Apparently, during the most recent Democrat debate, the Hillary cackle made its appearance during this exchange:
I'm sure that Hillary is as giddy as a schoolgirl at the prospect for yet more war in the Middle East. Justin Raimondo hits it about right when he states the following:
Mike Gravel: "There was a vote in the Senate today – Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has offered another resolution, and it's essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened if this war ensues – we invade and they're looking for an excuse to do it.
"And Obama was not even there to vote."
Hillary Clinton (immediately after creepy laughter): "My understanding of the revolutionary guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism. It is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. It is certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others, and in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran."
That Senator Gravel, alone, had the courage to raise the alarm, and confront Hillary on this issue, speaks volumes about the state of the Democratic party – and the political impotence of the antiwar majority in this country. Those who want us out of Iraq, and, furthermore, are bitterly opposed to the prospect of yet another war in that neck of the woods, are the new silent majority. Silent because we don't hear this view reflected in the media – where pro-war commentary and "centrist" of-course-we-can't-withdraw-until-2012 punditry prevails – and also politically impotent: with the Democratic frontrunners basically taking a Bush-lite approach."The new silent majority." That has quite a ring to it. Let's face it: the antiwar voices are marginalized. If you want to find us, look in the various anarchist, socialist, libertarian, and paleoconservative media outlets (blogs, alternative newsletters, etc.). I don't doubt that there are a few who would identify themselves as liberals and centrists who too didn't really wish to sign on to a state of perpetual war abroad and police state at home. We may not share a lot in common, but on one issue we do converge - imperial aspirations are toxic.