Harry Reid: Clinton's Iran Comment Is "Not The American Way"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the latest politician to distance himself from Hillary Clinton's repeated comments about the United States willingness to obliterate Iran. During an interview on NPR today, he said:

TOM ASHBROOK: A surge in diplomacy, you say. Senator Clinton recently used the word "obliterate" in regard to Iran. That it might be obliterated if it moved against Israel. Is that a helpful kind of word? Senator Obama said not.

HARRY REID: Well, I am certainly doing my best not to take sides in this presidential thing. But I think that flexing our muscles, threatening people, threatening countries, is not the American way. We have -- as President Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt said, "speak softly, carry a big stick." Words to that effect. And that's what I think we should do. Speak softly, make sure that people know that we can react if we have to, but let's not go around threatening people.

Reid also took the opportunity to dispel notions about which way he is leaning in the election, despite his comments about foreign policy:

Nancy Pelosi and I have done our very best to be as neutral and calm through all this as we can be. We talk often about this. Nancy Pelosi is neutral. I'm neutral. I don't favor Obama. I don't favor Clinton. Nor does she. And anyone that has jumped to conclusions to that effect is wrong.

Full audio of the interview, including discussion of superdelegates, is available.

Analysts are split about Clinton's Iran comments, while Juan Cole has called them monstrous.

Comments

[Hollyse]

Hillary Clinton apparently has some embedded psychological understanding of herself that maybe she's not ready or this isn't the right time for her to run for president, If a person sits down with this gal, one-on-one belting the double shots down, you know, the story would go no further than in a shot glass and I'll betccha she'd get out of Bill's sheep-jumping 3rd term in office! Wanting to office of presidency doesn't mean she's ready when outside influence puts her on a train to a destination she wasn't quite ready to embark on. I'm not a Hillary American Presidential Idol fan, however she knows her basic instincts aren't right in timing for the first female presidency. Men don't wear pearls so I know she's female. Hillary is an international mistress to globalization so when the news media references her as an American I cringe knowing she's turning down global linen in her IT TAKES A VILLAGE global attitude. Hillary would be out of America so fast if this nation was being bombed and under seige. She doesn't bake cookies, however thinks she's got rights in speaking as president (chief chef) of a nation "Roasting" other countries! Oh... Hillary... seems to me Harry Reid is in the kitchen with you and not to worry. Just have a "Roast" and see what's actually baking.

[mhopgood123]

If you want to bring peace to this world, telling a country that you will obliterate it, is not the way to go. I cannot believe that Hillary Clinton would say something like that with all her "foreign policy experience' and her many years of travel to foreign countries. Why would all of the people of Iran(who are victims themselves) suffer the consequences of brutal nuclear power? It is like Hiroshima redux.I can't believe no one is paying attention to this brutal comment. Do you think it will make us safer to go around threatening countries with "obliteration"? DO we get any allies by continuing with the policies of the Bush WHite House? NO! It is time to change the mindset when it comes to foreign policy.
This is nothing but another pander from Hillary to garner support from certain constituencies.

[meanguy]

the last person i'd ask for insight into handle responses to our adversaries is harry reid

[Meok]

Let's stop the overreaction.

1)According to the NIE, Iran is far from having a bomb. Iran would probably not make workable weaponized nuclear missiles during the term of the next president. So should Hillary Clinton be the US president for 4 or 8 years she won't to deal with a nuclear Iran.

2) The reason Iran is making all this noise is because of the Palestinian cause. Do you, for a second, believe that Teheran will launch nukes on Israel killing Jews and Palestinians indiscriminately? I bet they don't want to be viewed by other Muslim countries as killers of Palestinians.

3) Is Teheran stupid enough to launch a nuclear attack on Israel and expect to survive retaliation from Israel and its allies? I suspect they are not.

In light of this, is the risk of a nuclear Iran overblown? Or is the true fear that a nuclear iran would NOT be easily threatened by a superpower? (since they can retaliate to attacks).

[viking50]

In this century Iran has not attak anybody,only defended itselv from Irak.
If Iran would have one nuke ready in the next 4 to 8 years,why would they be insane in attacking Israel that has over 200 nukes and angry the US that has over 5000 nukes and who has showing to use nukes on people.
Its just warmongering

[michelv]

Maybe, but Reid needs to go!

[mhopgood123]

So does Hillary Time to step down!

[Sundialsvc4]

"The American Way," if you are a member of the United States Congress in either house, does not consist of permitting war-crimes to be committed by your own government under your own watch.

Let me quote two passages from the Nuremberg Principles, which at one time the United States of America both articulate and proudly upheld:

Principle III:
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle VI:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Principle VII:
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Am I, in fact, asserting that a great many members of all three Branches of our existing Federal Government are "war criminals" under these Principles? Yes, I am.

[egal]

Well, they are war criminals. We all know it, but they just don't care...corruption begets corruption, and leaders bankrupt of morals support anyone who agrees with them, usually people even more immoral.

Ask any soldier whose job requires the understanding of such laws. As long as they're not an officer. It's illegal for officers to say anything bad about the president or their chain of command.

[Daisy1111]

Oh this is pricelss.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi preside over a Democratic majority in both the house and senate.

And they have accomplished absolutely ZERO because they can't get any republicans or independents to to their side and acheive a majority vote.

[mhopgood123]

I wonder why they haven' t accomplished what they wanted to do? Because of the repugblicans who have filibustered legislation and Bush has vetoed countless pieces of important legislation.

[Sundialsvc4]

Daisy, you should familiarize yourself with the Library of Congress website at http://thomas.loc.gov.

If you want to see what these people have =actually= been doing, and saying, and voting ... it's all here. "By their fruits shall ye know them."

And one thing that will very quickly become clear is that there is, in fact, no division among parties. The "the other_party folks won't cooperate with us" baloney is just that: a whitewash, a sham. This is not "a house divided," not at all. It is a cold and calculating gang of utterly ruthless criminals. It is "the Enemy Within." It is the greatest singular danger our Republic has ever faced.

"One If By Land ..."

[TXfemmom]

I have to disagree with Harry on this. Let's face it...the United States would have to respond against any country that used nuclear weapons on an ally or another country with whom we have an agreement, and the response would have to be virtual, if not complete annihilation.

Iran, or any other country, must understand that the United States would respond with a nuclear attack, as small as possible, or an overwhelming conventional attack which would make the viability of that country and anyone who survived in that country quite impossible. That could be achieved with a small nuclear attack upon their nuclear facilities, so the country would in essence, have destroyed themselves and their people via their own nuclear program, and then a sustained and overwhelming conventional attack which would destroy their water, power, industrial, military and everything else which could sustain them.

I think that Bush's drum banging is wrong, but stating a fact, and it is a fact that Iran and Pakistan and any other nuclear power, or intending nuclear power, must understand and understand it fully and completely. Use your nuclear weapons against us or any of our allies, and we shall destroy you completely and to the point that not even Islamic or other fanatics would dare to do it to themselves. No need to embellish it, but ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT MUST UNDERSTAND AND DO THAT, THERE ISN'T ANY LET'S KISS AND MAKE UP NOW, THERE CANNOT BE.

[vincie]

I'M A DEMOCRAT, BUT BETWEEN HARRY REID AND NANCY POLOSI, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE BALL. THEY ARE THE WORST DEMOCRATIC LEADERS IN OUR HISTORY. I HOPE THEY GET RID OF THEM, THEY LOOK LIKE MILK TOAST.

[mhopgood123]

I don't agree with your comment. Nancy Pelosi has been very courageous in her many confrontations with Bush and Harry Reid is a good leader.

[AbdulScarface]

How long before they acquire that hypothetical nuclear weapon. You know it's been proved true that if you assume to much you'll make an ass of yourself. As of today Israel would be more likely to use the bomb than anybody in that region since nobody else has it. So let's stop the false machismo and start really on the diplomatic side of things. The US is at it's best when it acts in concert with the rest of the world. And for Hillary to use such irresponsible language does nothing but exacerbate the problem. If i was Iran I really don't see no incentive but to go for the nuclear option. Let's the discourse appeal to the rational and not the reptilian.

[brainlego]

Oh yes it is, imperialism is back ever since the neocons got what they wished for - the new pearl harbor.
This of course has nothing to do with nukes and terrorism, both of them are good to use to sell something - more wars!

[ResidentChimp]

For Reid the "American way" is to wave the white flag. He wants Obama to be the next Chamberlain.

[mhopgood123]

Obama will not be a Chamberlain because he will stop any conflagration before it starts, so please stop comparing him to someone from the old world.The "American way" is to find common ground, not go around threatening countries and their innocent citizens. This is not the way to go. Clinton wants to show her might by fostering "cowboy-girl diplomacy. Tough talk, tough president. Real might and real strength come from the conviction that you can find solutions to complex diplomatic issues. Hillary is just another clone of Bush. We can protect Israel without having to resort to extreme talk. Iranians will never attack Israel, they are not stupid. This theoretical question was posed to inflame the political discourse.

[Stevelagain]

Dear Senator Reid,

Why are trying to spend more when you told us you would be "fiscally responsibly"?

Where is your committee working on a balanced budget? Why do you oppose balancing the budget?

Where is your committee working on fixing Medicare, which is a slow motion TRAIN WRECK. Why are you opposed to working on Medicare?

where is your committee working on social security? I hear social security is a relatively easy fix, why haven't you fixed it"

Why are you folks only working three days a week? Why are you failing us as bad or worse than the republicans failed us.

When will we ever get good government? Apparently we can't get it from the left and we can't get it from the right....both parties are failures.

Obama is just a far left, empty suit, more bad government, this from a far left socialist perspective. Not change that will do us any good.

[mhopgood123]

Your cynicism is refreshing.................why don't you start your own party since you are so disgruntled with what we have now?

[Tommygun264]

The Democrats have offered up legislation dealing with all of these issues and more, and the obstructionist, fascist Republicans have filibustered every time so their brain dead ditto heads can cry "the Democrats haven't done anything".

Better be careful - barring any changes to the law on the way out the door by the worst President in our nation's history, soon-to-be President Obama will have the ability to declare his critics Unlawful Enemy Combatants and make them disappear, never to see a defense attorney or the light of day again. God bless you, George W. Bush.

[NotBeatenYet]

Shhh-- don't make waves, Harry. She's likely to have your job soon.

[Tommygun264]

Hillary is bucking to share the ticket as John McSame's VP- he needs someone who appeals to the right-wing lunatic fringe and Senator Clinton is perfect for the job.

[ResidentChimp]

A McCain - Hillary would be unstoppable. Obama would go down like McGovern and Dukakis. It would be worth it to stop a Afro-Centric marxist from taking over our Country and giving in to America's enemies.

[mhopgood123]

Obama is no more a marxist than McCain is a neonazi. Your comment is simplistic and lacks knowledge of foreing policy and history. Being tough on our enemies doesn't mean obliterating an entire country and its innocent people. Go back to the Middle Ages!

[djthedj]

"Afro-Centric marxist "

Late for the cross burning? It always shocks me just how incredibly stupid smeone has to be to base their opinion of another human on the tone of their skin. The sad thing is, you're a typical American.

[giselley]

Wow, and I thought Hilary was delusional"congrats!

[gro]

Good for Reid. I believe him when he says he is trying to stay neutral.
As for hypotheticals, when will Iran get a nuclear weapon? How many does Israel have right now? Does Obama have to rattle sabers to get 'respect' in November?

[landmine]

There are 9 nations that could do a good job destroying our country. As you read the list, just recall for a minute the tailspin our economy went into when just two planes flew into just two buildings. Now just imagine one bomb hitting just one big city.

Hey, if I can google this stuff, so can you. Might imrove the level of discourse if a few did.

Nuclear weapon list:

USA - 4,000 - 5,000
Russia - 5,000 - 16,000
Britain - 200
France - 350
China - 160
India - 70 - 120
Pakistan - 30 - 80
North Korea - 0 - 10
Israel - 75 - 200 (estimated).

[mhopgood123]

In addition to what you just wrote, let's not forget that we bombed Hiroshima and obliterated innocent victims but these neocons writing here in support of obliterating Iran, wouldn't care about killing millions of innocent victims who have been hijacked by their government.