Clinton On Iran Attack: "Totally Obliterate Them"

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

ABC   |   April 21, 2008 06:42 PM

Read More: Clinton And Attack Iran, Clinton And Obliterating Iran, Clinton Says She Would Attack Iran, Clinton Would Obliterate Iran, Breaking Politics News
Show your support.
Buzz this article up.


Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on Good Morning America Tuesday, ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Read the whole story here.

 
 

Comments
651
Pending Comments
0

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

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
- flacon See Profile I'm a Fan of flacon

Barely concealed anti-semitism on display here. You should all be ashamed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 04/22/2008
- jake666 See Profile I'm a Fan of jake666

Why?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 PM on 04/22/2008
- bluescat47 See Profile I'm a Fan of bluescat47

For HRC to speculate about hypothetical conflict scenarios in the future, from threats that currently do not exist from Iran, is ridiculous. All it has accomplished is to further alienate average Iranians from the United States, many of whom are hoping for a better relationship with the U.S.
And someone should inform HRC that the "massive retaliation" doctrine (directed towards the USSR), famously promoted during the Eisenhower years, proved to be hollow and non-credible. It was replaced by the "flexible response" doctrine when MacNamara was DOD chief, and said basically that the U.S. would respond in an appropriate manner to threats to its friends and allies. In other words, the punishment would fit the crime.
Moreover, with 200 plus nuclear weapons, Israel has its own deterrent force against future Iranian aggression. By attacking Israel, Iran could conceivably bring about the end of both their state and society " and the Iranians know this.
This is loose, irresponsible talk from HRC and her camp. For her to so casually talk about breaching the firebreak between conventional and nuclear weapons is disturbing in the extreme, especially as the number of nuclear states is expanding. Imagine this kind of talk coming from the Chinese or Russians " we would be disturbed, to put it mildly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:57 PM on 04/22/2008
- Whinger See Profile I'm a Fan of Whinger

Were China to attack Israel would she totally obliterte them?

Big talking woman just like her big talking man!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 04/22/2008
- jake666 See Profile I'm a Fan of jake666

Just imagine if she was younger and had PMS, SCARY! Monica Lewinsky would be vapor.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 04/22/2008
- VicPerry See Profile I'm a Fan of VicPerry

Well, I see Hillary's all set to win the 2002 election....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 04/22/2008
- Durango See Profile I'm a Fan of Durango

Ask yourself where we would be had John F. Kennedy had made the statement during a debate in 1960 that if Cuba acquired nuclear weapons we would obliterate them.

And the Cuban Missile Crisis comes long AND . . .

What? Nuclear holocaust? By answering that question Clinton showed she doesn't understand the consequences of off the cuff pronouncements.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 04/22/2008
- Hedonist See Profile I'm a Fan of Hedonist

Terrible analogy. Clearly you failed to understand Clinton's comment. However, it would have been totally justifiable if JFK had made a statement that if Cuba or the Soviets nuked the U.S. or it's allies they would be obliterated in response.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 04/22/2008
- Durango See Profile I'm a Fan of Durango

You don't understand.

If you are president of the USA or want to become President YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

Everyone knows that if you are attacked you will retaliate. The point is she committed the USA to a policy that is 1. imaginary and 2. stupid.

Or do you not know that even off the cuff remarks of Presidents are policy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 04/22/2008
- mrBlue1 See Profile I'm a Fan of mrBlue1

"Loose lips sink ships.....of state.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:19 PM on 04/22/2008
- TruthNow101 See Profile I'm a Fan of TruthNow101

This is exactly why Iran is striving to seek a nuclear weapon (if they are). We invaded both their neighbors and threatened to attack them with a nuclear weapon. the better question is, WHY WOULDN'T THEY SEEK A NUCLEAR WEAPON...its only logical!

Bush policies have made the mid-east a much more dangerous place by serving the interests of zionists ahead of ours.

Hillary is getting what's coming to her

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 PM on 04/22/2008
- BumbleBee See Profile I'm a Fan of BumbleBee

Exactly, TruthNow. It's absolutely insane to even talk about such a hypothetical in such a threatening way. ISRAEL has nuclear weapons -- Iran, thus far, does not. Who's threatening who? How can she BLITHELY talk about obliterating millions of innocent people in Iran. Crazy!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 04/22/2008
- CelticDragon See Profile I'm a Fan of CelticDragon

"... Israel has nuclear weapons and so it would be more than foolish for Iran to strike Israel with a nuclear arsenal. It simply won't happen. If it did happen, Israel would counterstrike."

I agree to some extent with jerseywolf. Israel has a formidable retaliatory capability. Israel has relied on a variety of nuclear capable platforms. These include fighter-bombers such as the F-16, the F-15 Eagle and A-4 Skyhawk. The IRBM force is some 50 Jericho I missiles, and about 50 Jericho II missiles, similar in many respects to the Pershing missile with ranges of about 500 and 1,500 km respectively.
Israel has also taken delivery of three new "Dolphin" class fast-attack submarines based on the popular Type 212 class, with two more under construction. The Dolphin, and her sister ships Leviathan and Truncheon all have ten bow tubes for launching torpedoes and surface to surface missiles, and appear to be configured for a possible Submarine Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM) that has been developed by Israel and tested in the Indian Ocean in 2002. Unnamed U.S. and Israeli military sources say that targets as far as 1,500 km distant were successfully engaged. It is widely believed that the missile is derived from the AGM-142 HAVE NAP "POPEYE" missile and has potentially been armed with a 200 kg nuclear warhead built around a 7 kg plutonium core.

We wouldn't need to interfere. Iran would be a self-lit glass parking lot.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 PM on 04/22/2008
- guntotinganglion See Profile I'm a Fan of guntotinganglion

Charming sentiment. How funny referring to a post-nuclear attack Iran as a self-lit glass parking lot. I'd refer to it more as a massive graveyard littered with what little remains of millions of innocent men, women, children and babies of Iran.

The problem with what Bush refers to as weapons of mass murder is, by definition, users are mass murderers. They are indiscriminate weapons of butchery. Be it a 100 kiloton device, or a ten megaton device, they're all mass murder weapons.

If Iran is turned into a wasteland, Israel will be a mass murder state. The same is true of Iran, if they attack Israel. However, Iran has no capability in this regard. If we fail to engage them in discussions in this regard, and they gain this capability, and use it out of fear of Israel's nuclear capabilities, we will have been a party to mass murder, regardless of who started it.

It's like the line in the movie Dr. Strangelove, about the doomsday weapon only being effective if it is known by both sides. Israel's continuing denial of it's nuclear arsenal begs the question, why? Wouldn't it be a more effective deterrent if revealed? What is Israel's true motivation for keeping their nukes secret? Protecting the complicity of the US perhaps, in the arming of Israel with nuclear weapons, while showing intransigence toward ANY nuclear activity by Israel's neighbors? If this were revealed, there would be hell to pay. And Israel continues it's denials.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 04/22/2008
- MNCurler See Profile I'm a Fan of MNCurler

So, what would Barack do if this happened? Try and talk nice to Iran? That will work pretty good don't you think? And Iran would be laughing the whole time because they know they could do anything they want with no consequences.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 04/22/2008
- cct1984 See Profile I'm a Fan of cct1984

What would Barack do? Nothing of substance, he'll spend lots of time "jaw-boning" in order to give the appearance of progress, but nothing of consequence will result. They reason why: because he has no carrot to offer nor is he willing to use the stick. He's already shown his desire to cut-and-run from Iraq, he voted against declaring Iranian Quds force a terrorist organization, and he's prematurely taken the nuclear option off the table. In short, his actions have already indicated to Ahmadinejad and all the other despots that he's not willing to take the gloves off...he's a pushover. Iran will make a fool of him just like they did with Jimmy Carter and the US hostage crisis.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 04/22/2008
- muffler See Profile I'm a Fan of muffler

The point of a smart strategy is to allow for both diplomatic and military approaches. To outright just say you would engage and nuke is immature and irresponsible. The true scenario will be far more complicated and could escalate beyond anyones capabilities to surpress.

Now that Hillary has proclaimed nuclear retaliation, China can step approach Iran and promise military cover for oil. The entire pronouncement was dramatic and counter productive. This kind of stupid saber rattling is what brings about world wars. Smart politicians and strategists don't make these kinds of remarks. They keep cards to the chest and play the game. I can't stress how ridiculous Hillary looks. She just emulates the G.W. Bush. "bring it on!" stupidity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:41 PM on 04/22/2008
- Hedonist See Profile I'm a Fan of Hedonist

Throughout the Cold War it was explicit U.S. policy that any nuclear attack by the Soviets against the U.S. or its allies would be met by massive nuclear retaliation. How is what Clinton stated any different?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 04/22/2008
- Durango See Profile I'm a Fan of Durango

BECAUSE SHE STATED IT!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 04/22/2008
- Durango See Profile I'm a Fan of Durango

Barak kept his mouth shut about hypothethical questions about nuclear warfare.

Do you think this is a joke? Nuclear holocaust?

YOU KEEP YOUR OPTIONS OPEN by not answering Stupid questions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 PM on 04/22/2008
- jake666 See Profile I'm a Fan of jake666

And we wonder why the Arab world hates us???

Why should isreal have the "A" bomb when the Arab wold can't? Neighter should have it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 04/22/2008
- Hedonist See Profile I'm a Fan of Hedonist

Your comments would be credible if you were aware that Iranians are NOT Arabs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 04/22/2008
- MNCurler See Profile I'm a Fan of MNCurler

The difference is that Isreal isn't out there saying they want to wipe out Iran. Iran is saying they want to wipe out Isreal. Big difference- even someone like you should be able to see that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 04/22/2008
- brainlego See Profile I'm a Fan of brainlego

Whether the president of the Iran has been missquoted not the fact still remains that he is not the decider of Iran and there is actually a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

And once again, you folks are being sold a war ONCE AGAIN. How can you let that slip under your radar?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 04/22/2008
- jake666 See Profile I'm a Fan of jake666

They don't have to say it, they are getting us to do it!!!

What one country did the Iraq war really benefit?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 04/22/2008
- betz55 See Profile I'm a Fan of betz55

MNCurler stated:"The difference is that Isreal isn't out there saying they want to wipe out Iran. Iran is saying they want to wipe out Isreal." The big difference is Israel gets the US to say it for them. How is the US threatening obliteration to the Iranians any different than Iran threatening Israel ? The Iranian issue is 100% Israeli and I for one am sick and tired of being Israel's nanny. America's silence about Israelis nuclear weapons with the latter's 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 makes us a target in the Islamic world, all for the sake of Israel? Sorry I'm not buying. The pledge of allegiance I said every day in school was to the US, not Israel. The time has come for the US to stop pandering to Israel and it's destructive policies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 04/22/2008
- JacobSinger See Profile I'm a Fan of JacobSinger

Get your facts straight; there's been one helluva lot more sabre rattling at Iran from Israel & the US than the othe way around--you guys are just clueless when it comes to this argument. You nver present the known facts, and the arguments you make in defense of Israel are nonsensical, at best.

ISRAEL IS IN DANGER OF NUCLEAR ATTACK FROM IRAN!!!

Never mind that Israel has nukes and Iran doesn't.

Until you've got something of merit to argue with, you should just put a sock in it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 04/22/2008
- jake666 See Profile I'm a Fan of jake666

You reap what you sow!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 PM on 04/22/2008
- TruthNow101 See Profile I'm a Fan of TruthNow101

They don't need to say...Israel is already wiping out Palestine as we speak! Haven't you seen the number of illegal settlements on Palestinian land? If you were to look at a map with settlements, you would find that it looks like a cancer overtaking some organ in your body.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 04/22/2008
- ZenJu See Profile I'm a Fan of ZenJu

How ignorant. The Arab populations of the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, and Israel proper have INCREASED ever since the return of the Jewish people in the 1880s. Israeli Arabs are freer and have more rights (especially women, Christians, and gays) than in ANY part of the Arab world. The "Palestinians" COULD have chosen to have a prospering nation-state in 1947, in 1967, in 2000...shall I go on? You anti-SEMITIC hypocrites! There are REAL genocides going on, right now, in Darfur and the Congo and Tibet, yet you expend your salivating hatred on--guess whom? JEWS. You people are sick. And we are not fooled.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:56 AM on 04/23/2008
- jake666 See Profile I'm a Fan of jake666

Could not of said it better!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 PM on 04/22/2008
- meltingpot101 See Profile I'm a Fan of meltingpot101

Isn't it remarkable and very telling that Hillary shared her foreign policy "umbrella of deterants" in the debate hosted by ABC, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopulous and there was NO FOLLOW UP QUESTION....they have all lost significant credibility.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 04/22/2008
- Rog49Thomas See Profile I'm a Fan of Rog49Thomas

Logically, it's impossible to lose what you never had.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 PM on 04/22/2008
- MikeDu See Profile I'm a Fan of MikeDu

Does this mean that if Israel nuked Iran (a much more likely scenario considering that they're the only ones with nukes) that 'we' would then obliterate Israel in retaliation? Only seems fair, after all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 04/22/2008
- souris See Profile I'm a Fan of souris



.............more and more each and every day Hillary is sounding like a lunatic Republican! Why the heck doesn't she team up with "Bomb Bomb Iran" John McCrazy? Will somebody please whip out a map of the Middle East and show this lying, shrill shrew that Israel is the size of a postage stamp, and "taking-it-out" by Iran [which has NO nukes!] would damage other Arab countries [bet Jordan would be pissed] surrounding it.........................please, Pennsylvania, totally obliterate her today!!!! I'm beggin' 'ya!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 PM on 04/22/2008
- mrBlue1 See Profile I'm a Fan of mrBlue1

"Why doesn't she team up with 'Bomb Bomb Iran john McCrazy?'" Why not, indeed?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 PM on 04/22/2008
- Rog49Thomas See Profile I'm a Fan of Rog49Thomas

In fairness I have a question for Sister Hillary

If Israel nukes Iran, do we have to obliterate Israel?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 PM on 04/22/2008
- likeicare See Profile I'm a Fan of likeicare

Remind me, again, somebody . . . which party's nomination are the Clintons trying to get?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:29 PM on 04/22/2008
- Rog49Thomas See Profile I'm a Fan of Rog49Thomas

Sorry, I was wrong.

McCrazy's got the Yisrael Beitenu nomination sowed up.

Should have know when I saw him with Smokin' Joe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 PM on 04/22/2008
- Rog49Thomas See Profile I'm a Fan of Rog49Thomas

Likud I think.

Or maybe Yisrael Beitenu.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 04/22/2008
- Abram See Profile I'm a Fan of Abram

I can't take much more of this screeching harridan. Do americans really think this kind of irresponsible lunatic ranting makes them more secure? Do they really see bogeymen everywhere? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Do they really think this is illustrative of a strong and responsible leader or just another cowardly weakling who wants to keep them frightened?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:06 PM on 04/22/2008
- UltraClassic See Profile I'm a Fan of UltraClassic

Hillary '08

OK all you intelects out here. Let's say you are the prez. You are reelected in '12 by that time, Iran has in fact built a tactical nuke and deploys it, then uses it on Israel.

What are you going to do? Sit around and sing Kum-Bi-Yah? Jaw jack on how the poor Iranians are just so misunderstood?

What are you going to do cowboy?

Hillary '08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 04/22/2008