Clinton On Iran: Could "Totally Obliterate" Them If They Attacked Israel

For the last six weeks Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., have battled and bickered and both have unleashed a barrage of negativity in television ads that have aired thousands of times in the state....

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 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

[Manx]

I would like to see a woman as president some day but not Hillary. As a woman, she feels that it's more important to look tough than to offer a more rational approach to a potentially catastrophic situation. If we bombed Iran, the price of gasoline would soar to over $ 10.00 a gallon. Think of what that would do to our economy. We don't need another four years or so of cowboy diplomacy.

[newshawk14]

Hillary's comments are close to insane, Israel has far and away the largest number of nuclear
weapons and the systems to reliably deliver them. What they need most from us, is to discourage
nuclear proliferation or the contemplation of nuclear war, and to bring the parties together to
lessen tensions in the region. They don't need a mad hawk.

[Jason357]

Contradiction? Around here, we call it lying.

[sassafra]

uhhh...hillary, excuse me for asking, but why would *we* need to nuke iran if israel was nuked? isn't that what israels "secret" nuclear deterrent is *for*?? sheesh. what is *wrong* with you? are you that eager to get involved in a nuclear exchange of weapons?

[HuffyPuff]

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 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

-------------------

As I read through these comments I wonder what you all have been drinking? The question was what she would do if they attacked Israel...our main ally in the region...with a NUCLEAR WEAPON. What do you want her to say? Oh, please don't do that...It would hurt our relationship? We won't like you any more? We'll tell on you?

Folks, the only reason we were not attacked by the Soviets was because they knew...KNEW that that would be the end. There was no doubt about what our response would be. I WANT Iran to think that shooting off a nuke would spell the end. And North Korea. And China. And Pakistan. And anyone else who might be tempted. They have to understand there is a zero tolerance for nuclear engagement.

And before you go off on me...I was against this war from the start and was actively against and a conscientious objector during Viet Nam.

[Vern58]

This should be a deal breaker right there. In todays world, what thinking human being in their right mind would advocate such a preposterous position. My dear Ms. Clinton- you are showing yourself as the kind of closet Republican even your rock ribbed Republican daddy could have voted for. Sorry, Hill, but your Goldwater Girl roots are showing- and no amount of explanation will put this nuclear genie back in the bottle.

[MM5]

Disgusting pandering to the Israeli lobby....she needs their $$.

[BEHM777]

While I am no fan of the Iranian government, I have no problem with Iranian people. Obliterating Iran would mean millions of INNOCENT folk would die/suffer. What a human catastrophe THAT would be. Can you imagine what would happen to the price of oil then? I don't know if they ever would, but I sincerely hope Iran never would be foolish enough to attack Israel with nuclear weapons (should they ever acquire them). Somehow, I have a feeling that Israel may launch a preemptive strike on Iran if they felt there was a real danger of such a thing happening. Hillary Clinton's comments here make her sound a bit to much like Dick Cheney for my tastes.

[rikkirighteous]

A nuclear attack on Israel--which is the topic--would mean millions of INNOCENT people would suffer.

But if they're Jews, who cares, right?

[BEHM777]

I should have said "a bit too much." Sorry.

[mommadona]

What WOMAN would AUTOMATICALLY STATE she would enable the annihalation of someone else's children for POLITICAL REASONS?

What in the HELL IS THE WOMAN THINKING?

That would be the ONLY REASON TO ELECT A WOMAN - so THE DAMN NUCLEAR OPTION WOULD BE OFF THE TABLE.

It's penis envy on steroids.

Hill's sproutin' somethin' beyond cajones.

SHE'S A GOLDWATER GIRL!!!!

13. "G.O.P. Nominee's Views, in His Own Words, on Major Issues of Campaign," and "Goldwater Plan Opposed to NATO'S; Alliance Has Long Let U.S. Hold Nuclear Reins," The New York Times, 11 and 18 July 1964.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/special/index.htm

[AnnieinOR]

Blood-thirsty DINO - your lust for power would allow you to threaten nukes on the middle east? Think before you speak - again, lack of judgment, while the whole world watches this primary.

[getoffmedz]

BINGO! She appears to be trying to out sabre-rattle Secretary Rice.

Out of what dark and insane place did her threat originate?

Serious lack of judgment.

[AnnieinOR]

it all started with the debate - when she said she would attack Iran and several other middle east countries should they attack Israel.

She has a real problem with wanting to be a man if you ask me - it's like she's trying to say - I can be just a stupid as Bush - watch me.

[RobinL]

Is this woman a card-carrying creep or what?!

[bowloforanges]

If HRC would have read Seymour Hersch years ago she would have known not to go to war with Iraq.

She should read "The Redirection" by the same author.......... "Today, the only army capable of containing Iran" - the Iraqi Army - "has been destroyed by the United States. You're now dealing with an Iran that could be nuclear-capable and has a standing army of four hundred and fifty thousand soldiers." (Saudi Arabia has seventy-five thousand troops in its standing army.)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

She sounds like GWB.

[mindact]

she is a poor loser. She's running to the right of John McCain. funny how she's tyring to play Isreal out as a weak country to get Jewsih votes. the truth be told, Isreal has enough stockpile to defend itself form any attacks from Iran. The US has funded Isreal's military build-up at $3bln or more annually. That's enough to deter any invasion from Iran. This kind of statement was why I didn't trust her in the first place. She was making statements like this when running for the senate in NY. That's exactly why she voted for the war. Wehn she started running for POTUS and some how badly the war was going, she took an anti-war stance. Now she's realized that she's probably going to loose, she's re-launched her true colors...

[kingfishstew]

Why pretend that Israel doesn't have its own nuclear deterrent? I'd imagine if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapns, it won't be American nukes which would be doing the retaliating / obliterating.

Unless after vaporizing scores of Iranian cities, it was discovered that some few million Iranians in the country-side had actually survived and our nuclear arsenal was need to complete the holocaust.

[michelvaillant]

If any country in the middle east attacked another with nukes, I also would want our president to obliterate it. That was the only right answer. The question is, would she do the same if Israel launched a preemptive nuclear attack? I found out almost all her foreign policy team is made up of Jews. There is nothing wrong with that, but we need a break from AIPAC running U.S. foreign policy. I am understanding now why there is some skepticism about Obama by the more radical segments of the Jewish community.

[MariaHopeful]

You speak as if obliterating a country is just as if you are crushing an ant . Obliterating a country means OBLITERATING millions of HUMAN BEINGS! What sort of madness is this? And how can you obliterate Iran without also damaging other ME countries including Israel? What are we talking about here?

[2belinda]

Very scary that she would even think "obliterate another country"
obliterate is to remove utterly from recognition or memory
to remove from existence : destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance
Did she "misspeak" ? I sure hope so.

[Piatt]

I was aghast that her initial comments on this subject didn't get more attention during last week's debate. I guess we were all too mesmerized by flag pins, Wright's patriotism, and things that 60's radicals did while Obama was in grade school to pay much attention to it. Are we really going to start lobbing nukes at Iran if they attack the UAE? I believe that this rhetoric, like her vote for Bush's war, is just another way of showing what a manly man she is. It's pathetic.

[betz55]

Yea, and what about if Israel attacks iran ? The Iran issue is 100% Israeli. Iran is no danger to the US. Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty which Iran has done. Israel refuses to allow IAEA inspections of their nuke facilites which Iran has done. Israel refuses to comply with any UN resolutions, which the US protects it from. Make Israel adhere to the standards that it and the US want to impose on Iran. Israel is the biggest bully,destabilizing,warmongering,belligerent aggressor in the ME and needs to be dealt with before Tehran. Iran has every right to defend themselves against Israel. It's absurd the pretense that Israel stands as the pathetic guardian against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the ME. The IAEA in Israel ? The reaction would be spectacular and filled with claims of persecution and divine right. Israel's call for bombing Iran is utterly arrogant and typical.Unconditional, unquestioned, never ending financial support of Israeli policy 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 US arms Israel and shields Israel from international and UN repercussions which does us enormous harm in the eyes of the world. Good news? There will be when Israel and the US recognize a two-state solution, a separation between their country and this one, the United States.

[MariaHopeful]

Talk about Bush being bellicose?! Hillary Clinton threatens to OBLITERATE Iran? Is that the type of language we want from the POTUS. Can you imagine the headlines around the world? What makes it OK for us to use such language and yet we criticize others when they do the same?

[Marlyn]

"when they do the same" ???

Actually, NO ONE else has done the same. Ahmadinejad has complained about Zionists, but he has NEVER threatened to bomb Israel.

[apoyo]

The conventional wisdom so far has been that Hillary's and Obama's policies are similar.

Today she lets us know that her policies are the same as McCain's.

Threatening to kill innocent women and children and yes, men, is just a means to an end for her.
The ability to have her finger on the button. For shame.

These kinds of comments only lower the world's opinion of this country. lower than it already is.

[flyguy14222]

OH PUHLEEZE! The real story is him dissing Pres. Carter about Hamas. Barry can't make up his mind who to meet and who not to meet!

[AnnieinOR]

bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb IRAN - duet by Hillary and McSame

[cinnysmom]

he said he would meet with heads of countries, Hamas is not a country, state,continent, or island, it is an organization.

[whsmith]

No, the problem is that if Obama even hints at having a more balanced approach to middle east diplomacy he will be labeled as a anti-Semite and terrorist sympathizer just like Jimmy Carter has been. You think it is an easy tightrope to walk? He can't be effective if he can't first get elected. And obviously, unfortunately, getting elected involves some BS compromises

[SadButWiser]

That is what the rest of the world is hoping for, a more balanced approach that will yield real progress. As it is, there will not be any solution. In fact for many Muslims, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the core issue and the main reason even behind the 9/11 tragedy. Sadly, no matter how unjustified and criminal act it was, it does not negate it to be the reason why it happened. So let Obama walk the tight rope now, and hopefully when he is elected as the President, he will have 4 years to help solve this conflict. But if his approach is no different from any previous president, then we all have to expect the worst.

[mpflinn]

When I heard "massive retaliation" from Sen. Clinton during the ABC debate, I thought it was an unfortunate slip of the tongue on her part. Today we have "...we would be able to totally obliterate them." So that is her position.

This is old politics for a vastly changed 21st century world.

In this changing world we had better learn to improve our negotiation skills. "Leaving all options on the table" is a strong enough statement. I am not an absolute pacifist. I was in Afghanistan one month before the Iraq intervention. Without Iraq we would have a stable country there We were building support among the Afghan people and had a real coalition going after the real enemy - and today we would still have the respect of the world.

Rebuilding our credibility and influence, yes, even our ability to positively support Israel and be players in the Middle East, depends on regaining the respect of the world, not as dominators, but as a country capable of negotiating from strength and building coalitions. We are dealing with an emerging global world that will demand nothing less - and many people in different parts of the world that I know are hoping that we will regain our perspective.

These are the most frightening and surprising statements that I have heard in the Democratic primary campaign. I cannot believe that this will be Senator Clinton's approach to the world.; it certainly is not a position I support.

[DennyCrane]

No surprise coming from the candidate bought and paid for by AIPAC. I thought Hillary was running for President of the United States, not Israel.

[OriginalScreenName]

Can someone please remind me what party Hillary belongs to?

[AndrewInToronto]

The day she loses and I can stop hearing her and Bill's voice will be a red-letter day on the calendar. I am so sick of their antics, inability to run on their platform with any sense of confidence or integrity and instead rely upon lies and disinformation. When they finally go gently into that quiet night...I cannot imagine the elation I will feel.

[LondonTownNY]

Dear American women: For too long women were denied the right to vote. For too long you have had to work for less money for the same work. We know that many of you value the privileges of Democracy as much as any of us do, so please do not allow yourself to be duped by a FAKE WOMAN (Blue Contact lenses, dyed blonde hair and botox treated face) A FAUX FEMINIST (who prays upon your fears with no regard to the truth or respect for your intellect), A NEOCON IN A PANTSUIT who will LIE or SAY ANYTHING in order to be elected. HILLARY IS A FRAUD.