Sheer used to have my respect, but no more. What he says is absurd, especially the last statement about Iran needing to develop their own nukes. Does any person seriously think that Iran can ever or will ever develop enough nukes and delivery systems enough to even reach the US? Much less act as a massive deterent? That is absurd. What Iran CAN do is to develop a few nukes that they CAN use against their neighbors. So what does Obama or Sheer suggest as a means to keep Iran from nuking their neighbors? What will they do if and when Iran DOES drop the nukes on some non-nuclear country? I suppose Sheer will suggest wagging our fingers and say BAD BAD Iran! We cannot use an embargo since it will hurt Iranians. We cannot bomb them since it will kill innnocents too. We cannot drop nukes.
Even Greg Palast agrees that Iran is trying to develop nukes, so this is NOT confined to just the right wing or others like them.
Clinton Threatens to 'Obliterate' Iran
How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton's eminently sensible and centrist--to a fault--opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn't have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to "totally obliterate them," in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn't the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.
Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran's developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?
If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq's nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.
The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region's key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.
To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States--which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and "usable" nuclear weapons)--as both their enemy and an example to emulate.
What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear "deterrent" than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?
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
randyjet, You better go back and check out your country's history. The US has it's nose in to many other Countries affairs. But can't take care of its own.
Two aspects of an increasing number of folks on the Left seem to be hate for the US and pride in hate for Israel.
I am very proud to be able to say I have never voted for a Republican and never plan to vote for anyone from the GOP. But it is increasingly difficult to argue for Ms. Clinton or Obama and not encounter the charge the Democrats do not seem to love their nation. I don't agree, but consider the content of a large number of postings by Obama supporters. America is always doing the wrong thing, from Iraq to Afghanistan to almost every situation. And that idea is wrong on every level. No matter the mistakes the US has made, we have been the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world.
And where one would have once had to look to the conservatives to find open and hateful anti-Semitism, it is now accepted on the Left. Reading a number of postings on HuffPo gives evidence to this sad state of the Left. It seems no small number of folks posting here would be happy to have been the folks making the Selections. Several postings on HuffPo have been so hatefully anti-Jewish to lead me to believe lots of people on HuffPo believe the best solution to the problems in the MIddle East requires Zyclon B.
Israel Might Have Many More Spies Here, Officials Say Our a lie and friend??ouiii
The elderly New Jersey man arrested last week on charges of spying for Israel years ago was probably still working for the Jewish state"s espionage service in tandem with another, as yet unidentified spy, former American intelligence officials say.
Ben-Ami Kadish, now 84, was employed as a mechanical engineer at a U.S. Army weapons center in New Jersey when he allegedly supplied his Israeli handler with classified military documents, according to charges filed last week.
The handler was named only as "CC-1," or co-conspirator 1, in the criminal complaint. But its description of him as the same man who was handling the notorious Israeli mole Jonathan Pollard all but identified him as Yosef Yagur, formerly the consul for scientific affairs at the Israeli consulate in New York.
Pollard, who gave Yagur thousands of highly classified documents while working as a navy intelligence analyst in the 1980s, is in the 21st year of a life sentence for espionage.
Kadish, who worked at the U.S. Army"s Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, N.J., from 1963 to 1990, could also spend the waning years of his life in jail if he is convicted.
A former senior CIA counterintelligence operative believes the case "will never go to trial, because of all the ugly stuff that would come out" about Israeli activities in the United States.
Israel"s military leaders and their political yes-men don"t believe, and never have believed, that Iran, if it possessed nuclear weapons, would unleash them in a first strike against the Zionist state. The real problem for its leaders is that the moment Israel ceased to be the only nuclear-armed power in the region, would be the moment it lost its ability to impose its will on the region
What if Israel attacks iran can we nuke it??Or is it ony the arabs??and iranians??oyee veyy such a deal oyewing my friendth.what a fraud by this AIPAC SUPPORTED HILLARY.
What frightens me more than the casual way she says this, is that it was not picked up by the MSM and experts as more imperialistc than BUSH. I'm still wondering how we are able to offer this "umbrella of protection" to the unstable countries in the Middle East, while our military is already being depleted and we still haven't found Bin Laden!
As usual, Mr. Scheer brings his anti-America attitude to the fore, by again placing the blame for WWII at the foot of the U.S. The atomic bombing of two Japanese cities was done as to a demonstration to the Emperor Hirohito, and to the Russians. But primarily, and not debunked as claimed below, it was done to save the lives of, potentially, a million US GI's, and several million Japanese, who were expected to fight to the death. The deaths of a few hundred thousand Japanese, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, was a small price to pay for the survival of my Father, several Uncles, and the fathers, uncles, and grandfathers of an entire generation of Americans.
Semper fi
Anyone who denies that Iran is either developing nuclear weapons or may in fact have them is purposefully ignorant.
We know now that Syria was attempting to build them with help from the North Koreans. Anyone who thinks that Iran, who regards itself as the pre-eminent power in the Middle East and has its terrorist tentacles extended throughout the region, is going to allow another nation and ARAB nation at that to be the first to attain nuclear weaponry is delusional.
Deny, Deny, Deny all you want.
Wes, maybe you should check out India, and Pakastan for "Nukes!
HRC doesn't get it.
If we wanted another Bush, we would've politely asked Lieberman to come back. (Oh please, oh please.) But we don't want that. HRC, the former Republican Goldwater Girl, should take her 'ratcheting up' statements and go join the GOP where she belongs.
I guess that if Iran launched a nuclear attack against Isreal during an Obama presidency, he would be forced to call a summit with the ayatollahs. Also Truman knew very well what he was doing to Japan. He knew they would have never surrendered and it was estimated that an assault on the Japanese Islands would cost about 1 million US lives. We would have also fire bombed thir cities to a point that would have made Dresden look like a camp fire.
Truman's decision had nothing to do with Japan and everything to do with the Soviet Union. Truman knew the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, we were in discussions with Japan at the time. The only sticking point was the terms. The Japanese were insistent that we hold the emperor inviolate and not imprison him or put him on trial, and we wanted unconditional surrender. However, these were negotiating points; after all, even after we got unconditional surrender, the emperor was left alone. There was no pressing need to launch any assault on the Japanese mainland while we were secretly negotiating terms of surrender.
The purpose of dropping the bomb was to demonstrate to the rest of the world--most notably, the Soviets--that we had it, that it was destructive, and that we weren't afraid to use it. The 1 million US lives canard was the cover story, but has been well debunked since then.
Also, what do you mean "would have also fire bombed [their] cities. . . " . There is no "would have"; we'd been doing it to them for months by then. In Fog of War, Robert McNamara recalls his days planning bombing runs for Curtis LeMay, who said to him of the bombing of Japan: "We better win this war, or we'll all be tried for war crimes". Not only were we firebombing their cities, we knew what the implications were, morally and legally.
Japan was not on the verge of surrender, that is not the truth. The facts of the matter is the Japanese military was in the process of making preparations for the US invasion, which would have led to far too many casualties on both sides.
Iran would need nuclear weapons to launch a nuclear attack on anybody. There are no nuclear weapons in Iran. The most powerful man in Iran says that nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law.
Weaponry is far more sophisticated today than it was in WWII. We no longer have to lay waste to vast civilian populations in order to deal a crippling blow to the military and political infrastructure of rogue nations. If Truman had the tools of war we have today and still opted to drop nukes on Japan or firebomb their civilian populations, he would rightfully be labeled a genocidal maniac.
You believe in the smart bomb propaganda. The bombs are only as smart as the people dropping them. Plus no matter how accurate the bombs are the shrapnel still flies in all directions. I guess it is a way to feel better about all the people we slaughter.
Don't you need to have nuclear weapons first before you can launch them against anybody. Last time I checked Israel is the only coutry in ME with Nukes. And they actually did destroy a country last summer. Did you forget what happened to Lebenon?
HillBill knows that the only way to get elected in this coutry is if you have AIPAC support. She was just preaching to her Neocon base. I actually think as this author that macain will be more pragmantic and less hawkish when it comes to foreign affairs.
Hillary is a monster as people have said.
Try to be accurate, Lebanon was destroyed by the adventurism of Syria, not Israel.
The question she answered was hypothetical and included a nuclear Iran. Your attempt to make it seem Ms. Clinton did not know that is laughable.
The monsters are the Obama supporters who are quick to attack Ms. Clinton, but never seem able to write anything positive and specific about Obama.
"Don't you need to have nuclear weapons first before you can launch them against anybody."
No. Iraq didn't have them and we invaded them anyway, to protect ourselves from a mushroom-cloud smoking gun.
Her jingo tune regarding Iran is not so disturbing because we will never have to do anything. If Iran acquires nuclar weapons, and were to attack Israel, you can rest assured the Israelis won't wait for us to do something, and will deal with the issue beforehand. They'll deal with it quite effectively.
She's a panderer, looking to bolster her CIC credentials. Give her a cigar.
More disturding and truly alarming is her call for WATO, the West Asia Treaty Organization, including rhe Sunni neighbors to Iran, in effect accepting Dubya's geopolitical map of the Middle East, and beginng a 100 year Cold War between the Shia and Sunni. This policy will require we remain in Iraq, with more troops, incredibly higher defense budgets and human capital costs, and the possibility of the draft being reintroduced.
She is an amateur. And a dangerous one at that.
Someone needs to take Mrs. Clinton aside, and explain that true leaders of democratic countries, never, ever, ever use that kind of dangerous and reckless rhetoric. Not even in a political campaign she wants to win. Never, ever, Hillary. Don't ever, ever speak of the U.S. of America nuking millions of men, women, and children. You are not qualified to lead this country on that statement alone.
She did not say the US would nuke Iran. Try getting your facts straight before you attack Ms. CLinton.
I think it was Obama that tossed "average Americans" under the bus a racists like his grandma, told the Canadian government that he wouldn't redo NAFTA after promising voters he would, and attacked Christians and gun owners as some sort of fearful, ignorant people. And Hillary didn't make him sit in that bigoted church for 20 years listening to Wright Rant.
Once Obama got done revealing his belief in the most hateful of left wing propaganda, he didn't have any knees left for Hillary to "knee-cap".
Great Article, absolutely spot on.
However, You must start to refer to Hillary with the title that must now accompany her new Image; Cthulu, destroyer of worlds, although I always envisioned Lovecraft's Cthulu as a many tentacled monstrosity from another dimension, and not a dumpy, 60 year lady in a stupid blue pantsuit.
Iran has no nukes and has not attacked another country in about 250 years.
Wouldn't a more plausible scenario to ask about be; What would you do if say, France or Great Britain attacked Israel with nuclear weapons? Great Cthulu would incinerate them! turn their country to ashes and make bread from their ground bones! (At this point, Hillary's handlers would gently shepherd the great Cthulu away, her arms (tentacles) writhing around in a menacing, yet vaguely looney fashion)
OMFG!
That is the funniest post I've seen in a while. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to follow your lead and start referring to her as Cthulu as well.
You are as loose with the truth as someone else I'm not going to mention.
Iran is a state sponsor of terror attacks around the globe. How can you say they have not attacked another country when their proxy armies wage war on Israel and blow up innocent people on a regular basis? when they send people in to Iran with bombs to teach them to kill Americans?
Maybe you should consider supporting your own nation sometime instead of becoming an aplogizst for terrorist states. Unfortunately, I think Obama supports terrorists and terrorist states every bit as much as you do.
I think it also important to add that if Iran is going for nukes, they would be doing so NOT because they want to or ever COULD credibly threaten Israel, but because they look at Pakistan, where Osama bin Laded lives, where Mullah Omar Lives, where tens of thousands of REAL al qeada and taliban are, a country that has SOLD nuke tech to other countries, where whole regions of the country are out of the central governments control, and who HAVE nukes, and have built them expressly to threaten India, another of our allies, and Iran sees that depsite all this, we call Pakistan OUR ALLY.
Iran, like Pakistan, just wants to left alone.
And when Iran EVER gets to the point where they directly threaten the security of the US to any where NEAR the degree that our "ally" Pakistan does, I might then be worried.
In the mean time, we have the mighty Cthulu, ominously waving her stupid blue pantsuit tentacles in a death dance of obliteration helping to keep the pseudo threat of Iran at bay.
Who does Iran "sponsor" that are not also materially and philosophically supported by just about every other country in the middle east?
When you say "around the globe" I think you mean around Israel. I think you would also find that Hamas and Hezbollah would continue on in full force if Iran ceased to exist, in that they were formed by the Lebanese and Palestinians whose lives, Families, and Nations have been decimated by Israel's ongoing settlement movement and devastating attacks on Lebanon.
But the stunning hypocrisy of your statement is not REALLY obvious until you consider that the US armed and funded Saddam Hussein and encouraged and his attacks against Iran, in a war that ultimately caused more than ONE MILLION CASUALTIES on both sides and that furthermore, we were secretly selling arms to the Iranians later in the war, because we wanted to maximize casualties on both sides. I find it difficult to find ANY credible comparison between that act and what you suggesting about Iran and the organizations fighting against Israels settler movement and continued aggressions against Lebanon.
I do not support ANY terrorist organization, and I wish that Both Hamas and Hezbollah would find peaceful means to achieve a fair outcome for their respective people. It is, however, CRITICALLY important that US politicians do not fool us into attacking another non threat based on lies and innuendo, as we did with Iraq.
MIshegoss. As usual you write well, but the content is a load of mishegpss.
You sound like condi rice. If you don't find that comparison flattering, perhaps you should should try thinking before essentially quoting a bush press release word for word.
clinton would do and say anything to get this nomination.
Absolutely amazing to me how a candidate for our Presidency in this current climate could make such a flippant remark about obliterating whole populations of innocent women and children. By the way, Senator Clinton, in case you had not considered in your political calculation, innocent women and children will be obliteraed when you obliterate this nation.
For the life of me I do not understand how this is not a concern to the media. I guess Rev. Wright's cache of WMD is more frightening.
If Obama said something that boneheaded the U.S. corporate media would never stop playing it.
I don't get all these If this, then this comments here at all; about whether her answer represents a correct political posture, at this time, in light of the present day reality.
The main reason it does not surprise me to see Herr Hillary falling all over herself on this issue is because of the basic ignorance of the premise of her reply.
IF IRAN NUCLEAR ATTACKED ISRAEL...
Well, um, she could have said Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, so that's a stupid question.
And since Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, then how can Iran even threaten to attack Israel, which it hasn't, kind of thing.
Nah, pandering to the pro-Israeli vote is what you do on a regular basis in the greater New York area.
If you obliterate any of my friends, and Israel is my good friend, then I will annihilate you and your neighbors, even the friendly ones cause, you know, that's how obliteration goes.
I haven't seen Obama's reply but somehow I feel sure it will be seen to reassure the Israeli citizens that they will always have the active military support of the Obama administration, up to and including the annihilation thing, if that becomes ABSOLUTELY necessary.
Neither of them will state the obvious result of the obliteration and annihilation thing, which would be to wipe Iran off the map.
Democratic politics.
I think I'm voting Ralph Nader again.
I am a progressive but I also common sense and Robert Scheer has none. He can't even understand a basic concept like deterrence. Clinton is NOT threatening to attack Iran without cause. There would have to be a casus belli. An Iranian attack on an ally. And we have many allies in the region. The treaty is called CENTO. Look it up.
And Arianna should know better because deterrence saved her sorry ass. If had been for the Truman Doctrine, where the concept of modern deterrence was born, Arianna would speak much better Russian and would have gone to Moscow State University not Oxford.
Posted April 23, 2008 | 02:33 AM (EST)