Iran Condemns Clinton For "Obliterate" Comments

EDITH M. LEDERER | April 30, 2008 09:50 PM EST | AP


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

UNITED NATIONS — Iran strongly condemned presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton late Wednesday for threatening to attack and "totally obliterate" the country if it uses nuclear weapons.

Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, called an April 22 statement on ABC by the New York senator, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, "provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible" and "a flagrant violation" of the U.N. Charter.

Clinton was asked by ABC News' Chris Cuomo in an interview that aired on "Good Morning America" what she would do if she wins the White House and Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, according to the ABC News Web site.

"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."

Danesh-Yazdi's letter used a partial quote that did not mention an attack on Israel. It said Clinton "unwarrantedly and under erroneous and false pretexts threatened to use force against the Islamic Republic of Iran."

The Iranians sent the letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and asked that he circulate it to the Security Council.

The council has imposed three rounds of gradually tougher sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran insists it is enriching uranium to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but the U.S., key European nations and other countries suspect Tehran's real motive is to eventually produce nuclear weapons.

In the letter, Danesh-Yazdi said "Iran is a leading nation in rejecting and opposing all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons." He added that Iran has repeatedly declared "that nuclear weapons as the most lethal and inhumane weapons have no place in the defense doctrine of the country."

Iran has also campaigned to make the Middle East a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone since 1974, he said.

"Moreover, I wish to reiterate my government's position that the Islamic Republic of Iran has no intention to attack any other nations," Danesh-Yazdi said. "Nonetheless ... Iran would not hesitate to act in self-defense to respond to any attack against the Iranian nation and to take appropriate defensive measures to protect itself" as authorized under the U.N. Charter.

 

Comments
172
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

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

Hejzuss, Hillery made a big blunder, my guess is Iran would never commit suicide, using a Nuke on any neighbor, this squirt runing his mouth off against Israilis don't hold all the cards, theres the bearded guru who runs the show. But then the Bush, Cheney, Mccain yahoos may make good on her mouthing off before the year is up.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 05/01/2008

must to hit it head on for all the camel jockeys to get so excited!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 05/01/2008



Iran ( Persia ) has not attacked another country in centuries.

Why would we need to obliterate Iran when Israel is more than capable of doing it themselves; if they are attacked or not ?

Their most vulnerable spot is their outdated oil refineries; which is hardly capable of providing enough gasoline for its own citizens. So we wouldn't have to obliterate anything to bring them to their knees.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 PM on 05/01/2008


The country does not need two more loose cannons in the White House. Bill threw Blacks under the bus and Hillary vows to annihilate Iran. This kind of grandstanding and bluster is exactly what the country DOES NOT need. More over the top divisiveness. On the other hand, Obama has displayed nothing but calm, cool headed, thoughtful, honest, even-handed, sincere, broadminded and, tough, when called for, responses to the controversies he's been caught up in in the media. He will make a great President, one that will restore the country's reputation in the world, and will champion peace through diplomacy, and yet has proven he's tough enough to make hard decisions when called for. What are we waiting for? Let's get behind him and move on to McCain.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 05/01/2008

I guess McCain and Clinton are basically a pair of identical shoes. One left and one right. Both is trigger happy.

This is a scary country to be in at the moment because it seems that if you have kids who are in their teens now, they might be drafted into a war in the next few years if either of these 2 goons get in the WH.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 05/01/2008

You are very generous with those "next few years". It's looking more and more as if it will happen sooner. Why is there a second USAF carrier now stationed in the Persian Gulf?? These are very scary times indeed.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 05/01/2008

This is a non-issue. Since Iran is not and does not have any plans to develop nuclear weapons. To discuss this any further is equivalent to supporting the lie that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 05/01/2008

Don't forget, her advisor on China quit her campaign because she was mouthing off about boycotting the Olympics. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9719.html This woman is toxic.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 05/01/2008

I'm sure she's added this to her resume.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 05/01/2008

I still think we should turn over the "Iran problem" to another super power to deal with. I hear China and India are up and comers. They probably would have fresh ideas. Lord knows the old people we have in Congress have run out of ideas.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 05/01/2008

Hillary's threat to 'obliterate Iran' smacks of the Bush's march to war in Iraq which she supported. She justified her support based on the availability of information to the contrary, even though the National Intelligence Report was avallable and raised questions about the assumptions being used to carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

She voted in Congress to attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and in the past month, has proposed a preemptive strike against Iran. The goal of the strike would be to 'obliterate' the 65 million Iranians, men, women and children.

For the past 8 years we have watched the tally of 4,000 american dead, of tens of thousands wounded,12,000 american G.I. suicides per year of the Iraq War, of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead,of millions of Iraqi men, women and children displaced continue to increase. Repayment of the debt threatens to put allocations for education,, health care, jobs, infrastructure--remember the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota last year--ALL on the back burner.

If the american electorate has not learned to recognize political demogogy, has not learned to separate spin from substance, does not recognize that Clinton's foreign policy platform is the Bush wine in new bottles, then it will vote for the warrior queen with 'testicular' power. And, after being kicked by Bush( "shame on him and hanging chards" ) if either Hillary or McCain wins, it will be shame on us.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 05/01/2008

I guess Newt's mama was right about Hillary, after all.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 05/01/2008

when you all figure out that barak can't win in the general election,
it'll be too late
thanks a lot huffington post for president mccain

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 PM on 05/01/2008

I think Hillary should should both promise to both obliterate *and* anihilate Iran.

She's trying to out-warmonger McCain and appeal to Joe- Sixpack voters.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 05/01/2008

You forgot renounce and denounce.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 05/01/2008

as long as she obliterates while wearing a flag pin, its ok.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 PM on 05/01/2008

and a Stars-N-Stripes girdle and bra ensemble.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 05/01/2008

And a crown on her head, a torch in one hand and a book in the other. Welcome to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. :-)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 05/01/2008

I was wondering when Iran was going to say something about her remarks. But I have a question, of anyone out there....Where did she come up with "In the next 10 years"??? If elected she could only be around for 8???

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 05/01/2008

Another trait of Obamaphiles; YOU don't read well and certainly don't comprehend what you read.
HRC did NOT say WOULD obliterate Iran but rather we WOULD BE ABLE to if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. You know, taking a position of strength...Oh wait, maybe you DON'T recognize diplomacy through strength.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 PM on 05/01/2008

Look pal, we've had enought "diplomacy through strength" with the current president...look where that's got us...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 05/01/2008

Amen, and Rodham Clinton is starting to look like Bush and Cheney's little sister

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 05/01/2008

"... HRC did NOT say WOULD obliterate Iran ...". Yeah. And a man who says "wouldn't it be a real shame if your business got trashed" isn't threatening to trash your business, just making a general observation.

Note that HRC isn't saying "If the Iranians attack Israel..". She's talking about what would happen if THEY FOOLISHLY CONSIDER attacking Israel. In other words, if it looks like they might be about to. It's that preemptive thing all over again.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 05/01/2008

MTGradwell,
Concept: Paragraphs - like in READ THE PRECEEDING paragraph which actually HAS the question HRC responded to "Clinton was asked by ABC News' Chris Cuomo in an interview that aired on "Good Morning America" what she would do if she wins the White House and Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, according to the ABC News Web site."
You Obamaphiles are REALLY starting to scare those of us believe in the truth.

Just for the record, I for one will be able to separate Obama from you fools and vote for him if he is our nominee but you sure make that a chore........

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 05/01/2008

"READ THE PRECEEDING paragraph which actually HAS the question HRC responded to"

NO IT DOESN'T.

"Clinton was asked ... what she would do if .. Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons" NO SHE WASN'T

Chris Cuomo's ACTUAL words, which are unreported almost everywhere. were "You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be 'massive retaliation." Scary words. Does 'massive retaliation" mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?"

Clinton responded "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 ...". But THAT WAS NEVER IN FACT THE QUESTION. In the Earlier Philadelphia debate which was being referred to, the candidates had been asked "Should it be US policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?" and Mrs. Clinton had indeed promised "massive retaliation" in a context where nobody had mentioned the possibility of Iran using nukes. Face it, Clinton is a serial delusionist who sees sniper fire where there is none. and references to nuclear attack where no such reference has been made. If she's president she'll be pressing real buttons in respons to phantom 3 a.m. calls.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 05/04/2008

She's already started to change the image that the Bush administration created. *sarcasm*

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 AM on 05/01/2008

By making that statement, BILLARY has disqualified herself from the presidency. In the White House we need someone COOL and with GOOD JUDGEMENT! We need Barack Obama who has shown that he can take tough decision when necessary. Common sense people will vote Obama in November!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 05/01/2008

My man, Obama, would never obliterate a muslim nation.
He is committed to letting all religions spread the globe.
Only Hillary would defend the Jeish nation for the NY Jeish.
Oh, yeah, McCain would defend the Jeish people and bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.
Clinton must have Big Balls to say this stuff. Obama doesn't.

and, my man will get these white cops off my back.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 05/01/2008

Diplomacy is the answer - not more saber rattling! We have got to decrease animosity towards the US, not increase our bully image. We need to focus on curbing nuclear proliferation, not fuel the area's fear ridden desire to increase nuclear ability in order to reach a cold war stance in the Middle East. Do we really think it would be a good idea to go back to the Cold War era? Diplomacy now!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 05/01/2008

I just love it!

Diplomacy is the answer

US: Please don't do bad things.
Iran: I see your point. we'll be good.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 05/01/2008

Did you know that the US and the UK initiated a coup in Iran in the '50s. Overthrowing its democratically elected Prime Minister. The reason stated was because he wanted to nationalize their oil resources. He wanted to do this so Iran could benefit from its own resources instead of the big oil companies.

They put in The Shah who was a west-leaning version of Saddam Hussein.

So these bad things that you speak of have a bases in their history.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 05/01/2008

Hillary is dangerous because she does not have a good JUDGEMENT! She could start War War III in a beat! WE CANNOT TRUST HER! whether it is a 3:00AM or at 3:00PM!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 05/01/2008

Explain this too: SHE WAS FOR NAFTA, WHILE SHE WAS REALLY AGAINST IT??? How can this be?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 05/01/2008

If Obama said this - he'd be flogged again 24/7!

Will you guys please digg this article and get it out there. Free passes for HRC - I'm so tired of it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 AM on 05/01/2008

And what 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. As a member of the NPT Iran has every right to enrich uranium. 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. 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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 05/01/2008

I totally agree. And I suppose what should be asked of Clinton is the following: If , on the other hand, Israel attacks Iran, will she be prepared to obliterate them as well? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 05/01/2008

Shhh, don't talk about Israel! She is trying to win some jewish votes here.

If Israel attacks Iran, she will probably say that Iran provoked that attack and join Israel to fight Iran. I think that when she said an umbrella she only meant ISRAEL! ;-)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 05/01/2008

israel is frighened of iran. hillary knows how to play that card..the only thing that would please israel more would be if she added syria, hamas and hezbollah as other targets to annialate. hillary, mccain and aipac are one..eliminate obama and they can't lose. i receive e-mails and news every day linking obama to the muslim world, it doesn't take a rhodes scholar to know where there coming from.. the bottom line that no one talks about is the fact iran has not invaded another nation in more than a hundred years..can we make that same statement??