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
She doesn't care! She would have nuked Iran right now if she knew that such a move would secure her the presidency of the US. I never though I would end up liking Condoleeza Rice but after 4 months of comparing her to Hillary ... I certainly respect her more as a politician --though I would not vote for her.
Yeah, what this country needs is a president who will sit by and do nothing if one of our allies is attacked.
Sorry, but at what point has the US government signed a formal mutual security allaince with Israel? Oh that's right..we haven't. Before you go spouting words like "allies" you had better understand your language better....much like your candidate.
I'd also like to point out...that Israel has their own nuclear arsenal and are quite capable of "obliterating" Iran on their own should the need arise. Unless of course you want to give even more fanatics reason to come attack your children.
I totally agree with PrdAmerican. Iran KNOWS Israel has the capability of wiping them from the map if it became necessary. Why would Senator Clinton say such a stupid thing unless she is just trying to impress a bunch of Rethugs into voting for her. I want a leader who uses the military as a last resort, not the first. We have had seven (plus) years of that already.
Amen.
That supposition is without merit. Firstly, Iran does not possess any nuclear weapons. Secondly, as far as I know, Iran has no imminent plans to attack Israel.
You have to wonder why Hillary, would try and use WMDs and Iran in the same sentence. What kind of linkage is she trying to place in the minds of Americans?
You are right. As far as we know Iran does not have such weapons. However, Senator Clinton was responding to a hypothetical question: What if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons? What would any US President do in such a situation?
There's a LOT of room between sitting and doing nothing and responding with an all-out 'obliteration.' Though I doubt that HRC even understands the exponential consequences of that response.
With very few exceptions there are no scenarios wherein an adversary could launch an attack on one of our allies without our advance knowledge of that attack. Even the information that continues to trickle out from the 9/11 attack indicates that we had ample evidence that such an attack (and, despite the horrific loss of life, this was not an all-out assault on this country) was going to occur, and could have acted to prevent it. Iran, and North Korea - and everybody else in the world - knows what our response would be. HRC's comments were foolhardy posturing by someone who has NO diplomatic training; who has NO military background; who has NEVER been involved in decision-making where the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are at stake.
Just imagine what would have happened if Mr. Obama had made such a proclamation! Hillary would be leading the "shame on you" chorus and the political advertisements would be brought to you by ABC News.
So why hasn't the MSM or even Cable News brought this into focus? Because it is against their economic interests to do so. Why mess up a good thing (i.e, "a competitive race") when they can enjoy those high ratings for a couple more months.
Hillary is still showing no judgement I guess if George told her we need to bomb Iran she would fall in to the same dumb trap she did on Iraq. This macho trip she is on shows no judgement she will say anything. This is the type of crap we are trying to get away from like branding everyone evil or good. They are not going to attack Israel, the question should have been what are you going to do when Israel attacks Iran then Iran defends themselves. This might happen.
I still say the blind ambition of the Clinton's has skewed their judgement about most anything. It time the super delegates end this stupid thing please.
Gives insight as to why she voted for that ridiculous Kyl-LieBerman act.
"Don't you remember, Bill? My campaign was going downhill and you were there and I was saying, 'feed me, Bill, feed me.' And you did. Reminding the public about my SWAT escapades in Tuzla; lying to the press about that 'race card' only hours after saying it on the radio; helping President Uribe with a FTA for Colombia when I keep telling people I oppose NAFTA. You remember, Bill."
[from the upcoming remake of "Dr. Strangelove," entitled "Fear and Loathing in Washington, D.C." starring Hillary Clinton in any and every leading role -- a one-person cast -- as she searches for her niche in American politics]
You know how those religious fanatics and worldenders have always been depicted in cartoons- with long hair and beards, wearing long robes and sandals, carrying signs that read " Repent Repent The End is Near." Well, guess what ? After all of these centuries of predicting, I think they may very well be on to something now. Be afraid. Be very friggin afraid.
Hillarys Backers REALLY want war with Iran. AIPAC, where she has spoken a number of times about Iran being the greatest theat in the world that the US and Israel face today (a preposterous statement, in that they have no nukes and have not attacked another nation about 250 years) has had two of its top officials charged with espionage against the US for illegally receiving classified US documents on Iran for the purpose of using them to foment war between Iran and the US. She is receiving HUGE support from them.
Her statements are meant to help insure that Iran would balk from negotiations now or in the future, as that would only help to reduce the probability of war with Iran, which she is ready to send you and your children to fight, as sacrifices upon the alter of her political career.
Her statement has DAMAGED US efforts in Iraq, iran, and the entire middle east, painting us as madmen (and women) who talk about killing each and every living person in a nation when faced with an absurd hypothetical.
"Iran being the greatest theat in the world that the US and Israel face today"
Al Quaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the greatest threat to the Unites States. Iran is not a threat to the United States at all. As a matter of fact Iran is a potential ally, just as it was when it helped us in the war against the Taliban and AlQuaida in Afghanistan. And the population of Iran is on the whole friendly toward the Unted States. Since Al Quaida considers the Shiites as infidels and enemies, with appropriate diplomacy there is a good chance that we could turn Iran to our side.
But Iran is a threat to Israel. Once again in te conduct of U.S. middle eastern policy, the vital interests of Israel are trumphing the vital interests in of the United States.
I agree with the gist of your statement, but iran is really no credible threat to Israel at all.
Israel has 200 nukes and the best epuipped army in the region, with the complete support of the US, the most powerful nation on the earth. That Iran would choose to attack Israel under any circumstances is simply ridiculous, and the fact that they support either Hamas or hezbollah to any extent does not really make them any different than our Allies the Saudis, or a variety of other middle eastern nations. In fact, it is the case that just about every middle eastern country opposes Israels settlement movement, the occupation that supports it, and Israels attacks upon Lebanon.
It is dishonest for Obama supporters to truncate Clinton's remarks when it was clear to ALL others she was refering to Iran NUKING Israel. It reflects poorly on them and their candidate. In a previous statement she did not restrict the use of US nukes to the defense of Israel, but to all of Iran's neighbors, NOT just Israel. That is a good statement since it will make it less likely for Iran to have any incentive to make their own nukes since they will be useless. It will hopefully save Iran the time and expense of making nukes.
For those who are opposed to Clinton's statement, I would like to know what Obama would do if Iran nukes one of its neighbors such as Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Jordan, etc.. What would Obama supporters suggest as a good response to such genocide?
I also recall that JFK during the Cuban missile crisis made the same kind of threat. He stated any attack from Cuba would be met with not just a strike against Cuba, but a full obliteration of the Soviet Union. In short, killing millions of innocent Russians. I hope that Obama and his supporters who take issue with Clinton will also denounce JFK as well. THAT will sure show the American people that Democrats are NOT soft on defense! The reason that we lose is people like the idiots who denounce Clinton convince others that Dems ARE weak on defense of the US.
Randy, how much self dillusion will you inflict upon yourself to make this statement seem "good". It the same cowboy rhetoric Bush has been using over the last 7 years and it hurts any chance towards diplomacy. So now I know how Bush supporters got themselves to accept his foriegn policy, "Self dilusion" and "feelings" about a candadite, instead of "facts'.
"....It is dishonest for Obama supporters to truncate Clinton's remarks when it was clear to ALL others she was refering to Iran NUKING Israel...."
I think you need to dig a little deeper in the linear-logic bin. Obama supporters "truncating"???
... how about "British House of Lords, the foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown"... and don't neglect that a 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."
... so to blame Obama supporters for truncating... is dimly lit fabricating.
When you leave off the fact that her answer was in response to a NUCLEAR attack from Iran, that is dishonest. You also dodge the question as to what YOUR or Obama's response would be to such an attack. Just what do you suggest the US do? Let genocide proceed without punishment?
As long as a Demo is running against a Repo,
there will be re-visitations of the C-in-C test, of
which this is one form, arguably the 'best'.
Tough to top though. What can we expect next week?
To those ' enamored ' with tough guys; they bleed, die and go to the bathroom just like the rest of us.
One thing you learn quickly in combat,don't try to be a ' tough guy '; you wind up buying the farm that much quicker. Take one day at a time, stay calm, don't take unnecessary chances.
Be tough internally, but at the same time, be logical and wise.
THAT was her longawaited promise to the zionist community...........PERIOD.
Hillary is determined to prove she is tougher than her father, who disrespected her. I think we've seen that one playing recently--it didn't end too well for us.
this lady is an absolute freekin KOOK !! and so are her supporters .
This is what I believe Billary signed onto - since you do not get the reins of power without signing on.
1 Bombing Iran
2 No corporate taxes
3 slave labor force - by illegal immigration and massive unemployment of Americans.
According to O'Neill's book, shrub signed on to 2 and 3 to get to first base in the nominating process. which is why he never gives up on an immigration bill. the corporations own this country. they call the shots. They don't give a rat's behind about what other progressive legislation goes through, whether a woman has reproductive rights or not, whether we have a state religion or not - as long as they get a free ride and obscene wealth. Bombing Iran would - in their sick minds- give the US control over the oil supply. access means nothing to them. it is about absolute control.
At the end of the day, Democrats whether they support Obama or Clinton are on the same team. Articles like this are only carrying water for the Republican party and are only doing damage to the party they are supposed to be supporting. Democrats are obviously their own worst enemies and its exactly stuff like this that may push the Reagan Democrats to support McCain. Cut it out!
Hillary engaged in rank fearmongering on the eve of the PA primary in order to frighten voters into supporting her.
She is an unrepentant hawk.
Sorry, I'm not on the obliterate another country team. Seems to me that Clinton's foreign policy positions put her on the GOP's team. And this story has been heavily under-reported.
Democrats supporting Obama and Clinton may be on the same team at the end of the day, but independents and true anti-war activists are not on the same team as someone who threatens to "obliterate" the entire population of another country -- who insists on continuing to waste the lives and limbs of young Americans and Iraqis in an occupation against the interests of the United States -- who makes stupid, belligerent, personal attacks against leaders of countries with whom s/he may have to deal in the event s/he gets elected. Also, articles like this point out that stupid, harsh words of imbeciles like Clinton (that's right, she's said things like this enough that she has proven she is a stupid, narrow world viewed idiot with the built in idelogical limitations of main stream high academic thinking) render her wholly unqualified to be President, as she may get away with it here, but she starts out isolating us from the rest of the world if she wins, just like George.
I don't want her hands anywhere near the "football". She may think she's under sniper fire or something, take a shot and a beer, decide that Putin has no sould, and push the button. She's a low-life warmongerer who doesn't deserve a single anti-war vote.
What exactly is "idelogical limitations of main stream high academic thinking"?
Well, whatever... Clinton continues to talk far too tough for my liking -- this kind of, yes, belligerence has not served us well and is particularly shameful in an environment where most of the globe considers us the greatest threat to world harmony. Nevertheless, we live in a nuclear reality and most of our treaties with allies include "like" response in the event of a "hot" war -- this was the sharp edge of the diplomatic blade during the Cold War and it is still true. Nevertheless, since we are never without a scabbard, it seems unnecessary to rattle our saber to prove we are armed.
Thank you, marijam!
I would suggest (as I have before) that we have two flawed candidates in a phenomenally tight race. It breaks my heart that supporting one over the other seems to demand the denial of half of what we have always stood for as a party: one minority, age group, economic or educational level over another. Assuming we have used or will exercise the one vote that is ours to cast, we have acted in good faith for the candidate we most believe in -- whether for the newcomer whose promise of a fresh beginning might falter in real time politics or in the street fighting pol whose tactics in beating the Republicans might only provide a Pyrrhic Victory (we will become what we despise most).
It isn't just the pieces like the one in the Boston Globe -- I believe we have treaties that provide for dire response in the event one of our allies is attacked nuclearly -- it's our fellow Democrats who continue to carry water for the Republicans by threatening to stay home or to vote for McCain (dear God in heaven!) if their candidate fails to win the nomination.
Cut it out, indeed!
I am not on any team with a leader that suggests that we "obilterate" a nation of 70 million men, women and children. Period.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 04-27-08 09:39 AM | Updated: 05- 5-08 05:12 AM