Boston Globe:
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
These are the people running for the highest office in the land, to lead the most powerful military in the world.
Hillary: "totally obliterate" Iran if ......
Mc Cain: "bomb bomb bomb Iran".....
And yet it's Barack Obama that is considered "cocky" because he's confident he can handle foriegn policy better than Mc Cain and Hillary ? (see Mayhill fund raiser post)
Can anyone reading this, think how we would react if another world leader threaten to "obliterate" or "bomb bomb bomb" another country.....we would be outraged and rightly so.
There is a "cockness" problem in this race, but it's not from Barack.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick" - Theodore Roosevelt
Mc Cain and Hillary could do well to learn from T.R.
This comment by Hillary is exactly the reason why she is a horrible candidate and, let's be honest, a horrible person. This is the reason that I will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.
Hillary is not horrible because she would nuke Iran off the map if they attacked Israel - and from that quote it doesn't even sound like she said Iran would have to nuke Israel to deserve to be anihilated, it sounded like any attack would justify obliterating them. But, the point is that if she were actually president she probably wouldn't obliterate them unless it was necessary... but one can never tell with her. She is a political monster who lies with such ease it is impossible to tell what she would do or would not do.
At the moment the question was asked she conjured up whatever bullshit political answer she calculated would help her campaign overtake Obama; and at that moment she decided that over-the-top tough talk is what was needed, so she threatened to obliterate Iran without any consideration of the implications of those words beyond the next news cycle in the U.S. And, this goes for almost everything she says. She is such a calculating liar who goes with the political wind that we have no idea what she would do - good or bad. Ironically, that makes her the ultimate role of the dice - even moreso than McCain; and that is a chance we can not take.
"I will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee."
Don't you think McCane is too short to be president? He's only 5 ft 4.
McCain is any better? I am sorry, but your argument for voting for McCain is lame. As if he as a hotheaded little old man is safer at the switch than Hillary Clinton? I wonder, then, why you would not consider Obama the most credible, reasonable, and sane. Why, there could be only one reason, I would imagine. Booooooooo!
Duh! Typical knee-jerk reaction from an overly defensive liberal. Who said I don't consider Obama credible, reasonable and sane. I said I'd vote for McCain "IF" Hillary is the nominee, so it should go without saying that I won't be voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee... Hence, I'll be voting for Obama.
Pay attention.
This book makes it pretty clear:
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
http://tinyurl.com/5ef98t
So does this book:
They Dared to Speak Out:People & Institutions stand up to the Israeli Lobby
by Paul Findlay
Although, regardless of how many speak out this evil entity just gets more and more powerful;all of our presidents work for them. So does our media.
The public statement by Senator Clinton considering the possible obliteration of Iran is deeply troubling. Her language is not helpful and was widely repeated in the international press, notably in the Middle East.
How could Senator Clinton not know, in her 35 years of experience and her Armed Services Committee credentials, that Israel has the means for its own nuclear defense and deterrence? Is she naive enough to believe that Israel is not itself a nuclear power?
Does she not comprehend that "just words" publicly spoken by a sitting United States Senator and possible future President will not have an effect on the world beyond her stump speech, at least "as far as I know."
There is also the staged theatrics of her statements meant to impact the moment, honed for the sound bite or the local audience, without thought to any consequences. Later, If she is called on her words, so, she "mis-spoke," she is "only human," etc.
She has now revealed her policy options to the Iranian government and the Iranian people, who in a number of cases may not support their current regime. Under a Clinton presidency, Iran's total annihilation is a viable solution.
Very, very well said !!!
The media again lets us down, not publicizing the reaction of the Arab countries to her troubling remark.
As stated in this article, the iranian people are aongst the biggest supporters of the U.S. Hillary is willing to voice the notion that it is an option to totally wipe millions of people off the map !!!
When, oh WHEN, will the American people see this woman for who she REALLY is...a power-hungry warmonger !! She needs to be stopped !!!
Guess Hillary is still a Goldwater Republican at heart after all.
Unfortunately, I agree, I can hear her singing a duet with McCain of "Bomb, Bomb.... Iran.
An aside into a little Goldwater campaign humor. The republicans came out with a
bumper sticker AU + H2O = 464. the following week, the democrats had upped the ante,
theirs was AU + H2O = H2S. There was far more cleverness and less meanness then.
I think even Goldwater wouldn't want her support...she's showing herself to be more of a BushCheney Girl.
This was the red line that Clinton crossed that caused me to stop supporting her. The Boston Globe article was spot on in its analysis. As the article said, I don't want Clinton answering the phone in the White House at 3am or any other time of the day or night.
Israel has more nuclear warheads and delivery systems, than any other in the middle east, and is
quite capable of protecting themselves. Hillary's statement was idiotic and only undermined our
position and influence in the area.
Obama 08 will solve that problem.
Will solve what problem? 'more nuclear warheads and delivery systems, than any other in the middle east" or "undermining our position and influence in that area"? His staff is very anti-jewish. Not to mension Rezko and Louis Farrakhan ties. So I guess either is possible.
More International news....She has made the newspapers all over the world!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976991.html
Yeah, more hatred for America and Americans. Lovely. It's a minor point, considering the horror of what she said, but I'm a little tired of being so embarassed for my country. I really can't see what everyone found so horrendous about Michelle Obama's forthright statement re: pride in our country. Torture. Threats of nuclear obliteration. A real vile and hateful primary campaign. And that's just this week. I'm finding little to be proud of myself.
If you really want to be embarrassed for your country, read William Blum's "Killing
Hope". It outlines nearly every CIA and military involvement since WWII. It is a
fascinating book, that I think every American should read, and think twice about,
before agreeing with the next testosterone challenged president.
Hillary is as bat$#!* as the neocons.
LMAO....you go girl.
Clinton was wrong in going into Serbia since it violated virtually every treaty and law we signed. Hillary's statement about a response to a nuclear Iran was excellent. It is entirely consistent with the non-proliferation treaty which Iran has signed and ignored. If Iran does use nukes on ANY country in that area, the only appropriate response is to do the SAME to them. That is what is called a DETERENT.
It might also help to convince Iran that developing nukes is a waste of time too. Thus saving itself a lot of time and expense. The only thing that will convince Iran NOT to nuke any of its neighbors, is the threat that THEY will suffer the SAME fate. Nuclear weapons are only good against those who don't have them, since if you use them against others similarly equiped,you will be destroyed as well. There is no chance that Iran can or will develop any nukes or means of delivery to hit the US any time soon. They sure as hell will never get enough to be a threat like the Soviet Union was.
What is Obama's response be to a nuclear attack by Iran on one of its neighbors? Think he would just sit back and do nothing? Maybe some Obamiacs can say what they think.
This Obamiac—honestly, I can't keep up with all these nicknames—happens to agree with you after listening to various analyses from various political commentators. This has been our acknowledged policy since the 1950s. It is jarring, however, to hear this kind of language in a primary, just as it was jarring to hear Obama say he would conduct operations within Pakistan without approval from the government.
These candidates are very similar. And the vitriol that gets tossed back and forth is pretty irrational. Anyone who supports Obama's policies also supports Clinton's, and vice versa. The principle difference is Iraq, which is significant. Who knows how Obama would have voted—but 17 senators voted no. I like to think Obama would have been part of that group.
This is a pretty good site for comparing the two:
http://www.progressivepunch.org
Clinton actually gets a more progressive rating than Obama. If she ends up as the nominee, she will quickly become "the most liberal senator in Congress."
"Anyone who supports Obama's policies also supports Clinton's, and vice versa."
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!
There is a world of difference between surgical strikes against major officials of an organization that is a proven enemy of the United States, and then only if Pakistan fails to act, and total obliteration of an entire population of a country, when the overwhelming part of them had no voice in the decision to engage in a nuclear attack.
It is perfectly consistent to support the former and oppose the later, as I do.
Thank you for speaking the truth. After Edwards dropped out, i personally went to Obama and Clinton sites to see their positions. Clinton is MUCH more progressive than Obama. Which is why I support her. It is also the reason that most of the working class supports her over Obama.
The reason that Obama supporters are so irrational is that they have not the capacity to think or read and compare the two. Thus all they have are feelings and no reason. They cannot tell why Obama is more progressive other than to SAY he is. It is easier to use gossip, slander, process and the like rather than doing some WORK and research. It is really scary that masses of college students are his supporters. I guess they don't learn much or apply it.
Obama's response to the problem of oil prices is the same as Bush with a slight modification. I never thought I would see a black man support oil policies that would make Jesse Jones proud.
No. Obama did not say that he would obliterate a nation of 70 million civilians, including men, women and children. And what Hillary said in the early days of her campaign and what she is saying now are quite different. Can you imagine her making those statements before the California primary? No. Can you remember the last time she gave a speech which was even slightly progressive? No.
The Clintons are offering us a co-presidency. Bill often uses "we". Hillary counts her years in the White House as part of her political experience, Go back and look at the Clinton campaign literature, It was very progressive - unlike the Clinton presidency - which became increasingly conservative - starting with the hiring of Dick Morris.
21 Democrats voted against the war in Iraq. Not 17.
No Hillary Clinton is not a progressive. Hillary Clinton says whatever is politically expedient. Here is what she said about Iran during the campaign in Iowa - in defense of her vote on Liebreman/Kyl. The contrast between Iowa and her statement in PA is remarkable. Note her reference to bellicose and threatening language.
"Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..
"No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language." (Washington Post)
Twenty Democrats and two Republicans voted against this legislation - which originated with Dick Cheney. Hillary Clinton voted yes.
Why do we have to respond. We can't afford it. Why not let some other country with a vested interest in the region take care of it. Like China or India. Every time we stick our nose in the middle east, we screw ourselves over.
Can anyone say United Nations?
Why not let Israel take care of it...they are afterall the only country in that direct area with their own arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Obamas' response was that if Israel was attacked by Iran he would retaliate. He made this unambigously clear.
But what Hillary has advocated, total obliteration is genocide. If Iran were to nuke Israel the decision would be made by a small clique of Mullahs. The Iranian people would have not had any voice. Yet Hillary wants to totally obliterate Iran. Killing all the Iranians, including women and children, who had no role in the act, is a major war crime. It is at least as evil as Hitler's gas chambers since it would involve much larger numbers.
Hillary has shown herself to be a would-be war criminal comporable to the major war criminals throughout history, such as Ghengis Khan, Tamourlane, Stalin, and, yes, Hitler.
Congress has shown that all war crimes responsibility is "off the table".
I see. ALL the parties in WWII were just as bad as each other and there was NO difference between them, including the USA. So I also see that if Iran nukes Israel, THAT does NOT qualify as genocide, yet if Israel or the US returns the favor it is. I am sure that most Americans will also agree with that too.
Of course, I hope that you will make it clear to all as an Obama supporter,that Truman was also a WAR CRIMINAL. That will sure get some more votes for him. Do you see any problem with that?
"It might also help to convince Iran that developing nukes is a waste of time too"
If I were an Iranian ruler, this would convince me that Iran had better get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible so that it can use the threat of retaliation to keep the bloody American government from nuking them. After all, the United States is the one country that has demonstrated its willingness to use them.
You are so right. The only time America pulls back is when a country has a nuke. Look at Korea. Having a nuke has saved them from the wrath of America. The only sensible thing a country with resources can do is make or buy a nuke. At least then the U.S. will think twice before it starts another "war of choice".
That is truly funny. So you think that Iran will be able to make a nuclear weapon soon, and be able to use it against the US? Even if they develop just a few nukes that they can only use locally, it will not do them any good either. The only ones that they can use it against are the nations without nukes. If the US attacks conventionally, and the Iranians use a nuke on those troops, just what do you think the US would do? I think the Iranians are smart enough to know the result. So it does them NO good against the US either.
In the first Gulf War the Iraqis did not use chemical weapons even though they had them. Why do you think that was? Why didn't Nazi Germany use chemical weapons when they were going down?
I don't think the US is the only country in the world which has demonstrated its willingness to use nukes. I thought Stalin and the Soviet Union, Red China, and the rest have done an EXCELLENT job of convincing the rest of the world on that score too. I had NO doubt that they would drop the big ones if it came to that.
Randy:It's also amusing that you whine about the NPT when Israel refuses to participate in any and all international arms treaties but Iran acts in good faith and gets paid for it with threats of destruction. Nice.
NO actually the IAEC is the one which is upset too. You cannot be held accountable in law or custom for something you have not signed. Iran got certain rights and privileges for signing. Since Iran DID agree to the treaty, they have to abide by it. Iran does have immunity from nuclear attack from signatories of the treaty as long as they are members. If they get nukes, they are in violation, AND if they commit genocide against a neighbor, I think it is only right that they suffer the SAME fate that they dealt to who ever was on the recieving end of mass murder. You have a better idea of how to respond to an Iranian nuclear attack?
I am so happy to read many of the women's posts below who recognise that there is a moral center that women hold that the international arena lacks right now, and that there is no sense in breaking this particular glass ceiling if along the way you have to abandon that center to do so.
Thank you thank you thank you sisters!
And thank you Boston Globe for saying what needed to be said. Nuclear threats are totally unacceptable whether they come from a rogue nation like Korea or from this one.
MSM needs to report on this.........Mc Clinton is as much a FEAR MONGER and WAR MONGER as Bush/McCain.....told ya she was a republician
They did report it. You ought to look it up first.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/
http://digg.com/politics/Clinton_on_Olbermann_Pledges_to_Nuke_Iran_if_it_Nukes_Israel
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN2224332720080422
And what's so GOP-ish about standing up against tyranian Iran nuking other countries?
no country except for Japan has ever attacked the United States. So what business do we have to go around "annihilating and obliterating" Iran or anyone else for that matter? Are you looking for the obliteration of the ENTIRE WORLD? Because that is what will happen when you start playing chicken with people that have nukes... have we learned nothing from WWII? Oh, wait, you are probably too young to know about such things, and play video games that make war cool, huh? REAL PEOPLE DIE.
Unconscionable!
The Iran threat was the lowest type of pandering - sucking up to the Jewish people who faced genocide by threatening to "obliterate" another people.
Wow! I did not think she could top the Bosnia fiasco.
George Bush didn't stoop this low!!!
Americans should understand that rhetoric concerning nukes, for the most part, is about hegemony. In Hillary Clinton's case it's about appealing to that duplicitous part of the American pedigree that says "We have the privilege of standing above all others, underwritten by God and our military capability." Think about it. We have thousands of active nuclear warheads. Yet, when it comes to Iran, we say "How dare you even consider having 1." So this is not about Iran "using a nuke", for the day it does is the day it is no more! This is about the mentality of empire! And down through the ages, all empires have succumbed to this wasteful tragic folly-the folly of possession. This is why, our myopia notwithstanding, all empires eventually implode, for their need to possess, far exceed their understanding the folly of control. In fact, we become "possessed" by those very things we wish to control! Furthermore, it negates "pathways" to alternative thinking, and possibilities.
This is what Rev. Wright, Dr. King, and others have spoken to- "We cannot serve two masters!" Either we are going to operate by our own "declared principles" that serve, and protect, the natural determination of humanity, or are we going to be merely earth's consumptive "cancer" of the macrocosm, operating by a sophistic pretension?
Wow, beautifully said.
This is just a window into how this woman thinks.
Any enemy must be totally obliterated - especially political ones.
I, personally, do not want another 8 years of this "scorched earth" approach in american politics or foreign relations. Because we've just had 16 years of it.
16? Please explain.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 04-27-08 09:39 AM | Updated: 05- 5-08 05:12 AM