better than to be attacked, that way the could stay in power forever." She mentions "all options on the table" -- nodding to the war dogs like James Baker, but also pushing for a long term economic sanction.

The Iranian economy is on the ropes right now (by the way). Though I'm not sure that them being defeated would be a good thing, if it only meant more consolidation of power for the Oil Barons and World Bank (who don't give a dang about "security").

>> The REALITY of America today, is that they can't openly oppose anything that the Likud party in Israel wants. I don't know if that's because of banker strings, or years of extortion -- it's just the way it is. Our politicians all tread on egg shells when it comes to doing anything to support war for Israel. It makes me sick, but Clinton and Obama are outside that tent pretending to be fans -- not inside the tent and in bed like Romney and their opposition.

>> If you want chills -- you would research what a turd that war vulture James Baker is. THAT is the kind of person who steps into power if you get rid of Hillary.

We have a corrupt system, and we've got to chose between the weak, compromised and humble versus the crazy mad crooks.

AND ONCE AGAIN, the OP is kind of clueless about what is being discussed on this video. Sheesh!

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by sensibleSenseless

Sensible; you comprehended what Hillary was talking about -- unlike those who rabidly hate Hillary and think this was a maniacal laugh. It wasn't. It was a tension relieving laugh because she is diametrically opposed to Baker. Who is a snake BTW.

I would further add, that Hillary and the Obama administration are in a difficult position. They have to PRETEND to want to go to war with Iran to push the disarmament issue. The probably are NOT that concerned with Iran getting the bomb -- but Israel is. If they don't look like they are making headway, there are too many war hawks who will find a way to MAKE a war happen.

I still suspect it's likely that the attack on the US embassy in Libya, and some other events, were a warning call (shot across the bridge) of the Obama administration after Netanyahu's visit.

So they keep playing War Hawks while doing everything they can NOT to go to war. That should help make sense of how she dances around the issue in this conversation. And James Baker is an operative for the Bush administration -- so whenever he promotes an idea, he's got a paid agenda behind it. He doesn't add advice to make the world a better place.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by sonnny1

She would have made Bush, look like Peace activist, if she became President..........

That may be revealing there Oddball. She couldn't get the reins of power through the front door, so she shoed her way into the State Department. It seems that is where foreign policy of war making is implemented. She got control anyway.

Woof woof...

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:22 PM
it amazes me how flags work, it seems like a LOT of threads receive a ton of flags because they go against what the title states in the thread.

Amazing ! But after being on ATS for awhile, a lot of that happens.

In many cases, I guess it is a good thing. The importance of a radical unrealistic statement offending what ever party that individual dislikes. Especially if it is an obvious error in judgment of what the person speculates on.
Like people saying we never landed on the moon or that the earth is actually flat or that the 1% are paying too much tax

edit on 10-10-2012 by thetiler because: spelling and additional thought

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
I was left speechless for quite some time after seeing this video.

Watch it for yourself, to say the lunatics are 'running the asylum' is an understatement-

'We should take them [Iran] out...'

Clinton, on hearing this bursts into hysterical laughter almost as though she gets enjoyment from the idea, is this person reliable to be in such a position of power?

She doesn't even fear the consequences, she openly finds the idea of war with Iran as amusing, something she probably gets great enjoyment from- megalomaniac anyone? She openly discusses how she hopes Iran attacked us to justify a response ("bring it on"), and she finds it funny that people are going to die. Am I missing something here?

edit on 9-10-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)
They just don't understand how they look to the public and it makes them look arrogant.I think they have been in politics way to long in their life and lose their sense of good moral conduct and understanding how bad they look.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:43 PM
the laughter is an old political ploy, especially among Saul Aulinsky acolytes. when someone says something you don't like you laugh at them, as if their position is absurd, instead of being respectful, which would imply the other position is legitimate. Bill does it all the time, as do most democrats.

any worries we might strike Iran in time to save Obama's re-election?

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in