AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should 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.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Makes me think of words like "out of touch"
From the linked article, a SAUDI paper calls Clinton an ignorant dolt. And of course Saudi Arabia as a neighbor of Iran, is much more at risk from Iranian actions than is the US.
"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."
At this point, Clinton supporters can join her in the category of "ignorant dolts". Example: one local Clinton supporter was quoted in our Pennsylvania paper: "I voted for Hillary because I want to see a woman president. Women do good jobs as leaders. Look at how good Queen Elizabeth has done for so long in England."
I agree.
I also think that the SDs are the reason that Obama is not jumping on this and other easy targets of HRC's. That would be reason to believe that she is done within the ranks of the Supers.
I wonder if she will be bringing up her trips to 80 countries and her "future success" in foreign policy, with all of her experience.
More proof that Judgement is the key!! Judgement that Obama has in spades and she is further proving that she is with out.
"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."
I think Israel can take of itself, especially against Iran. Even if Iran is making nuke junk to build a bomb it's a decade away from a) having a reliable, accurate delivery systems (hey, them nukes is heavy), and b) having enough nukes so that it can wipe out all of Israel's (200+) nukes. Imaging, Iran attacking Israel with a total of 10 nukes. Israels would retaliate with hundreds - game over. Call PPG - "your glass is waiting"!
The statement by Clinton on "obliterating Iran" should have been headlines on US papers but was not. Why? One explanation given by Howard Fineman of Newsweek, when asked about it on Meet the Press, stated he felt it was just political rhetoric and that's why HE didn't give it much credence. It seems to me in Fineman's instance, he was more concerned about hyping his new book than reporting the Hillary threat. Fineman and the other so called US journalists should wake-up as this was major news all over the world! When a presidential candidate from the United States of America, seen as the most powerful country in the world, makes a flippant statement of obliterating another country, people need to wake-up. I am grateful to the Boston Globe for this much needed editorial.
Correction: Fineman was on the Tim Russert Show on MSNBC versus Meet the Press.
At last, an editorial on this statement, for the world the most dangerous word to be uttered by a prospective President, and somehow the word "cling" creates a firestorm still continuing and set to continue. Apparently, the clingers are only too happy to nuke a country the size of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas with 70 million people and a civilisation 6000 years strong, as opposed to let's say 65 years of American dominance, military, economic and cultural, already waning and unlikely to last another 65 years. With a terrible duo, capable of doing and saying anything to return to the White House, and a MSM terrified of the populist Obama and his army of activists and small contributors, only the good sense of the people who cannot be fooled again, can rescue the country and the world from terrible disasters.
Great. Another believer in the doomsday prophesies wants to nuke Iran. After killing their democratically elected leaders and replacing them with the Shah (think Saddam light), giving Iraq biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, now threatening them with nuclear war, this crazy post-menopausal witch wonders why they hate us? If you vote for Billary after this comment, you are an idiot- make that a major idiot.
I don't get Hillary's reference to our ability to obliterate Iran in the next 10 years. Is she planning to be President for 10 years? Or is she saying that in 10 years our nuclear and non-nuclear forces will no longer be able to devastate Iran? Will it shrink? Very confusing statement, not to mention that it seem to indicate that Israel couldn't do it on their own. Does it make sense to tell the anti-governement forces in Iran (which includes most of the young people) that we will be incinerating them along with the government they oppose? That we are willing to kill Iranians (and anyone else unlucky enough to be there at the wrong time) without discrimination? I guess to in a few extra votes in pro-Israel areas of Pennsylvania she's willing to take th position that the "only good Iranians are obliterated Iranians".
The fact is that JFK used a verbal threat to the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis. i even saw the speech which was an excellent one. He stated that if Cuba used any nukes against the US, we would OBLITERATE the Soviet Union. He said it more elegantly, by saying a full retaliatory strike. There would have been little left if that had happened since we had over 5000 warheads. The point is that we survived through the Cold War by the FACT of deterence and the knowledge that the other side would use their nukes if the other side did. The threat was real and produced a settlement. The missiles left Cuba and was JFKs finest moment in that he kept all of us alive and secure. If it had been Nixon instead of JFK, we would not be here..
Providing an assurance of total destruction if Iran uses or threatens to use nukes against any nation in the Mideast takes away any advantage Iran would get by developing nukes of their own. So it serves two purposes. It makes other nations in the area more secure and takes away an incentive for them to make their own nukes, and it hopefully will deter the iranians from doing the same. A big stick is a LOT more convincing argument than sweet words and wishes. Another plus is that it will hopefully convince Iran to follow what the IAEC says to do since such development is futile.
But we were in a missile CRISIS! We are not yet in a crisis with iran! It's not time to carry a big stick and threaten to bomb them! There is a difference between CRISIS AND NO CRISIS! Clinton needs to learn the difference! Iran is aware of our Possition, and therefore are all talk, and in the last months that Yelling and fear factor talk out of Iran has calmed down some what! I'm sure it won't stay calm thanks to Hillary and her crazy screaming about Nukeing Iran! She however did not care about stiring up trouble in Iran! Her only goals here is to look tough, and scream loud and look as though she knows a lot about keeping us safe! She USED NUKES AND OUR SAFETY for her petty politics! This is what Hillary Clinton has come to out of her desperation to look more presidential and knowledgable than Obama, and she didn't give a hang on what her bombing threats did in the way of stiring up Nations who has nukes! People should be afraid, real afraid of this crazy lady who cares only for herself and reaching her goals no matter if she has to walk over your dead cold body to do it!
Cuba was a threat nto us. Iran is only a threat to Bush's imagination.
Your comparison is interesting, except for a several major factors. JFK was president of the United States at the time he made those statements, not a candidate without a mandate from the American people. Hillary Clinton was not in an position to make national policy statements - particularly of that magnitude. Second, Iran has made no threats against America, and the IDF has the nuclear capacity to wipe out any country it wants in the Middle East, without our assistance. Third, thanks to myopic energy policies for at least the past 35 years, including the Clinton administration, we are dependent on petroleum from the Saudis. At least two-thirds of Saudi oil is routed through Ras Tanura, which is approximately 300 km from the Iranian border. Fourth, there is virtually no evidence that a "big stick" has been even remotely effective in dealing with Iran. I believe we employed the big stick concept in Iraq (remember shock and awe?). Five years, four thousand lives and $2 trillion dollars later, I do not believe that we are safer than we were before or that our allies are safer - and neither does the CIA.
Excellent post...now this is how to debate
"It makes other nations in the area more secure and takes away an incentive for them to make their own nukes, " - randyjet
Seems your theory, as well as your big stick, vapourizes when it comes to Israel! Maybe someone can help you with those big stick fantasies!
This woman is freaking me out. She's fucking crazy. She's driven mad by her ambition. She is more dangerous than Ahmadinejad himself. The crazy guy made some threats but had nothing to back them up or the power to do so given real power is with the Ayatollah. But this crazy woman has real nuclear weapons at her finger tip if she'll be president. She's the real threat to world peace. Look how easy it was for George Bush to invade Iraq. I have no doubt she'll attack Iran to prove her manhood. This sick woman must be stopped. What the hell are the Superstupid Delegates waiting for? Hiroshima in Tehran?
Isn't it amazing that the MSM is not all over this highly irresponsible comment. Compare it with calling some small towners "bitter"! My goodness, is this really the person we want in the White House? Someone whose first response is to slash and burn. As she is burning down her own party and the legacy of her husband, we can see exactly what kind of President this person would be. Ready on Day One? Hardly. She wouldn't be ready on the last day.
Let's go Press. Let's see some real equal treatment here?
I want to thank everyone who comments here. I learn something every day reading what others
think.
Do you suppose Chelsea Clinton reads HuffPo?
I would like to ask her, in what way would your mother be a better president than your father?
I am so burnt out with process of selecting a Democratic nominee at this point, I can no longer
listen to television. There is nothing anyone has to say that will change my vote for Obama.
The damage done by Hillary Clintons style of campaigning has made me bitter and I can feel the vomit in my throat everytime she utters a single word.
Shame on her and her monstrous ambitions. I view her with the same loathing as George W. Bush.
Neither should be viewed as what being an American is about. They share the sense of entitlement and have no idea what real people in this country must deal with everyday to put food on the table, gas in their vehicles, pay mortgages and insurance, and still try and put money away for college and retirement.
I hope in November the voters, send Washington the message, again, we are tired of the bullshit
force fed to us on a daily basis.
Gilda - don't press the ENTER key at the end of a sentence.
The comments here are very interesting, some more so than the original post!
Glad to hear that there are people who do learn something when they come here. Sadly, the MSMs goal is very self serving - whatever keeps the campaign going so they can continue to draw in high ratings for the almighty $$$.
I know far too many people whose knowledge of the campaigning is limited to the newspaper or television. I honestly try to inform them of facts the MSM are purposly overlooking or tell them where to go to find out the truth. But all I get is they don't have time.
If anyone wonders how Dubya got into office should look no further than their ill informed neighbors, co-workers or relatives.
All I can say is "God save this country".
I basically agree with your post, but find the real problem to be the shallowness of the
reporting, that seemingly, just wants to start a food fight. I should also point out, that the
US media resides in ever fewer corporate hands, that seem to want to involve us with
bread and circuses, rather than intelligent discussion. If Obama, is elected president,
I hope he will force these media conglomerates to began to divest themselves of all
their acquisitions, and once again give us a free and unfettered press. It will never
happen under Hillary, Rupert Murdoch did raise funds for her on a wild hair.
Slight typo, instead of Murdoch did, it should have read Murdoch didn't. Sorry.
I hate to say this as an BO supporter, but it looks like HRC is victim to the same thing BO has been.
Her comments were out of context. She was asked what she would do if Iran nuked another country.....
But, since her campaign has taken the low road in the past and capitalized on this MSM victimization, I'm going to let her "take the heat" ..I'm sure she'll stay "in the kitchen" a while longer. She's used to having her dirty laundry aired. The woman's got more skeletons in her closet than Arlington Cemetery
No disrespect to the men/women who've given their lives in service to our country, but it's the biggest cemetery I know of.
It's the fact that she chose her words very poorly without giving much thought to them or the possible re-percussions which are far greater than calling small town folks bitter. Her statements inpact not only world opinion, which is as low as it has ever been, but also our future ability to negotiate any type of peace in the mideast. She suggested nothing short of regional genocide in their minds. No, I too am a BO supporter who has seen many words taken out of context, but they do not affect the world at large as hers did.
I am even more concerned about Hillary as a candidate than before. There is a recklessness there, as if she is just barely in control at times. She scares the hell out of me.
If you call her response to the hypothetical question "regional genocide", what do you call Iran's first use of nukes against Israel? That was the question: what would be the US response to an Irani nuclear attack on Israel. So, if the response is called genocide, what do you call the initial attack?
A thoughtful post, but as for Hillary, I can only quote our Russian friends, "Tough
Shitsky".
This issue is Obama's key to the White House. He needs to talk about this, but I know the right will squeeze him. Between a rock and a hard place, it is difficult to attack Hillary without bringing on the right. The right is doing a good job getting Hillary to be their girl. They might be really really sorry they are doing this. I have heard also of a lot of Republicans who are going for Obama. It is the sanity that people are wanting.
That's all. Sanity and honesty. Hillary made a big mistake making such threats.
"the foreign politics of the madhouse" ...
Meanwhile Dick Cheney says the WMD are now in Syria, and must attack AGAIN.
Does anyone else remember when Bush and Cheney first came into office, there was a report from the White House to the Pentagon saying the USA was going to invade SEVEN countries? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Libya.
"Axes of Evil". Man, am I glad that fell through.
I don't actually remember it, but would not be the least surprised, In discussing with a very
intelligent liberal friend, the run up to the Iraq war, I thought the only possible explanation
was that Bush, Cheney, and the other neocons, where having testosterone shooting up
parties. My only question was did Condi attend, and was she allowed to participate in the
fraternal circle jerk afterwards?
Listen to the mooing of the Billary Clintorises as they defend their foul little woman-who-wants-to-rule-the-world. Watch them drooling as they fawn over her smelly feet. They refuse to wake up, the whole pathetic, stench-filled corral of them.
If Billary is on the Limpocrat ticket this November, I don't vote, period. She's a vile, disgusting, Bush-lite liar and right-wing enabler.
Wake up, idiots.
Boston Globe | April 27, 2008 09:39 AM