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?
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 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.
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
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.
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.
The implication of Clinton's extremist rhetoric may be lost on her supporters, but it is not lost on the rest of the world.
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.
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.
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.