Hillary voted for and supported the war on terror. Lest we forget 911 and the americans who died at the world trade center, lets give her the benefit of the doubt, for after all she is from New York. Iran has a long history of making threats to Israel the only civilized nation in the Mideast. Obama has said that he will cut and run if elected and may not have the spine to go against his muslim relatives. Even Obama's own Pastor said that he is more of a politician than a christian. We need to slow down and take another look at Obama because we know nothing about his past except that he refuses to wear an american flag pin to prove that he supports our troops. We need someone who is willing to use nukes if necessary to support our troops in the case of an attack on Israel. Even the Vice President of The United States of America Dick Cheney has stated on many occasions the connection of Iran and 911. Hopefully with the positive results of the surge in Iraq we won't have to use Nukes and we can redeploy our ground forces into Iran and end this war on terror once and for all.
The Obliterator: Hillary Channels Her Inner Doctor Strangelove
Obliterate.
All week this word's been haunting me.
Ever since Hillary Clinton channelled her inner Doctor Strangelove on ABC-TV, vowing to "totally obliterate" Iran for some imagined attack on Israel in the future, that word's hung in the air like a tiny mushroom cloud. Of course, to the corporate media, a casual threat to incinerate millions of innocent people doesn't have nearly the importance of a lapel-pin--but to anyone who believes the Schoolmarm-from-New-York's own dictum that "words matter," the choice of that particular verb is tremendously revealing.
Merriam-Webster tells us that the root of "obliterate" comes from the Latin word "littera", for "letter," so that obliterate really means to destroy the alphabet--to erase not only every word but the very capacity to create words. Or, as the dictionary puts it: 1 a: to remove utterly from recognition or memory; b: to cause to disappear (as a body part or a scar), or collapse (as a duct conveying body fluid; 2) to make undecipherable or imperceptible by obscuring or wearing away."
What kind of human being--knowing what we do, on this post-Hiroshima planet, at a time when Shock-and-Awe tactics have multiplied the number of dead babies throughout the so-called Third World---what kind of person would even choose the word "obliterate?" "Obliterate" doesn't even pretend to any strategic logic; "totally obliterate" is the language of terrorism, the rhetoric of cruelty unbounded--horrific if meant seriously, and even worse if employed as a throwaway campaign line designed to prove the speaker has "balls"--when, ironically, that's the one attribute of Senator Clinton's that no one really disputes.
And what does it say of one's readiness--on Day One or any Day--to deal with the rest of the world? Though this grotesque, post-Cheney threat has drawn little comment in the US media (except from Robert Scheer, and a few others), rest assured it's still being heard, with rage and disbelief, throughout the rest of the world--most notably from our own allies. The Saudi-based daily Arab News, generally loathe to deviate from a US-propaganda line, was moved to unusual eloquence:
"This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush's foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day."
And that's from our friends in the region, folks. But criticism is raining in from everywhere: from England. From New Zealand. From many progressive voices within Israel itself. From all the places in this world where bowling-styles and tabloid sleaze don't dominate the airwaves.
From a global perspective, the "obliterate" threat is way more grave than John McCain's "a hundred years in Iraq" remark. At least McCain didn't promise to commit mass destruction; it could only be inferred from what he said. And it's infinitely more serious than McCain's "bomb Iran" ditty. So among other things, Clinton has--with one word--rendered herself impotent to criticize McCain on any moral basis whatsoever. But then Clinton's never had anything to say about the morality of the war in Iraq: her main argument for stopping the carnage has been that those lazy Iraqis just can't get it together, so why the hell should we keep being so good to them?
"Totally obliterate."
Really, in its logical stupidity--its rhetorical overkill, since "totally" is redundant with "obliterate" anyhow--this remark summons up no-one more clearly than George Bush II. You can easily picture his lips sliding around the words even as his brain sluggishly works to transmit the concept. But we're coming off eight years of "total obliteration" thinking, and "total obliteration" speaking. We have a once-in-a-lifetime shot at a fresh start. Is this really the voice we want on the business end of that 3AM phonecall--the dead-affect voice of yet another Obliterator-in-Chief?
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
In my previous post, I was of course referring to Clinton threatening the obliteration of the people of Iran. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I recall Hitler promised the obliteration of the Jews ("die Vernichtung der Juden"). I'm appalled that Clinton shoud make the same threat. This is not diplomacy. It is fear mongering. She has crossed the red line that the Boston Globe described so well in today's editorial ("Hillary Strangelove")
Uh....Ego demands that I point out I posted this piece on Saturday evening, and the Globe's editorial appeared on Sunday morning...Coincidence? You be the judge...
Well, I'm leery about drawing too many conclusions from a single, spoken word - whether 'obliterate' or 'bitter'. But I can see her as the "attack first, ask questions later" kind of person. Like our current leader.
And I CERTAINLY could see her manufacturing evidence to "prove" some action, that she wants to undertake...
...also like our current leader.
[ We really need to work on our requirements for this position more. ] :-|
The truth is that she is lying for votes as usual because the consequences of a nuclear bomb in that region would be catastrophic, let alone two of them. Aside from all the death and destruction, the price of oil would hit $1000 a barrel and what US President wants to face the backlash and absolute crippling of the economy from that? She is making quite an impression on our Allies who we will need to help when we want to get out of Iraq. Or help us deal with global warming and world hunger. Too bad the impression is so much like Cheney in drag. Sigh.
Besides the extremely callous word choice of "obliterate", what's also alarming is that in the original quote, Ms. Clinton seems to already believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and will be capable of launching a nuclear attack within 10 years. She obviously hasn't learned the lessons of Iraq and imaginary WMDs. It seems that warmongering politicians like Ms. Clinton and Mr. Bush are paranoidically fixated with Islamic countries acquiring WMDs, and gung-ho about attacking them, both in their imaginations and in reality.
The original quote:
CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.
Stick it to her John. She made the most stupid, reckless statement of the entire election and has no business being anywhere near the White House.
Another Dubya - no brains
Excellent commentary John. The clear intent of this thoughtless provocative comment & threat was to pander to supporters of Israel, regardless of whatever filth or crimes Israel commits or the spy's they send to America. The power of the AIPAC, JINSA, AEI, PNAC pro-Israel lobby is shown clearly, & their ability to subvert both our foreign policy & domestic politics through sycophantic candidates like Hillary Clinton....and THAT is a real threat to our nation! By these shallow words of hate, ignorance & racism, the lack of good judgment & statesmanship....the ability to be Prez....... by this ego driven arrogant woman is shown to all with eyes to see. The same intent & calculated move was shown by her disasterous and misguided vote for war in Iraq.
The Bush/Neocon regime has been a defacto agent for extremist Israeli goals and war, & Shillary shows herself to be only too eager to continue to be a cheerleader & apologist for Israel.....and their fifth column agents/lobbyists in America. She also shows herself willing to commit America to any Israeli goal, regardless how destructive to real American interests & more pre-emptive war in the ME.
When will the eyes of America be fully opened to the active subversion of our nation & the use of American lives & resources to prop up & fund the Apartheid Israeli gov & brutal illegal occupation?
Shillary has by this smarmy attempt to gain Jewish votes and "look strong", "obliterated" whatever tiny shred of integrity or humanity she
It used to be that USA leaders spoke about peace and brotherhood among the people of earth. It is true that actions often didn't match words, e.g. Viet Nam, Central America, but at least the rhetoric was there.
Now many USA leaders have adopted a bellicose, us-against- them frame.
This point of view is right out of the neocon "clean break strategy" framing. In their minds it is the USA and Israel against the world.
I sincerely hope that more sunlight is shone on the neocon, AIPAC,ADL intentions and a large majority of Americans reject them.
"But criticism is raining in from everywhere: from England. From New Zealand. From many progressive voices within Israel itself. From all the places in this world where bowling-styles and tabloid sleaze don't dominate the airwaves."
If Sen. Clinton can discount the opinions of her own nation's young, educated and activist base, she certainly isn't going to care what those from overseas think.
You have to forgive Hillary for her improper use of words she went to Yale, Just like Bush who has problems with the English language and her Husband Bill who does not know what the word "is" means. Yep all three as went to Yale one of the finest educational facilities in the world.
It speaks volumes of the character of the American people that even after 8 years of a murdering barbarian like Bush and the indisputable proof of what happens when you give such an individual absolute power, there are people in this country who consider voting for a depraved psychopath like Clinton. Do we really need another president who can think of no other way of responding to an attack against Israel than to mass-murder a nation of 70 million people? I know it hurts to think and it is much easier to turn on the TV and let it do your thinking for you, but even the brainwashed sheep of this country must be able to visualize what the effects of a mass nuclear attack on Iran would be, and the indescribable toll of human suffering it would inflict. And since when is it the duty of America to commit mass atrocities on behalf of Israel? Having we been carrying water for this renegade, apartheid, brutalitarian state for long enough? Considering the extreme warlike rhetoric of our political candidates, and the constant calls and threats of air strikes, invasions and even nuclear war against Iran by Israel and its deranged supporters in the US, it is quite clear that Israel and the US are a far greater threat to stability in the region than Iran is.
The implication of Clinton's extremist rhetoric may be lost on her supporters, but it is not lost on the rest of the world.
One of the issues that concern Americans during this election cycle is the profound damage to our country's reputation and standing in the world as a result of the current administration's policies. I have been astonished throughout the primary season by Clinton's apparent obliviousness to the fact that the whole world is watching the political process here at least as carefully as Americans are. Is she aware that people all over the world are sitting up late and getting up early to get the results of the latest primary results? That they are following the daily remarks and talking points of the candidates? Is she aware that what she says on American soil reverberates around the world, and that it affects how the rest of the world sees, not only her, but US? In the highly unlikely event that she should become president, she will find that she has deepened the distrust and contempt for America by her heedless attempt to establish a foreign policy to the right of both Bush and McCain.
John Eskow would probably think the US should have negotiated with Hitler's Germany.
Hillary said something very specific that everyone is now trying to morph in to something else.
She said that if Iran launches a NUCLEAR attack on Israel, the US would respond in kind. Hillary said that an Iranian nuclear attack on one of our strongest allies would be treated as a nuclear attack on the US itself.
Like Hitler, the current leadership of Iran so extreme that it constitutes a special case.
So why this language. This is the language you use when you are speaking to MAD MEN. Iran is under the control of someone who acts completely OUTSIDE the bounds of the normal accepted discourse between nations.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad specifically said that Israel should be "wiped of the face of the earth?"
Now Ahmadinejad despite being president is subordinate under the Iranian Constitution to the "Supreme Leader" who is also Commander and Chief of the Iranian Military. Currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei holds this position. His view on Israel? Khamenei famously remarked that "this cancerous tumor of a state [Israel] should be removed from the region."
Should the US respond in some naive Chamberlain fashion and stick our head in the sand?
History proves that you cannot negotiate with mad men. To the extent that Obama thinks you can, just proves that he is not ready to be president.
"John Eskow would probably think the US should have negotiated with Hitler's Germany."
Ahmadinejad is not Hitler. For one thing, he lacks the absolute power that Hitler possessed. For another, he has not made any serious attempts at invading any of his neighbours. Once more, he may be a maniac but he's no fool: he knows that Israel has nuclear weapons, and any attempt at attacking them would be suicide.
"Hillary said that an Iranian nuclear attack on one of our strongest allies would be treated as a nuclear attack on the US itself."
Which is extremely problematic, actually. Israel can retaliate on its own.
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad specifically said that Israel should be "wiped of the face of the earth?""
No, he did not. For one thing, he does not speak English. This may seem pedantic, but many people have said that what he said would be closer translated as that the current Israeli government should be "erased from history." Nasty, but not the threat that it was made out to be.
"Currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei holds this position. His view on Israel? Khamenei famously remarked that "this cancerous tumor of a state [Israel] should be removed from the region." "
He also said that nuclear weapons were "unislamic."
What remains is that a presidential candidate has said that she would like to destroy a sovereign nation because of the actions of its leader. That is inexcusable.
Clinton fucked up, again. and all her supporters can do is make Hitler comparisons with Iran to attempt to justify the stupidity emanating from their candidate. Hillary shows herself to be no better than ahmadinejad when making stupid comments like this. It may be OK with you that Hillary and Ahmadinejad have such close philosophies about dealing with an enemy, I however am not.
A real leader would not of pandered like this, A real leader would not have gotten so nationalistic. A real leader would show that they have the skills necessary to prevent nuclear armageddon not threaten to use it. A real leader uses charisma, honesty and sacrifice as basic tools of success. Hillary's tool box is empty.
Just another "though" tactic on HRC's part. I wonder if she considers the ramifications. Could Russia then launch on us?
Clinton's remarks regarding "totally obliterate" are somewhat twisted with respect to the logic of their construction. One can hear her comments on youTube,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=abJ2jbXasNg&feature=related
as was pointed out by one commenter to an excellent blog by Andrew Wimmer over on Common Dreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/26/8539/
I have added to that --------
What Hillary said in the interview, besides being completely absurd, irrational, inflammatory, and contradictory, serves only to encourage the lunatics currently in control of US policy in their drive to nuke Iran. She is complicit! She"s complicit in promoting their aims.
While her intention was obviously to pander to AIPAC (which one must do to get elected to any office in the US), Clinton"s statement that if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel while still developing a nuclear weapon " that"s what she said, launch an attack with a weapon they have not yet developed - the US would "obliterate" that country. Her proposed sequence of events is illogical. It sounds to me that she just needed to throw a handful of words together to sound tough, regardless of her imprudence in the choice of those words.
In addition to the fact of the absurdity of her comment, another argument not presented by anyone commenting on her statement is the fact that Israel is quite capable, with its 300 plus nuclear weapons, of obliterating Iran by itself. If we must have the carnage, I"d rather it be Israel using its nukes than the US. And no one has seemed interested in pressing the point with Clinton as to whether she intended to mean with her use of "obliterate", to kill every man, woman, and child within the confines of Iran and many others beyond the confines of Iran. I guess that could be construed as collective punishment, in the addition to the obliteration of many more millions down wind in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. I thought collective punishment was disavowed by human kind in general and the UN Charter in paticular.
I do think also that it's possible that a majority people in the rest of the world who are aware of Clinton's (and McCain's, and to some degree, even Obama's) statements of policy regarding Iran, that our current and future policy makers are genuinely dangerous and crazy.
You have this the wrong way round. She didn't say that she wanted to do that "for some imagined attack on Israel in the future," as you write. She said that if Iran obliterated Israel with nukes, they'd face getting hit back with the same kind of weapons. I'm not voting for Hillary either, but this sort of willful misinterpretation just makes people roll their eyes.
Let's be accurate. "obliterate" did not appear in the question. The question was about a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel.
The response was: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
The precise meaning is a little muddled there. What's the provocation? If the Iranians even "consider launching an attack on Israel"? What's the response? "We would be able to" obliterate them. If they think about it, we will have the ability.
The issue isn't trying to parse the actual meaning of Clinton's threat. Her word choice of "totally obliterate" should have set off more alarms.
Thank you, Mr. Eskow for noticing.
Fair enough. Mind you, a nuclear attack on Israel would pretty much obliterate Israel, which is a very small country. So I'm sorry I subbed the word "obliterate" for "completely decimate." (Or do you want to argue now that a few stragglers on the outskirts might only have severe radiation poisoning? I'd love to hear that logic.)
Are you deliberately being obtuse? No used the words "completely decimate" either. You are trying to hold on to your assumption so as to win this ridiculous argument. Nothing you say removes the foolishness of Clinton's threat.
I believe she said if they thought of attacking so she would obliterate them for thinking.
The ultimate misquote. (And I'm not defending Clinton or voting for her.)
perhaps, but her words were loathsome. That's the larger point he's making; do you disagree?
Perfect word to describe her answer - loathsome. Haven't we had enough of that John Wayne posturing during this administration? I sure have.
Well if you are going to go after the fanatic pro-Israeli vote you have to be willing to do what it takes.
Loading comments…
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
John McCain's famously cozy relationship with the press is getting a bit testy. Taking questions in...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
As we have observed throughout the last several years,...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
Major news organizations are drawing...
BARCELONA, Spain — Christian Bale swept into Barcelona on Wednesday night to attend a...
Will the mainstream media cover the John Edwards love child scandal put out there by the...
I have a wait problem. I hate to wait. When...
WASHINGTON — Congress approved mortgage relief for 400,000...
Ashcroft Claims Waterboarding...
Posted April 27, 2008 | 12:24 AM (EST)