What did Hillary mean about "massive retaliation" and US umbrella over Middle East?

[IndianaGreen]

A point noted by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Pat Buchanan.

The term "massive retaliation" was coined during the Cold War to describe an American nuclear strike against an aggressor. Has Hillary gone further than Dick Cheney in tying the US to permanent warfare in the Middle East?

[patrice]

1. Fucking SCAREY that! A continuation of the Unitary Executive. "Fuck You, Congress!"

"I'll declare war when I want to."

[IndianaGreen]

3. This is more frightening than McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb.. bomb, Iran!"

And this is without bothering to get Congressional approval! Isn't this very issue why we oppose Bush's war?

[patrice]

9. And don't forget she voted to declare the army of Iran, a country who has not

attacked us (or anyone else for quite a while) an enemy of the U.S.

..................

HILLARY, WE ARE NOT WAR SLAVES!!!

[WillyToad]

47. Obama co-sponsored a bill that said the same thing...

The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s970/show">See for yourself

[IndianaGreen]

48. Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman, Obama didn't.

He missed the vote but he said he would have joined Biden and Dodd in voting against it.

[TahitiNut]

32. Indeed. It seems she relishes the GWB extra-Constitutional powers ...

I guess that goes a LONG way to removing any doubt about whether the Democratic Party would "correct" the egregious abuses of the Cheney/Bush regime. Meet the new Corporate Imperial President, same as the last Corporate Imperial President.

:puke:

[IndianaGreen]

39. There is no indication that Hillary will restore the Constitution as the Law of the Land

and lots of evidence that she will pursue her own alpha female version of Bush's cowboy foreign policy.

[Zhade]

49. Well, she DID suggest she'd pick which of those powers to keep if she became prez...

...which is a violation of the separation of powers (presidents, of course, don't get to choose their own powers).

Thankfully, she won't be the nom!

[TahitiNut]

52. She apparently can't recall taking an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution"

I guess those memory cells got re-used to dodge sniper fire.

[scheming daemons]

2. Hillary has decided that Israel will be our 51st state if she's Prez....

..

[patrice]

13. Can you say "AIPAC"?? nt

[DesertFlower]

16. excuse me, obama supports israel

just as much as hillary does. and i don't see anything wrong with that. they are a democracy in the mideast and our strongest ally.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DesertFlower]

38. Jesus. i'm not defending what hillary said. nt

[patrice]

18. The alarming thing about what she said was that she was talking about all of the nations

in the region. It makes sense to stand by a responsible Israel, but the rest of them? All of them?

[IndianaGreen]

19. Including Saudi Arabia

This is a major expansion of Bush's neocon policies.

[patrice]

22. SA = ROYALTY who nurtured the WTC bombers.

:grr:

[DesertFlower]

23. no. not all of them.

syria supports terrorism and i certainly do not trust our alleged friend saudi arabia. they are financing terrorism.

i was specifically answering about israel.

[patrice]

24. Thanks for the correction. But if there were such a nuclear umbrella, wouldn't it

destabilize the region even more if it didn't protect all of them?

[DesertFlower]

26. i'm not sure what hillary meant by a

nuclear umbrella and who it would include. i think she needed further questioning on that.

[sandnsea]

40. ME countries that agreed to be under the umbrella

So she's talking about creating a proxy war in the ME, just like Reagan did in the 80's, which is what got us into this mess.

[razors edge]

27. And democracy, as we all know,

has done so much in the US to ensure the rights of the minority.

Edit: 3/5ths of their rights at least, to be be held in trust by their owners.

[sandnsea]

31. No, he did not say "massive retaliation"

and continued beligerence towards Iran and the US as the super power to protect the entirety of the ME. Do you not understand what that means?? Continued agitation and continued creation of terrorists.

[DesertFlower]

34. i know he didn't say that. all i said was

that obama supports israel just as much as hillary does. i'm in no way defending what hillary said.

why is everyone getting so upset? would you rather believe that obama does not support israel? his voting record on israel is strong.

[sandnsea]

54. I wish we had a fair policy towards the ME

As it is, half the time the politicians say we're protecting Israel when we're really fighting over oil - and the other half they say we're protecting oil when they're really protecting Israel. I'm sick of the lies. The main reason we're there is oil and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out the reason the Jews went there in the first place was to get a foot in so western countries could get the oil. The US is not the innocent do-gooders the elite try to pretend we are.

[FrenchieCat]

4. That she can out NeoCon the NeoCons......

and pandering to the AIPAC vote.

[anonymous171]

7. That was my thought. Bill out-republicanned the republicans during his reign

Hillary will out neocon the neocons if she gets a chance.

Scary thought. :scared:

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Yup!!

nt

[DesertFlower]

41. they both want the

AIPAC vote. didn't you see obama meeting with concerned jews in pennsylvania today?



on edit: hey i'm an obama supporter.

[ErinBerin84]

5. yeah

Even Pat Buchanan was looking back at what she said and was like "Wait...that's fucked up!What about the constitution?"

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[City Lights]

6. Sure is an odd thing for the Goddess of Peace to say.

:wtf: was she getting at

[rug]

10. It's a reworking of CENTO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Pact

[SunsetDreams]

12. Even Pat Buchanan said Barack had the right answer

[jasmine621]

14. Barak had the same answer in different words.

They are merely beating the Republicans at their own game. I do not believe that either Obama or Clinton will put Israel over the interests of the US.

[SunsetDreams]

20. no he didn't...

the text was read on MSNBC....he clearly didn't have the same answer

Pat Buchanan who has been the most hard on Barack, even admitted that his was the correct response

[IndianaGreen]

15. Obama's response was rational and in line with past US policy

Hillary's response is far more dangerous and reckless than anything the neocons ever cooked up.

[Stephanie]

21. Is there a transcript? Can I see a quote?

Great catch, thanks!

[IndianaGreen]

28. Olbermann read the transcript on his post-debate show

I have been trying to find a transcript on the net, but not even ABC News has one.

[Stephanie]

29. we'll get one tomorrow - check WaPo

And then we'll demand an EXPLANATION.

[IndianaGreen]

35. AP has a very brief quote

"An attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation by the United States," Clinton said.

Obama said, "The U.S. would take appropriate action."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24156770/

Olbermann read the transcript and it was far more detailed that the single sentence the AP printed.

[Stephanie]

37. In diplomatic parlance those are very distinct differences

Hillary is still trying that Iron Maiden trick - way too late. Give it up!

[mmonk]

25. Is the overall approach that the Middle East will be under a U.S.

"system" basically. It's cloaked neoliberalism pretending to be protectorate.

[sandnsea]

30. holy fucking hell I'm listening right now

Are you people who support her out of your fucking minds?? Do you not hear this? She isn't going to change our foreign policy one bit. It's going to be just as much war and militarism with her as it would be with McCain.

[Zhade]

50. Are you kidding? They deny video proof she lied about Tuzla!

THEY DENY THEIR OWN EYES.

[sandnsea]

53. Did you hear her say she lied? Rather Reaganesque

Stunning.

'Yeah, I said something that apparently was not true because I wrote the truth in my book. So somehow or other, this fantasy about being shot at just spilled out of my mouth. I will need to have people around me with socks handy in the event something of that nature ever happens again.'

And her supporters DON'T CARE.

Just insane.

[Ysabel]

33. i thought that might be what she meant / thanks for the cold war reminder...

p.s. k and r...

[guruoo]

36. Context first, please.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Here is the transcript

The question was first addressed to Obama, and then to Clinton:

STEPHANOPOULOS: During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States.

Should it be U.S. policy now to treat on Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack against the United States?

CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.

But I would do the same with other countries in the region. We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons, but they are intent upon using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.

And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States, to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran.

<snip>

And we will let the Iranians know, that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation. But so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions. And finally, we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us, and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.

Therefore, we have not to have this process that reaches out beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3

[DesertFlower]

43. thanks for the transcript. nt

[TeeYiYi]

55. Your transcript post is out of context and confusing...

To be fair, you should have posted the complete section of the transcript regarding Iran and Israel, including unedited answers from both candidates. Either that, or you need to add a heckuva lot more <snips> to your 'transcript' post.

Here's how the Wall Street Journal Online interpreted it:

"The candidates both said they would strike back with massive retaliation if Iran were to attack Israel. Earlier on Wednesday, Sen. Obama reached out to Jewish leaders in Philadelphia."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120835924156419683-cbs_jedHflu6NyLEvUEu2GrE0Qg_20080517.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

In the interest of objectivity, posting the complete 'Iran/Israel' section of the transcript and then bolding the sections you personally want to highlight would seem a more honest way to present your point. I don't necessarily agree with the WSJ interpretation, but neither do I agree with a 'transcript' that shows a question directed at Obama and, without <snips>, an edited answer from Clinton.

Personally, I voted for Kucinich. I haven't decided which candidate I think 'won' tonight's debate...

TYY :shrug:

[KSinTX]

56. The post "interpreted," transcript contains the actual words

If you read the transcript without "interpretation," Obama NEVER said "massive retaliation" NOR did he advocate a strike on the behalf of other countries in the region.

The actual words:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16044/

and analysis
http://election.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/04/17/confusion-in-penns-woods/

[Cali_Democrat]

44. .

[Thepricebreaker]

45. She sounds 10 times worse then McCain.... to be honest...

[Major Hogwash]

46. She meant "going all John McCain on them" - drop the friggin' bomb - start another war.

She's an idiot. Thank gawd her phone won't be ringing at 3 AM next January.

[McCamy Taylor]

51. She meant "My balls are as big as Obama's"

[Bonobo]

57. That's not important. Obama was on the same board as Ayers!!