Juan Cole: Clinton's Iran Comments "Monstrous"

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 here.

Comments

[MissingAmerica]

A voice of reason!

[mick3]

Clinton seems willing to say or do anything to win the presidency. I notice that she no longer goes on about her "35 years of experience" most of which disqualifies her for this "rabid" feminist. Who can respect a person who co-sponsors a flag-burning bill on the one hand (pandering to the Right as usual) and who votes AGAINST a bill to ban cluster bombs (ditto). Apparently she's fine with alll those blinded, armless and legless, or dead children, thousands of them, due to cluster bombs. And this is the person who wrote a book entitled, "It Takes a Village" about the raising of healthy children. So whose children might they be? Apparently no one living in a war zone where the US has taken action.

Her sly negative attacks on a good man show her true colors, as did her cozying up to a neo-con early in her term as senator, muttering that we should "revisit Roe v Wade." And she is the darling of feminists? Give me a break! I disagree with Obama on a lot of things: Israel and the democracy push in South America, but I'll take him, or Howdy Doody (no, not Bush, that's just a resemblance) before I'd vote for Clinton. May have to sit out an election for the first time in my 80 years.

[Durango]

I read a book by a British tourist who traveled around Central Asia. I believe it was about the rug trade, can't recall the title. Excellent book however.

Anyhow he described going to Iran after traveling in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He said entering Iran was like a breath of fresh air. The country was clean. And prosperous. And the people were friendly.

In fact he described a situation that was, quite frankly, incredible. He said that the Iranian Customs Official was friendly and helpful. Let him stay in the country without a proper visa until he could help him get the right one. After hours.

I also had a friend who was one of the first Americans to visit Iran. He was making a snowboarding video. He said the people were extremely friendly and took to Americans.

Only one HUGE problem though.

They were into Heavy Metal.

These are people so many of you are willing to obliterate?

[nuglet304]

cool glasses, fella.

[obamanation31]

that's all you have to say?

[ctbutte]

Juan Cole would be first in line to submit to his islamist masters!

[MajorKong]

Translation from wingnut speak: "First in line to submit to his Islamist masters" = doesn't want to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on Iran, tomorrow if not sooner.

[obamanation31]

again with negative comments.

[ctbutte]

The truth is sometimimes negative. The people , the common people of Iran are not the problem. Its the mullahs and their puppets that run the country that are the problem. They are stuck in the 7th fucking century and refuse to broaden their horizons. I hope and pray for the day when the people of Iran, stand up once again for their freedom as they did when they made the tragic mistake of allowing the mullahs to take control.

[elmysterio]

One could say the same thing about the United States.

[MajorKong]

The last time the people of Iran had freedom was 1953. They certainly didn't have it under the Shah and his secret police.

[ProgressiveBum]

Clinton's foot-in-mouth disease is growing to pandemic proportions. No material, just pandering.

[Amomma]

Did Obama have a Freudian slip? Did he just say we would protect IRAN if someone struck Iran? I thought the question was" if" Iran Nuked Israel?

Do you propose to negotiate with a country who wants to destroy another country? Do you let these "folk" develop WMD?

Do you tip toe around a country that is a rough nation?

If Iran wants to live by the sword than they should expect to die by the sword.

Do you think for a second Iran would try to avoid killing all of Israel's people? That is in fact what they would like to do. On the record.

Does the world not care because it is a Jewish state.?

[MajorKong]

The President of Iran has also said "Iran is a threat to no other country, including the Zionist Entity". Of course, I'm only supposed to believe him when he says something that helps make our case for attacking Iran. Which we wanted to do long before he became President.

[donaldw6]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Amomma. It was a slip -- I heard it -- but not a Freudian one, which would be obvious if you were really paying attention.

What if Iran nuked Israel? It would be pretty freaking amazing, since they don't have nukes.

Does Ahmadinejad want to "wipe Israel off the map"? Not as far as I know. I'm hardly a fan of Ahmadinejad, but his remarks were mistranslated, likely on purpose, and he actually expressed a wish that the current Israeli government would "disappear from the pages of time". His beef is with the government, not Israel. Mahmoud's got lots of problems, but this one is made up.

If we really care about Israel, we'll defuse tension in the region, not exacerbate it. Hillary's remarks are absolutely inexcusable. They represent precisely the sort of attitude we're trying to put behind us. Once upon a time, the people of Iran held candlelight vigils for us in mourning for the events of 9/11. Once upon a time, Iran gave their support for our actions in Afghanistan. Since then, we've done nothing but polarize them, given them additional leverage in the mideast, and given their hard-line conservatives talking points to bolster their support against American aggressive tendencies.

If we really do care, let's care enough to stop being stupid.

[POINT84]

SHUT THE F**K UP!!

1) Iran has not been to war with anyone in the last 100 years!!
2) There is noo way the world would just watch them attack Isreal and not do anything. Iran is a non threat. stop the madness....Geez, feel like Im being timewarped back to 2003 all over again.

[Amomma]

Iran is a rogue nation who will not allow the world in because they are developing WMD. Iraq did not say they had no nukes left after Israel bombed their Nukes because they themselves believed and feared Iran had WMD. If you do not realize Iran will tell you one thing while doing another you will make a SNL sketch happen for real.

[DexGor]

Wow, nothing in that post is accurate.

"Iran is a rogue nation who will not allow the world in because they are developing WMD."

Actually, Iran has been letting people in. Earlier in the decade, they even adhered to the NPT's Additional Protocols allowing for more intrusive IAEA inspections despite the fact that they were under no legal obligation to do so.

"Iraq did not say they had no nukes left after Israel bombed their Nukes because they themselves believed and feared Iran had WMD."

First, Isreal bombed a nuclear reactor, not "nukes" (weapons). Second, Iraq never actually claimed to have nukes and has never had nukes (although there was certainly a program). Third, Iraq did have its own WMDs which it used routinely on Iranian troops and cities during the war (making use of US intelligence provided to Hussein).

"If you do not realize Iran will tell you one thing while doing another you will make a SNL sketch happen for real."

Umm...EVERY country does that (including the US and Israel) so how is that an argument against Iran?

[ctbutte]

So that whole Iran-Iraq War was a myth?

[MajorKong]

Iraq was the aggressor in that war (with our backing I might add).

We helped Saddam Hussein (you know, the one you guys said was the most evil guy on the planet) kill close to a million Iranians.

Do you suppose they might be just a bit miffed about that?

[mjc]

Obliterate was not the best choice of words, but think it is clearly representative of her attitude about standing with Israel if they were attacked. Ahmadinejhad used the same kind of language targeting Israel. And of course, as Hillary said, there is no question that Israel can take care of themselves. Even so, we would probably never have to plan such "obliteration". But diplomacy doesn't always get the message across, whereas that comment might.

[valkyrie607]

By all means, let us hold our presidential candidates to the same standards of rhetoric and diplomacy as those to which we hold Pres. Ahmedinijad.

And people wonder why the Iranians are paranoid about being attacked by the US.

[CapitalistRebel]

Agreed

[deeoneakin]

Regardless of how Clinton's supporters want to spin her remarks the bottomline is this; if she ever becomes president the Iranians will NEVER negotiate with her administration based on these remarks.

[Roshi98]

Every president since Carter has been using language like this - if you think that the Iranians take this talk as indicative of true motive, you're fooling yourself.

Plus, Hillary provided much more detail (in the same interview) on what her policy prior towards Iran (whether Iran gets nukes or not) would be - intensive diplomacy, multi-lateral negotiations, gradual easing of tensions, and a better understanding of the inner-workings within Iran.

To whit. Obama suggested that, with actionable intelligence, he would send planes and missiles into Pakistan, offering no clarification. Hillary said the same, but with the caveat that she would first inform both Pakistan AND India in order to prevent an accidental nuclear war from breaking out. Obama said he would negotiate leader-to-leader with North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. Hillary said that intense negotiation and common agreements would have to be hammered out prior to any consideration of such meetings. Obama said that he will rely on the advice of his closest advisors to make critical decisions. Hillary said that, while advisors have their place, the responsibility of making decisions and setting policy rests in the hands of the president.

With all of the problems facing our nation that need attention NOW, I'll take the flawed but hard-working Hillary over the charismatic but ethereal Obama any day.

[donaldw6]

I still have errands to run and things to do, but as I'm able to settle down and follow today's primaries, I'm setting a goal to keep track of Hillary support postings to see if even one of them doesn't distort the truth in some fashion. Your rendition of Obama regarding Pakistan is a fabrication, since he actually said the U.S. would attack if Pakistan would not. There's a world of difference between what he said, and your representation of it. Your "distinction" regarding advisors is strange at best.

My work's cut out for me. Is there a Hillary supporter on HuffPo today who will string more than two or three sentences together that are actually true?

[olivia]

Hillary does not want to talk about the war.

She'll whip up any kind of controversy, no matter how stupid, to avoid the subject coming around to that one.

Hillary knows the war is her Achilles heel.

[DAVESEAN]

The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, GOP Model Has Been Tested -- And It Failed
The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, they are simply going to fail.

But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: "Not you." No matter what the GOP Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, "Not you."

The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, "Not the Republicans."

Republicans Have Lost the Advantage on Every Single-Issue Poll
A February Washington Post poll shows that Republicans have lost the advantage to the Democrats on which party can handle an issue better -- on every single topic.

Americans now believe that Democrats can handle the deficit better (52 to 31), taxes better (48 to 40) and even terrorism better (44 to 37).

This is a catastrophic collapse of trust in Republicans built up over three generations on the deficit, two generations on taxes, and two generations on national security
OBAMA FOR PRESIDO,REPUBS DEAD

The Rep loss in the special election for Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District last Saturday IS AN EVIDENCE for Republicans:Congressional Republicans are going to suffer decisive losses this Nov.

The facts are clear .

Saturday's loss was in a district that President Bush carried by 19 percentage points in 2004 and that the Republicans have held since 1975.

[Busterdawg]

Wow! Another elitist academic for Obama... pinch me, I must be dreaming.

[MajorKong]

I guess you wouldn't want some elitist med school graduate doing open heart surgery on you either.

[sclucie]

I believe that the elitist of all elitists, Bill Kristol, the one who doesn't believe there is a race problem in America, came out today for Hillary. Paul Krugman, an economist from Princeton, which you would have to call an awfully elitist place, has all but proposed to Hillary for the past six months - praising every move she makes even when many of her positions are identical to her opponents. The last Clinton presidency was jam-packed with elitists, from think tanks, academia and Wall Street. Virtually all of the neocons that got us into this wretched war - Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Richard Kagan, are all Ivy-League think tank/academic elitists who have never held a normal job in their lives - and probably never interact with anyone but elitists.

Who do you think Hillary would fill her White House with? Us? The guys from the bar in PA?

[mjc]

Gee, and with all the comments about how Hillary Clinton doesn't appeal to well-educated and well-off. Krugman AND Kristol have complimented her and disagreed with her. Why is it that Obama disciples think there is only black and white when it comes to opinions? There is an awful lot immaturity out there. Do we excuse it because they're young?

[nellie]

Do you know anything at all about this man? Google his bio, then post your apology.

[Durango]

If by elitist you mean somebody who speaks the language who has lived in the region and knows hs subject. Why yes.

Personally I am real tired of no elitist idiots telling the rest of us what they don't know.

[JXB]

Hyper-aggressive tough talk about taking military action around the world, gimmicky tax cuts during war time, dewey-eyed reminiscing about learning to fire a gun as a young child,...is this a candidate for the Democratic nomination we're talking about?

[KillTheMessenger]

I think Senator Clinton has made it clear that she has the testicular fortitude to use weapons of mass destruction in her campaign. That they are mostly killing her own credibility and poison everything she was claiming to stand for is of absolutely no importance to her. That's what fixation on polling numbers can do to a politician who has no other program than her own rise to power.

[getoffmedz]

Paying attention to Juan Cole is a very wise thing to do.

[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.