Most overlooked comment in debate?

[JMDEM]

Hillary saying that if Iran messed with any of our "friends" in the middle east, it would invoke a MASSIVE retaliation by the US.

WTF does this mean, and why the F* did she bring this up? It even shocked Pat Buchanan, when he was being interviewed by Keith Olbermann.

[rug]

1. It's overlooked because it doesn't exist.

[JMDEM]

2. So Hillary never said such a thing? nt

[rug]

3. No. Go get the link.

[babylonsister]

16. This link? Now apologize.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5564117

[rug]

38. Already there.

And unapologetic.

[The Doctor.]

46. You people are truly delusional.

How you can utterly refuse to believe reality until it's shoved in your face, and then have not one ounce of recognition of your own desperation is frightening.

We don't need four more years of delusional, lock-step 19 percenters.

[baldguy]

72. And what's more delutional than a Marxist who supports Hillary?

[The Doctor.]

74. I give up.

'what's more delutional than a Marxist who supports Hillary'?

[JMDEM]

54. Okay, come on now

We're backing Rug into a corner, same thing Bush/Clinton are doing with Iran. Allow him a graceful exit, the same thing we should be doing with Iran. People respond the same way when backed into a corner -- whether it be an individual or an entire nation. They get belligerent and hostile.

I never said "in your face Rug" -- just posted the link. He/she made a mistake. So what. End of story. :)

[cliffordu]

85. Meds, Rug, Meds!!!!

[JMDEM]

18. Here's your link

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.

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

[rug]

36. Go to the other thread for the full quote.

[SoFlaJet]

7. take your head

out of yo ass-Olbermann did a whole segment on it last night-oh that's right Hillbots now HATE Countdown-just like Dick Cheney. Coincidence? I think not.

[rug]

9. Take your foot out of your mouth and get the link.

[SoFlaJet]

no fuck off go do it yourself

who are you to give me orders?

[rug]

33. Precisely.

[Buzz Clik]

80. You've been given the link at least twice and the full quote.

In context.

What is your problem?

[Occam Bandage]

21. ...

[rug]

34. Do you suck at spider solitaire as well?

[grace0418]

30. So, any more comments now that there is a link?

You got kinda quiet. Hmm.

[rug]

31. Go to the new thread. Hmmm?

[Occam Bandage]

35. You claim that wasn't "the quote" in this thread. But yet there is no quote here, just a paraphrase.

And the paraphrase is accurate. What distinctions do you draw?

[rug]

40. And it's a shitty, misleading paraphrase. What standards do you have?

[Occam Bandage]

43. First, "I think that paraphrase is misleading" is not "she never said that give me a link."

Secondly, your reasons for why that paraphrase is misleading are vague at best. You think objections to an enormous expansion of American military responsibility are invalidated because she would only extend the umbrella of massive retaliation to nations that aren't pursuing nukes? That cuts out Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Iran. Yes, I see how that changes everything.

[grace0418]

59. The quiet you was better. Didn't sound quite as silly.

But thanks. And bye-bye.

[Jed Dilligan]

39. You sure look smart now!

[rug]

44. Hey, Jed, go to the other thread. It's this way.

[Occam Bandage]

48. Can't stand the stench of your own failure here, I take it.

[Jed Dilligan]

53. Never fear. I already visited over there, so:

[rug]

55. Your ship has arrived.

This is fun, isn't it?

[Jed Dilligan]

58. Only because you continue to make a complete ass of yourself

I've never met anyone so eager to participate in his own humiliation!

:rofl:

[rug]

69. Say hello.

[Terran]

76. I only have one person on Ignore

You're the second. Gawd what a complete waste of time you are--not even amusing in your foolishness.

[rug]

77. What I don't understand about these ridiculous ignore posts is why you feel a need to announce it.

Why not simply ignore rather than making a stupid comment and hiding?

Oh wait, you can't read the question.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Sure it does.

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

"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."

[NavyDavy]

20. and it should they are our allies afterall, you just don't leave

allies alone in a war unless you are asked not to by said allie

[JMDEM]

49. Yes, but massive retaliation?

I would think a sane president would opt for a well considered proportional response.

[Occam Bandage]

52. Yes, but there is a major difference between

America offering proportional response in event of an attack on Israel, and America threatening massive retaliation for Iranian aggression against any non-nuclear power in the Middle East.

[gal]

68. Don't let her near the red phone

OR the red button!

[Mz Pip]

4. Didn't you

want to know whether or not Obama thought Wright was patriotic? That's seems to have meritied far more attention than that little sound bite Hillary's.

Kind of scary, really. Hillary is sounding like McCain and it goes un noticed by the media.

[uberblonde]

5. Oh, I thought you meant Obama's comment about social security.

How it's "running out of money" and we have to fix it.

What a RW talking point that is.

[nichomachus]

8. Well it is and we do -- Obama was right again

The GOP has been stealing the money from SS and we have to put more back in. That's a fact. It does need to be fixed. The question is how.

The right-wing talking point is that we have to do away with SS and let the geniuses on Wall Street steal out money.

[Occam Bandage]

11. His solution is as far from RW as it gets.

He wants to raise the cap on social security taxes. While SS is solvent for the next few decades, raising the cap would keep it solvent indefinitely, taking away that favored RW talking point--and would only hurt those who can most afford to pay into the system.

[sandnsea]

24. Did you miss Hillary's reference to "current recipients"

That she won't cut the benefits of the "current recipients". What does that mean for the rest of us?? What is she so obsessed over those making over $100,000 for? Do you realize 90% of the country makes less than that?

Obama is exactly right on social security.

[LSK]

82. such a right wing talking point that Thom Hartmann uses it

:eyes:

[L0oniX]

6. She is so far to the right that she has passed by McPain.

F*cking chicken hawk b****. :mad:

[CK dexter]

10. It's a diabolical Olberman conspiracy. She sure didn't say (and I don't quote):

"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."

And the ABC video footage Olberman showed of her saying that didn't exist. And you don't exist.

And this ABC transcript with the quote doesn't exist, either:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3

[sandnsea]

47. Not just Israel

These are the two sentences that scared the pee out of me. What in the hell is she talking about here? ME countries under the protectorate of the US?? This is what got us into this terrorist mess in the first place. What a fool.

"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."

[BlooInBloo]

12. I don't get it. How does that differ from US policy since like 1947 or whatever?

[JMDEM]

26. Because Clinton extended the umbrella way beyond Israel. nt

[sandnsea]

51. Israel has been attacked many times

Where was the massive retaliation from the US? And what is this "security umbrella" that she is going to create with who knows how many ME countries, where we put ourselves right in the middle of ME civil and religious antagonisms. It has the potential to explode worse than anything we've done in the past. The region is bad enough, but mix in Russia and China, and this will make the 80's proxy wars look like a spitball fight in a kindergarten classroom. It's astonishing and very scary that hardly any of the media has said a word about it.

[BlooInBloo]

56. One has to be ever-so-slightly openminded about what counts, is all....

.... Not every properly so-called retaliation looks like WWII.

[sandnsea]

60. It's the "massive" and the "umbrella"

that are the key words that ought to set your hair on fire. That and her vote on Kyl-Lieberman - and her very real support of the actual war in Iraq, her remarks in Nov 2003 that we needed to "stay the course" and win in Iraq. People think that just because she's a Democrat, she naturally opposes war. Not these new DLC Democrats. They are not talking about a significant change in foreign policy at all.

[BlooInBloo]

61. (shrug) I'm certainly not saying Clinton is a peacenik.... I just don't see the difference....

... in THIS PARTICULAR statement.

If Iran had "messed with our friends" twenty years ago, there would also have been some sort of "massive retaliation". That statement of hers just doesn't strike me a ratcheting things up.

Which is not to say there aren't OTHER statements of hers that do.

[sandnsea]

62. Uh, do you remember the Iran hostage crisis?

Do you remember the Iran/Iraq war? No, there was no massive retaliation. That statement, in addition to her bringing ME countries into a US "security umbrella" is a completely different foreign policy than we've had in the ME. Nobody has ever said that we're going to create a type of METO and be the protectorate over all of the ME. Talk about the world' police. Good god, the money, the military, inciting more hatred at us. It's just mind boggling.

[BlooInBloo]

64. That was against US (double entendre points - wooot!), as I recall.

[Texas Hill Country]

83. I do, I was there.

I was not one of Reagan's hostages, but got out just before they were taken.

[JVS]

13. She'll put a boot in their ass. It's the Amurican way!

[Maven]

14. And Obama said he wouldn't take "any option off the table" if Iran pursued nuclear weapons.

It was pretty clear what he meant.

[JMDEM]

22. There is a big difference between "no option is off the table"

and massive retaliation.

And Clinton extended the "umbrella of protection" beyond Israel.

[Maven]

29. Only in degree of candor, perhaps.

In fact, the more ambiguous of the two answers should disturb you more since Obama has saber-rattled in the past when it suited him.

[JMDEM]

45. More ambiguous answer should disturb me?

Which would disturb you more - you get mugged and the mugger says "gimme your wallet because I can really hurt you", or the mugger pulls out a .357 and says gimme your wallet or I'll turn your brains into scrambled eggs?

Your logic is very strange.

[cbayer]

70. I agree with you on this.

I hear "no option off the table" as codespeak for exercising a nuclear option. He offered no specific plan, just a threat that he would do anything to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons and would retaliate if they threatened Israel.

Personally, both were too militaristic for me.

[texshelters]

17. First, we'll take Iran, then France!

Read this:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=266473317&blogID=380911490&Mytoken=116DEE89-8BB3-4DD4-87B59F469323F7CB116301408

Thanks for pointing this out to us.

Tex Shelters

[catgirl]

19. Thanks for the heads up

[livetohike]

23. I thought it was Hillary Clinton's admitting that she had a lot of baggage

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/hillary-clint-2.html

[Occam Bandage]

25. This type of saber-rattling is, frankly, unhelpful. The last thing we need to do

is bolster the Iranian fear of American aggression; that only increases the strength of the hardliners over the moderates. You'd think Hillary Clinton wouldn't be so naïve.

[JMDEM]

28. AIPAC. nt.

[Skidmore]

37. And neocons.

I've been saying for a while that Hillary is the Democratic candidate for the neocons.

[1776Forever]

27. Will the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment Encourage Bush to Attack Iran? HRC vote for this.......

Will the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment Encourage Bush to Attack Iran?

http://aloneonalimb.blogspot.com/2007/10/will-kyle-lieberman-amendment-encourage.html

(snip)Sept 27, (2008) the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment by a vote of 76 to 22. This bill designates the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. Opponents of the amendment are saying that this amendment could give support to a Bush plan to attack Iran.

Senators who voted against the resolution were Senators Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cantwell, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Klobuchar, Leahy, Lincoln, Lugar, McCaskill, Sanders, Tester, Webb and Wyden.

Senators Obama and McCain did not vote, and Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the amendment.

Chris Dodd had this to say,

I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice.

John Edwards in the New Hampshire debate said,

I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war. We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.

Jim Webb said,

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war

A just published article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker Magazine outlines how the Bush administration is moving toward attacking Iran. Seymour writes:

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq.

[Occam Bandage]

32. It's spelled "Kyl," and no.

[msallied]

41. First we're gonna go to Israel! Then we're going to go to Iran!

Then Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and then PAKISTAN! YEEEARRRRGH!!!

[rurallib]

42. People say a quote I heard, saw and see quoted here does not exist?

I feel like I have entered right wing world.
Our military is far overstretched, soldiers are at the breaking point and Clinton threatens to use them again in a region where conflict is a normal way of life?

[sunnystarr]

50. I'm a little confused at the issue

Clinton DID in fact say what was quoted in this thread. I heard her say it and was blown away at the ramifications of her statement.

[Pawel K]

57. Iran? Who cares about such stupid issues?

I was a lot more interested in why Obama doesn't wear a flag pin. Of course I didn't get past that answer because american idol was on.

[cornermouse]

63. Obama's threat to attack Iran during the debate.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=1
Obama's threat to attack
"I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians, where we are laying out very clearly for them: Here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons, but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats toward Israel.

I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is. Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons.

And that would include any threats directed at Israel, or any of our allies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

OBAMA: As I said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel, is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security, we consider paramount. And that would be an act of aggression that we would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable. And the United States would take appropriate action."

[JMDEM]

65. Notice the differences

"Appropriate action" versus "massive retaliation".

Lots of explanations of alternatives versus "massive retaliation" alone.

You have to remember that Iran has been backed into a corner by Bush, and Clinton seems to want to perpetuate this. Iran even offered to help us after 9/11. They have put out all sorts of peace feelers that we have flat out ignored.

I think Obama could effectively work out a peaceful solution with them. I think Bush and Hillary want some sort of conflict, and ignore the alternatives.

[cornermouse]

67. They both effectively said the same thing.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians, where we are laying out very clearly for them: Here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons, but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats toward Israel.

I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is. Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons.

And that would include any threats directed at Israel, or any of our allies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

OBAMA: As I said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel, is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security, we consider paramount. And that would be an act of aggression that we would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable. And the United States would take appropriate action.

Believing anything else is existence in fantasy land.

[JMDEM]

78. Appropriate action is far different than massive retaliation. nt

[cornermouse]

81. Your argument is illogical.

:rofl:

See how polite I was?

[dbmk]

79. Hmmm

As much as I think the Bush administrations Middle Eastern policy is a gigantic failure, this particular bit I have to take some exception to:

"Iran even offered to help us after 9/11."

That was, as far as I could tell, a slightly mocking statement.
And I was supported in that assumption by a friend of Iranian descent, who is an expert on Iranian relations here in Denmark, and has been referred to and used as such by the media on occasion.

The rhetoric used about Iran is way to sharp and confrontational, thats for sure. But it would be wrong to assume that they have an intention of compromising to any noticable degree, if they can get away with less. The powers that be in Iran have everything to gain from perpetuating an image of the west and especially the US as an enemy or at least an advesary.

That being said, I think Obama again showed a more thoughtful and deliberated approach to the matter.
Because as much as they would dislike bowing to international pressure, it might still be something they could be brought to do, given a strong and forceful discourse, if they feel it can be done without loosing face internally. And not a strong and forceful _handling_, which is far more likely to breed stubbornness. Which is the difference I hear in the two statements.

So we basically agree. Apart from that one bit.

[underpants]

66. "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you?"

That was so bad that it still has me laughing at it.

That will go down as one of the all time worst moments ever in a debate of this level

[anonymous171]

71. Hillary plans on out neoconning the neocons.

[XemaSab]

73. I heard that, and I was alarmed

:o

[Growler]

75. "Ignored" sure was busy in this thread...

[TheDonkey]

84. Hillary also admitted she knowingly lied about Bosnia and was sorry it was exposed

it was a horrendous answer to the Bosnia fiasco.