Clinton On Iran Attack: "Totally Obliterate Them"

ABC :

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on Good Morning America Tuesday, ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Read the whole story: ABC

Comments

[flacon]

Barely concealed anti-semitism on display here. You should all be ashamed.

[bluescat47]

For HRC to speculate about hypothetical conflict scenarios in the future, from threats that currently do not exist from Iran, is ridiculous. All it has accomplished is to further alienate average Iranians from the United States, many of whom are hoping for a better relationship with the U.S.
And someone should inform HRC that the “massive retaliation” doctrine (directed towards the USSR), famously promoted during the Eisenhower years, proved to be hollow and non-credible. It was replaced by the “flexible response” doctrine when MacNamara was DOD chief, and said basically that the U.S. would respond in an appropriate manner to threats to its friends and allies. In other words, the punishment would fit the crime.
Moreover, with 200 plus nuclear weapons, Israel has its own deterrent force against future Iranian aggression. By attacking Israel, Iran could conceivably bring about the end of both their state and society – and the Iranians know this.
This is loose, irresponsible talk from HRC and her camp. For her to so casually talk about breaching the firebreak between conventional and nuclear weapons is disturbing in the extreme, especially as the number of nuclear states is expanding. Imagine this kind of talk coming from the Chinese or Russians – we would be disturbed, to put it mildly.

[Whinger]

Were China to attack Israel would she totally obliterte them?

Big talking woman just like her big talking man!

[VicPerry]

Well, I see Hillary's all set to win the 2002 election..­..

[Durango]

Ask yourself where we would be had John F. Kennedy had made the statement during a debate in 1960 that if Cuba acquired nuclear weapons we would obliterate them.

And the Cuban Missile Crisis comes long AND . . .

What? Nuclear holocaust? By answering that question Clinton showed she doesn't understand the consequences of off the cuff pronouncements.

[Hedonist]

Terrible analogy. Clearly you failed to understand Clinton's comment. However, it would have been totally justifiable if JFK had made a statement that if Cuba or the Soviets nuked the U.S. or it's allies they would be obliterated in response.

[Durango]

You don't understand.

If you are president of the USA or want to become President YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

Everyone knows that if you are attacked you will retaliate. The point is she committed the USA to a policy that is 1. imaginary and 2. stupid.

Or do you not know that even off the cuff remarks of Presidents are policy.

[TruthNow101]

This is exactly why Iran is striving to seek a nuclear weapon (if they are). We invaded both their neighbors and threatened to attack them with a nuclear weapon. the better question is, WHY WOULDN'T THEY SEEK A NUCLEAR WEAPON...i­ts only logical!

Bush policies have made the mid-east a much more dangerous place by serving the interests of zionists ahead of ours.

Hillary is getting what's coming to her

[BumbleBee]

Exactly, TruthNow. It's absolutely insane to even talk about such a hypothetical in such a threatening way. ISRAEL has nuclear weapons -- Iran, thus far, does not. Who's threatening who? How can she BLITHELY talk about obliterating millions of innocent people in Iran. Crazy!

[CelticDragon]

"... Israel has nuclear weapons and so it would be more than foolish for Iran to strike Israel with a nuclear arsenal. It simply won't happen. If it did happen, Israel would counterstr­ike."

I agree to some extent with jerseywolf. Israel has a formidable retaliatory capability. Israel has relied on a variety of nuclear capable platforms. These include fighter-bombers such as the F-16, the F-15 Eagle and A-4 Skyhawk. The IRBM force is some 50 Jericho I missiles, and about 50 Jericho II missiles, similar in many respects to the Pershing missile with ranges of about 500 and 1,500 km respectively.
Israel has also taken delivery of three new "Dolphin" class fast-attack submarines based on the popular Type 212 class, with two more under construction. The Dolphin, and her sister ships Leviathan and Truncheon all have ten bow tubes for launching torpedoes and surface to surface missiles, and appear to be configured for a possible Submarine Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM) that has been developed by Israel and tested in the Indian Ocean in 2002. Unnamed U.S. and Israeli military sources say that targets as far as 1,500 km distant were successfully engaged. It is widely believed that the missile is derived from the AGM-142 HAVE NAP "POPEYE" missile and has potentially been armed with a 200 kg nuclear warhead built around a 7 kg plutonium core.

We wouldn't need to interfere. Iran would be a self-lit glass parking lot.

[guntotinganglion]

Charming sentiment. How funny referring to a post-nuclear attack Iran as a self-lit glass parking lot. I'd refer to it more as a massive graveyard littered with what little remains of millions of innocent men, women, children and babies of Iran.

The problem with what Bush refers to as weapons of mass murder is, by definition, users are mass murderers. They are indiscriminate weapons of butchery. Be it a 100 kiloton device, or a ten megaton device, they're all mass murder weapons.

If Iran is turned into a wasteland, Israel will be a mass murder state. The same is true of Iran, if they attack Israel. However, Iran has no capability in this regard. If we fail to engage them in discussions in this regard, and they gain this capability, and use it out of fear of Israel's nuclear capabilities, we will have been a party to mass murder, regardless of who started it.

It's like the line in the movie Dr. Strangelove, about the doomsday weapon only being effective if it is known by both sides. Israel's continuing denial of it's nuclear arsenal begs the question, why? Wouldn't it be a more effective deterrent if revealed? What is Israel's true motivation for keeping their nukes secret? Protecting the complicity of the US perhaps, in the arming of Israel with nuclear weapons, while showing intransigence toward ANY nuclear activity by Israel's neighbors? If this were revealed, there would be hell to pay. And Israel continues it's denials.

[MNCurler]

So, what would Barack do if this happened? Try and talk nice to Iran? That will work pretty good don't you think? And Iran would be laughing the whole time because they know they could do anything they want with no consequences.

[Durango]

Barak kept his mouth shut about hypothethical questions about nuclear warfare.

Do you think this is a joke? Nuclear holocaust?

YOU KEEP YOUR OPTIONS OPEN by not answering Stupid questions.

[muffler]

The point of a smart strategy is to allow for both diplomatic and military approaches. To outright just say you would engage and nuke is immature and irresponsible. The true scenario will be far more complicated and could escalate beyond anyones capabilities to surpress.

Now that Hillary has proclaimed nuclear retaliation, China can step approach Iran and promise military cover for oil. The entire pronouncement was dramatic and counter productive. This kind of stupid saber rattling is what brings about world wars. Smart politicians and strategists don't make these kinds of remarks. They keep cards to the chest and play the game. I can't stress how ridiculous Hillary looks. She just emulates the G.W. Bush. "bring it on!" stupidity.

[Hedonist]

Throughout the Cold War it was explicit U.S. policy that any nuclear attack by the Soviets against the U.S. or its allies would be met by massive nuclear retaliation. How is what Clinton stated any different?

[cct1984]

What would Barack do? Nothing of substance, he'll spend lots of time "jaw-boning" in order to give the appearance of progress, but nothing of consequence will result. They reason why: because he has no carrot to offer nor is he willing to use the stick. He's already shown his desire to cut-and-run from Iraq, he voted against declaring Iranian Quds force a terrorist organization, and he's prematurely taken the nuclear option off the table. In short, his actions have already indicated to Ahmadinejad and all the other despots that he's not willing to take the gloves off...he's a pushover. Iran will make a fool of him just like they did with Jimmy Carter and the US hostage crisis.

[meltingpot101]

Isn't it remarkable and very telling that Hillary shared her foreign policy "umbrella of deterants" in the debate hosted by ABC, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopulous and there was NO FOLLOW UP QUESTION..­..they have all lost significant credibility.

[Rog49Thomas]

Logically, it's impossible to lose what you never had.

[MikeDu]

Does this mean that if Israel nuked Iran (a much more likely scenario considering that they're the only ones with nukes) that 'we' would then obliterate Israel in retaliation? Only seems fair, after all.

[souris]

..........­...more and more each and every day Hillary is sounding like a lunatic Republican! Why the heck doesn't she team up with "Bomb Bomb Iran" John McCrazy? Will somebody please whip out a map of the Middle East and show this lying, shrill shrew that Israel is the size of a postage stamp, and "taking-it-out" by Iran [which has NO nukes!] would damage other Arab countries [bet Jordan would be pissed] surrounding it........­..........­.......ple­ase, Pennsylvania, totally obliterate her today!!!! I'm beggin' 'ya!!!!

[mrBlue1]

"Why doesn't she team up with 'Bomb Bomb Iran john McCrazy?'" Why not, indeed?

[Rog49Thomas]

In fairness I have a question for Sister Hillary

If Israel nukes Iran, do we have to obliterate Israel?

[likeicare]

Remind me, again, somebody . . . which party's nomination are the Clintons trying to get?

[Rog49Thomas]

Likud I think.

Or maybe Yisrael Beitenu.

[Rog49Thomas]

Sorry, I was wrong.

McCrazy's got the Yisrael Beitenu nomination sowed up.

Should have know when I saw him with Smokin' Joe.

[Abram]

I can't take much more of this screeching harridan. Do americans really think this kind of irresponsible lunatic ranting makes them more secure? Do they really see bogeymen everywhere? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Do they really think this is illustrative of a strong and responsible leader or just another cowardly weakling who wants to keep them frightened?

[UltraClassic]

Hillary '08

OK all you intelects out here. Let's say you are the prez. You are reelected in '12 by that time, Iran has in fact built a tactical nuke and deploys it, then uses it on Israel.

What are you going to do? Sit around and sing Kum-Bi-Yah? Jaw jack on how the poor Iranians are just so misunderstood?

What are you going to do cowboy?

Hillary '08

[AdamWykle]

This scenerio is most likely to happen if you switch Iran with Israel. Anyhow, let the Israelies demonstrate just how "sovereign" they are. Israel has its own nuclear arsenals and they are the biggest recipient of our aid in the world -- U.S. vetoes just about every UN Security Council resolution that is passed against Israel and allowing them to have nuclear weapons without joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And we try to get Iran -- an NPT member -- to stop enriching uranium and expect not to sound outright hypocritical.

[UltraClassic]

Hillary '08

It's quite simple Mr. Adam. Iran has made a very public statement on it's desire to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Iran along with radical Islamists are sworn to Israel's destruction.

Pardon me, but you know that if Israel wanted to, they could take care of the problem tomorrow morning. But they have shown better judgement. So sorry, I don't buy you argument as any more than a typical left wing anti-Israel jab that has become so common on this and other leftists sites.

Hillary '08

[NelsonR]

Ultra classic, think about what you said, Never mind, Hillary's fans desire the status quo with all the corruption and cronyism that is part of America with Hillary's past leadership. Is she offering you any of her millions as she grows richer and saying, "I serve the little person", yeah on a plate.

Now for the comment about Iran using a nuke. Don't you think Israel will wipe them off the map with their nukes, no winners, only losers. Are you calling Iran stupid?

Even Russia and America understood the meaning of mutual annihilation.

[cct1984]

The problem with your argument is that Israel is such a small country that it would only take a couple of nukes to annihilate it. In a first strike scenario, there would be no Israel left to retaliate. The reason the strategy of mutual assured destruction worked between the US and the former USSR is that neither side could annihilate the other in a first strike; thus it was the threat of a counterstrike that prevented either country from initiating a launch. Israel doesn't have the luxury of a counterstrike option and therein lays their dilemma: allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and hope they don't use them or allow some terrorist organization to have one, or assume the worse and strike preemptively to prevent an Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Given the rhetoric coming from Iran’s leadership one can understand why Israel may not feel comfortable relying on the "hope" option.

[CostaMesaJoe]

As you already mentioned - Israel is more than capable of handling the issue of Iran on its own.
I'm all for backing them up - BUT I AM ALSO AWARE THEY ARE FULLY CAPABLE OF TELLING IRAN WHAT TIME IT IS ON THEIR OWN.

You need your candidate to twirl a six-shooter to show some strength?

We already had a cowboy in the WH for eight years and I'm pretty sure you were bitching about his foreign policy...b­ut hey, it's okay for your QUEEN to essentially declare war.

"DO THIS AND WE WILL NUKE YOU."
Yeah, that's foreign policy experience for you....

[Durango]

If you are running for President in 2008 YOU DON"T ANSWER HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS!!!!!

Not about nuclear warfare.

IF and that is a HUGE IF, the scenario plays out you deal with it using the facts on hand. (Not lies about nuclear weapons that don't exist).

Anyone who doesn't know that you shouldn't spout off half assed about nuclear weapons is not fit to be Commander In Chief.