Juan Cole: Clinton's Iran Comments "Monstrous"

Informed Content:

I had complained at the time that this diction is monstrous. I mean, it is surreal to have Democrats discussing whether it is appropriate for the US to "totally obliterate" another country. It would be one thing if she had threatened the Iranian military. Targeting civilians, who would be included in the "total" obliteration, is a war crime.

Clinton stood by her remarks: "I don't think it's time to equivocate. [Iran has] to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in." The premise that "they" only understand the language of massive violence is in fact a rightwing premise more characteristic of W. and Ariel Sharon than of the Democratic Party tradition.

Read the whole story: Informed Content

Comments

[rollingdivision]

The Iranians do not have nuclear weapons. The Iranians are not developing nuclear weapons. The Iranians have no plans to develop nuclear weapons. And the Iranians have no plans to acquire nuclear weapons. So the correct reply to Clinton's remarks is, the premise is completely false in that Iran will never have the nuclear weapons to attack anyone. To worry about these remarks is to tacitly accept that Iran will have nuclear weapons and that is incorrect, isn't it?

[transendentilist]

Oh get over it, already. Israel can take care of herself. She doesn't need our nukes. Iran doesn't even have nukes, so this whole thing is really a moot point.
This is just another hit piece on Hillary

[valkyrie607]

Hillary hit herself on this one.

[EFC]

HRC is a screeching banshee. She is so strung out from the ups and downs of her frantic quest for power that she has morphed into a pathetic caricature. Her “obliterate” comment is even more deplorable than Bush’s loony “axis of evil” metaphor. Right now she is the last person that should be picking up any 3 am calls. She needs a very very long vacation. Hopefully it will begin soon.

[Busterdawg]

"screeching banshee", more misogynistic hate speech. Nice job.

[EFC]

Oh, that's right she has cojones. Sorry.

[naschkatze]

Juan Cole knows what he is talking about. His blog is among the most seriously thoughtful if not THE most. Oh, but I forgot, what do experts matter, eh?

[transendentilist]

Crapola.

[nellie]

When you use the word "crapola' in reference to Juan Cole, you are saying a lot about yourself. And not a thing about Cole.

[new logic]

to the world, we have become the Philistines

[Dangler]

Why hasn't this been made into a bigger issue? This is worse rhetoric than anything Jeremiah Wright concocted.­.... AMAZING!

[olivia]

Hillary does not want to talk about the war. She is vulnerable there.

She will drum up any scandal or stupid gimmick to avoid it.

[transendentilist]

She isn't vulnerable. She did nothing wrong concerning the Iraq war. She didn't start it, despite what Obama would have you believe. Only the POTUS can order the military to attack another country. Last I looked, Hillary was just a senator in 02. We all know who's war this is, and it's not Hillary's. We spent the last 5 years knocking hell out bush for this stupid war, but now it's Hillary's fault???? Crap!

[debrouillard]

Well,its against another nation and not America. According to the American media,the only real lives are those that live in America.If they have their way,the whole world cld be Obliterated.

[GrainOSand]

...and therein (your comment) lies the truth and the crux of the issue.

[daddydamon]

No, there are real lives in Israel as well - but that's it.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

As Randi Rhodes said yesterday and she should know, the Clintons intimidate the media. She was suspended for making comments about Hillary off the air. David Schuester was suspended after the Clitnons wrote to the head of MSNBC asking he be fired for comments about Chelsea being pimped out. The CLintons are just a couple of thugs. They have power to wield and they weild it on anyone that stands in their way.

[peacehappens]

Because our media in the US is controlled by the government and corporations? Nothing is big news unless they want it to be news. Nothing is reported they don't want reported.

Chris Matthews brought up Rev. Wright again and again last night and justified it by saying their ratings proved there was a huge appetite for this stuff. BS!

[transendentilist]

Because no harm was done. To anybody. The whole thing is a hypothetical situation. This is just a weak excuse to attack Hillary.
Israel has her own nukes.

[new logic]

I was viewing the Photos of Hiroshima from the Robert L. Capp Collection, and just reflecting on the innocents destroyed by our WMD's , in Japan and the innocents in Vietnam and Iraq...com­ing back to HP, reading this insane statement by HC and reflecting on what wright said about our country" U can't expect to terrorize other nations and expect immunity from the repercussion of our actions "(paraphrased). people we are on a slippery slope

[betz55]

The Iran issue is 100% Israeli, Iran is no danger to the US. Make Israel adhere to the standards that it and the US want to impose on Iran. Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty ,which Iran has done. Israel refuses to allow IAEA inspections of their nuke facilities, which Iran has done. Israel refuses to comply with any UN resolutions.

America's media silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and their lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric with regard to Iran's nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member, is an example of the kind of outright double standard that the United States has been following in its foreign policy.

And we try to get Iran -- an NPT member -- to stop enriching uranium and expect not to sound outright hypocritical? Iran has every right to defend themselves against Israel. The IAEA in Israel ? The reaction would be spectacular and filled with claims of persecution and divine right. Israel is the biggest bully, destabilizing, warmongering, belligerent aggressor there and needs to be dealt with before Tehran.

Unconditional, unquestioned, never ending financial support of Israeli is bad for the US. Israeli policies are no longer in line with US policies, and, as a result are making the US more of a target than ever in the Islamic world. The bigger issue ? What if Israel attacks Iran ? Would we then obliterate Israel ?

[Dlukes]

The United States reminds me of the history of the Roman Empire. They were to big to govern, and could not handle the religious insurgents of Christianity, and other developing social and economic ideologies threating their empire. They feel because of greed and social unrest due to their oppresive government. We as a country are beginning to share that history. Our country has failed to focus on the core principles that has kept America a super power for over fifty years. Israel is more about politics than true concern for the people of that region. I am assuming that religion plays a large part on our reason for supporting Israel. Historically, they are defined as the chosen people of God. But according to judaism prophecy, did not Jesus Christ ministry fulfill the law? In Christianity God is not respector of persons-the chosen people are now those who accept Jesus Christ as they Lord and Savior. Therefore what is our true relationship with Israel? Is it the possibility of damaging our relationship with Jewish voters? Iran has no real power in the middle east. It is Saudi Arabia that has more of a political influence in this country and the middle east. We can not forget Iranians do desire a democratic government. Prior to the 1970's they were our ally. Voters read up on there History. It is a great nation who has created poor governments.

[new logic]

Iran has oil.

[peacehappens]

I agree 100%. If Iran did build one nuclear warhead and did attack Israel with it Israel would not wait for the US. It would fire off it's own nuclear bombs to obliterate Iran. I've read that it is guessed that they have somewhere between 300 and 500 war heads.

Israel's aggressions, use of chemical weapons and cluster bombs, consistent stealing of land from the Palestinians, insistence on a different standard for itself has made me very much against the Israeli government.

I find Hillary, who I was a fan of in the 90s, vile and repulsive now. I can no longer stand to listen to anything she says.

[valkyrie607]

There are good people living in Iran. I hope to have the chance to visit someday. Iran is the land of the great poets Rumi and Hafiz, as well as the home of the whirling dervishes. Do Americans really want to go down in history as the people who wiped all that out?

[peacehappens]

I believe that Americans as a whole don't want to do that but the people in power don't really care.

[coolrepublica]

If they wipe out Israel, then we don't mind going down in history as the people who wiped them out. Any more questions?

[new logic]

U are an idoit

[nellie]

Please get your nose out of the video games and join the human race.

[valkyrie607]

That's a helluva big "if," buddy.

Try to remember that during the past 100 years, Iran has attacked exactly nobody, whereas the USA has attacked..­. well, a lot of countries.

Recall also that our very own intelligence agencies have evaluated Iran as having suspended efforts to build a nuclear weapon, since 2003.

Why exactly are our politicians tossing these inflammatory hypotheticals around, anyway? That's my next question. Care to respond?

[valkyrie607]

I would add, also, that even in the event that Iran attacked Israel, the word "obliterate" implies genocide, which is a crime against humanity. Clinton is essentially proposing to commit war crimes. But then, what else is new?

[sightseein]

"I mean, it is surreal to have Democrats discussing whether it is appropriate for the US to "totally obliterate" another country."

Absolutely. I don't think George Bush has said anything even that ridiculous, close, but nothing this bad. It's not a football game we're talking about, peoples lives are at stake.

Hillary has gone back to her hawkish ways, which I truly believe is the reason she's in a failed bid for the white house today. Her loss of support from her Democratic base started there.

Foreign policy wise, she's sounding like Bush and McCain.

[CatLadyforObama]

Her allegiance to winning is taking precedence over her allegiance to the Democratic party and it's core principles.

[sclucie]

Hillary Clinton would never have made those remarks in California - and if she had, she would have lost by a landslide. She is changing positions as she crosses state boundaries - and anybody who thinks the RNC is not watching is nuts. Here's what she said in Iowa when she was asked why she supported Dick Cheney on Kyl/Lieberman and Iran:

"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."

Her position is to the right of Bush and McCain - neither of them have used such reprehensible language. If George Bush is better able to control his foreign policy statements than Hillary Clinton, I consider her to be flat-out dangerous.

[Dlukes]

Great point! She is changing positions as she crosses state boundaries.

[naschkatze]

I am hearing and reading that, in those big states like CA and NJ which Clinton won, there is real buyers' remorse going on now.

[sd4peace]

We don't need any more saber-rattling. What good comes from threatning a weaker country with obliteration?

[mybelovedcountry]

just unfortunate choice of words or inexperien­ce?...who do you want answering the phone @ 3am!

[whatchamean]

The war of hypotheticals. Existing Iran Nukes= 0 Existing Israel Nukes= 200 Hmmm, let me see a country with zero nukes is a great threat to a country with over 200 nukes. In Hillary's brain, everything is the reverse of reality if it will get her a vote.

[aquarius2001]

Within the first 60 days of her presidency, HRC will pull troops out of Iraq....an­d send them to Iran!

[LeftLeaner]

I guess you can't please everyone !

[ntmessage]

Well... the question was if Iran nuked Israel, which means that Iran had already obliterated their neighbor, who lost six million people during the holocaust and a close ally of the US.

She answered the hypothetical question correctly and this policy served us well and the world well during the cold war.

[Sabreen60]

Were you an adult during the cold war, because AGAIN, please provide sources where the United States of America told the Soviet Union that we would obliterate them.

[Canaris]

Well, Kruscheb did once say that the Soviet Union "would bury us", meaning the US. We can see how well that worked out for both him and the USSR.

[nellie]

Mutual assured destruction was the Cold War policy of both the U.S. and Soviet Union. It is credited by a number of historians with keeping us out of a nuclear winter.

[HumeSkeptic]

An appropriate response would have been that "Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and, according to our NIE document, has no plans to develop one. Therefore, I would work to ensure that that an attack such as the one you described never happens."

That would have indicated that Hillary has now started reading NIE documents and paying attention to facts - something she either didn't do or deliberately ignored when she voted to authorize Iraq war.

[Durango]

Exactly.

[rzan]

I guess some people just never learn from past mistakes, an unfortunate quality in a president.

[Durango]

You do know that the policy during the Cold War was Mutually Assured Destruction MAD

Appropriate because any use of nuclear weapons is insanity.

[sd4peace]

Israel has nukes themselves, they don't need ours

[new logic]

we know Israel has WMD.......­we sold them to them......­..with American tax payers monies ....in the form of foreign aid

[sclucie]

She answered a hypothetical question in an incredibly dangerous way - and our allies - not our enemies are the ones who have responded with alarm. If Bush had not insisted on cowboy diplomacy like this, we would not have gone into Iraq almost alone, we would not be spending $2 billion a month alone, we would not have an economy in shambles. We would have allies - the way we have for decades. Allies create stability and security - not cowboy diplomacy. We have never been less safe.