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

[HumeSkeptic]

It is not so much what Hillary said that is of concern, it is what she believes in and what she would do as President. Hillary has given every indication that she would more or less continue the disastrous NeoCon approach to foreign policy.

[nellie]

Wise, as usual, Hume.

[olivia]

Any campaign promises will be just like the DNC promises she signed - just goalposts to be shifted when it's convenient for her.

[obamanation31]

She just a huge increase in terrorist enrolement.

[IndependentMeans]

I think she should be publically denounced by all members of Congress for this agregious remark. I am dismayed and embarrassed by her pronouncement. This is not right, where is our leadership?

[gun]

Oh, and force, billions, the proliferation of Middle East violence
would be good for us?

like in Iraq but bigger and more complex.

I hold these truths to be self-evident:

1. America First is not Israel First.

2. That their well-earned case of paranoia has its own inertia, and is contagious, but it is dementia, nonetheless:

3. The worst enemy of Israel is Israel; just like the worst enemy of America is America.

Dear: those who voted for Bush, embraced the war, love NeoCons, how do all those ashes taste?

Did we learn anything?

Hillary's Bottom line - like Bush and Cheney she has no bottom line , because apparently there is no line she won't cross to be popular and powerful.

lie?yes; cheat? yes; and now KILL. She said what she said, you know, as a signal to all Jewish voters -- Lieberman's People.

And she will add some of those to her coalition of semi-bright, semi-racist, semi-poor blue collar democrats who, ironically, are the same people victimized by Reagan and Bush.

No matter what Obama's defects, he is nowhere near as demented, desperate or dangerous.

Sincerely,

A Jew For Peace

[sclucie]

Thank you. Give to J Street!

[rmreddicks]

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/smalloy/atomic_tragedy/photos.html

The Garden of Earthly Delights. Is this what Clinton and McCain truly desire?

[Rasteira]

Did you notice that Hillary threw the feminists under the bus?
She's cast aside her woman hood to appear more ballsy,
effectively selling the notion that the only way to be president
is to be manly. Sorry feminists, Hillary doesn't care about you.

[Gma11]

There are primarily two types of hierarchies, dominator hierarchies and actualization hierarchies (more common in "partnership" societies/relationships). It's interesting that as a feminist, Hillary intends to continue the type of dominator hierarchies that so many of we feminists have objected to.

[sclucie]

Haven't heard a single speech about women's rights since the California primary. Not one.

[Durango]

One of the most disturbing trends over the past 7 years (or so) was the fact that George W. Bush would never move on anything that was not calculated to gain partisan political advantage. Mostly short term advantage. Which is a large part of why we are where we are now.

Hillary is repeating this stupidity.

She said what she said, and then repeated it, not because it is sensible policy. Not because there is any real threat from Iran. (If Iran attacks Israel with weapons they don't have what would you do?)

But because she thinks talking tough will pick up a few votes on the margins.

The fact that if, God forbid, she becomes President that statement becomes US policy she is willing to ignore.

This shows an extreme lack of judgment on her part. And this ALONE makes her unfit for the White House. Her repeating the statement only confirms this judgment.

We have put up with this type of non-sense for far too long in our political leadership. We need a President who knows when to keep his mouth shut. We need intelligence back in the Oval Office.

[new logic]

we need a nation of the people for the people by the people'....we need leaders who abide by the constitution of the USA...reasonable leaders, not power/wealth hungry warmongers

[Durango]

And intelligence, don't forget intelligence.

Not that i don't think Hillary is intelligent. She obviously is. But she is allowing her political pandering to get the better of it.

Which shows a lack of judgment. Which is dangerous.

[nellie]

I have so much respect for Juan Cole. I had pretty much dismissed Clinton's comment as Cold War rhetoric, but he is getting me to rethink my reaction.

[Lisette]

I agree!
But, that Hillary is soooo obnoxious and arrogant.
No wonder Bill had so many affairs.

[Roxanna]

I find her remarks Greatly Disparing !!

Obviously Hilary is catering to for the votes of Military Arrogance Mentality. Remarks like this in no way leads to diplomatic reconciliations and Peace in our world. She might as well join the Republican party and their efforts to continue War!!!

[TodStewart]

Thank you for the post. Hillary (Hydra) officially moved further to the right than most neocons.

What makes things so frustrating is that the MSM is no longer news. It's been a drip, drip process for years, but over the past 12 months, it has all but evaporated. The words Hillary used ARE A WAR CRIME. You cannot say that you are going to obliterate a country...if she was in an international court, she would be convicted. It's just like saying you plan on killing the POTUS...it is not legal.

Why is the MSM not covering war crimes occurring in Iraq? We're using depleted uranium shells...there are war crimes tribunals taking place internationally against Bush and Blair but our media won't even put it on the news.

[5thGenDem]

Everyone decrying Clinton's "threat" ignores the fact that it was merely an answer to a question regarding a hypothetical Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. The threat to retaliate after a nuclear attack on an ally is nothing close to being a war crime.

[Meggie]

it was a stupid answer to the question. the iranian people are supposed to be our friends. they're supposed to be suppressed by their fundamentalist government. why does hillary want to kill all of them?
does hillary think that israel wouldn't already have nuked iran if iran attacked them? why would the US feel the need to pile on? a diplomatic approach that tried to work with our friends, iranian people, would most likely find a better long term outcome.

[curmudgeon3]

A few years ago, I saw an estimate that Israel had at least 200 nukes. Does Hillary really think that, under such a scenario, once Israel has fired them at Iran, further destruction would be necessary?

Why doesn't someone ask her (and McCorpse, for good measure) this question?

[5thGenDem]

Hillary didn't ask the question, the reporter did, and she wasn't asked what Israel would do, it was what the US should do. No doubt you're correct about an Israeli response (which in itself should discourage Iran), but remember that Clinton had to give an immediate answer to the reporter's question - hardly time to contemplate what Israel itself might do assuming its capability to attack Iran remained .

Why doesn't someone ask Obama the same question?

[sd4peace]

"Had to give an immediate answer"

Was she on Jeopardy? Just because she HAD to give an immediate answer doesn't excuse her for giving an unfortunate one.

[chery]

Obama did answer the question. That's not the point here. The point here is that in a split second, Hillary revealed who she actually is! Even one deep breathe could've saved her from this awful mess, but no... she gives us a glimpse of the war monger that is hiding under her sheeps clothing!

[Dlukes]

I understand Israel's position. They are surrounded by their enemies, and live in fear. Therefore they have developed this nuke program as a form of political leverage to prohibit future attacks on their nation. I get it! But oppressing the palestinians will not help their position in the middle east. They have to take clear measures to insist that political peace becomes part of their political dialogue. How 3000 year old problem resolve itself today? The Jewish people want to preserve their land, and with great reason, but how do we all go forward?

[Durango]

I agree. Israel's nuclear weapons are the bottom line. They are the ultimate threat. Which will never be used. (they hope) Because if they are then everything gets destroyed.

Which is why Israel doesn't admit to having them. You don't have to explain what you don't have. But everyone knows the threat. And the threat is real.

Which makes Hillary's statement that much dumber.

If Hillary really wants to pander to the Pro-Israeli vote why doesn't she talk about rational solutions, or at least process, for Israel and the Palestinians to live together?

[lthuedk 1]

It's classic Likuddist thinking, of course, that Hillary embraces, not Labor, who engage their mouths and minds-not their trigger finger.

She is not a Democrat. Her followers are now, in fact, fully operational Republicans and they don't even know it. You are as you act. Hillary keeps very close to the Corporation, the same Corporation that is now pulling the strings of reactionary Conservative minds who would support the ultimate recklessness to advance it's agenda.

So Hillary, in blurting out her true feelings, quite rightly should disturb real Democrats or any American who values negotiation over aggression. But Hillary has aligned herself and her naive supporters with those who have had a plan to obliterate Iran for decades; the Neo Cons.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/neo_con_totality.html

[CarrieMN]

I agree with the poster who said that they're uncomfortable traveling in other parts of the world because they are American. My sister, who was going to visit relatives in Germany this summer, said she wouldn't go now because of the anti-American sentiment in much of Europe. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could have a president who could restore America's respect and status in the global community? Talk of "obliterating" another country in NOT the way to achieve this goal. Sen. Clinton has demonstrated her disregard for experts in the economic field, and there's no indication she would listen to expert advice on any matter whatsoever. Would she be another "decider" like our current president? Please, if there is even one NC or IN voter who reads these blogs, give some careful consideration to this issue.

[Lagniappe]

Carrie, your post reflects much of my sentiment. I said sometime back that her brashness and "throwin' down the gauntlet attitude"( a female version of GW's Cowboy approach) does NOT play well on the world stage,particularly in the Middle East-where we need some grace the most! Hillary is not a straight shooter with her own fellow Americans,can you imagine what "Annie Oakley on the Potomac" would do to our relations with the rest of the world?

[Durango]

Gee, do you really think that the countries of Europe, you know the ones who were all but OBLITERATED in WW II might have some strong feelings on the subject?

How about the countries of the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, who saw the USA go into Iraq unilaterally and destroy the national sovereignty of that nation might just worry about further cowboy rhetoric?

We are America. We don't worry about world opinion.

[Sundialsvc4]

It is not difficult to understand the mechanisms which present us with "three so-called choices" consisting of the very same Senators who have, throughout their tenure, promoted and sustained exactly what faces us today. Their every blink is a matter of the public record at the Library of Congress web-site: http://thomas.loc.gov.

When in the 1930's Japan was talking about its "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," and at about the same time Germany was redrawing its own world maps, the old folks who'd survived the hell of twenty years prior knew ... that IT ... was coming ... again, "greater and more terrible than ever before." Nobody lifted a hand to stop it.

Did you ever read "Doctor Strangelove?" How about, "On the Beach?" What if George Orwell just got the math a little wrong?

Like so many others before you, you fail to grasp that you are looking at Hell. But other nations in this world DO understand it. They've been there... a hundred years later, Frenchmen are still cleaning up after World War ONE.

[TodStewart]

Agreed. What's so sick is that all the information is available on the Web, but no on the airwaves. Preemptive war = War Crime. Using depleted uranium = War Crime. Intentional depopulation = War Crime. False Flags are War Crimes.

Spread the word...Operation Mockingbird is alive and well, unfortunately. As in The Matrix, you have to take the red pill and see how far the rabbit hole goes. If you want a jump start, use youtube or google and type in "9/11 false flag"

[sd4peace]

I'm with you brother! See you in Gitmo!