"an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation"

[redqueen]

Yeah, she said it.


SENATOR 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.

You know, 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 and 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. It would give us three tools we don't now have.

Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.

And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup 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 this 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 got 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.



Uh huh.

Let's talk about this.

Cause this... this is just fucking BATSHIT INSANE!


on edit: Here's one place it's actually been discussed (thanks crankychatter for the suggestion):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fCd-LsG9820&feature=related (this issue comes up about 2 minutes in)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yMA-_RP1Z_Q&feature=related (continues...)


Funny how it's not getting wider coverage, huh? ;)

[SoFlaJet]

1. ATTN; Rug

here the redqueen did the work for you-she DID say it, SEE?????

[redqueen]

2. Hahahaha...

[rug]

5. That was not your quote. Nice try.

[elmerdem]

23. ostrich much?

[redqueen]

25. ...

:rofl:

[rug]

31. thnk much?

[redqueen]

33. Oh, we seem to be thinking far more than you are.

Perhaps you might care to demonstrate your thinking on the issue by explaining how expanding a NATO-type agreement to the most unstable region in the world is a good idea?

Pretty please?

With sugar on top?

And a cherry?

[rug]

39. Answer #41.

And I think the most unstable region in the world is your cranium.

[Occam Bandage]

68. Answer #s 42, 60, 72.

[jackson_dem]

133. Deterrance. We had the same policy toward the USSR for half a century

[LooseWilly]

137. deterrence??

What are we talking about here?

i'm confused.

Are we taking the "Persian Expansionistic Threat" seriously now?

Cause if we are... I might as well give up on the whiskey, and turn to opium... because we're all high now.

Are you people willing to take the Stephanopolous bullshit given as a bullshit given then?

Has everyone forgotten the NIE that said that Iran gave up nuke weapon development in 2003?

Am I smoking opium, high, and just forgetting that I smoked it?

Or, are we alll falling for the HRC, right wing Democrat, bullshit?

Isn't that the reason BHO is winning the primary? Because, for a limited time at least,
we knew better?

[jackson_dem]

142. Iran has a history and it isn't one of sending flowers to other countries

1) That is neither here nor there. Deterrence is not limited to being relevant only if a country possesses nuclear weapons. With a deterrence policy such as what Clinton proposed all of this would be moot because Iran would not be foolish enough to attack another country, with or without nuclear weapons, with the obvious exception of Hezbollah but even that is not the same as a full scale invasion of a country. Deterrence is a long-term policy. Iran does not have nukes now. Who is to say it will not in 20 or 30 years?

2) Deterrence may sound anachronistic to the netroots but it is a policy that even the most anti-war Democrats, including Obama himself, favored toward Iraq. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is far more powerful than Iraq was and it has a long imperialistic history that Iraq does not have. That history is not one that is condemned in Iran like "manifest destiny" and the like are condemned in the United States. That history is glorified in Iran.

3) Specifically regarding Iran, deterrence is implicit in what even the netroots savior Obama says.

[Occam Bandage]

143. Deterrence is also completely and utterly worthless when one considers Iran's history.

Iran does not have a history of invading other nations with conventional armies. However, it does have a history--and a history dating from the Revolution--of using militia uprisings as proxies. Iran is a master of soft power. Hezbollah and al-Sadr are the face of Iranian expansionism. Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq are all, to varying extents, Iranian client states--and the process by which Iran is solidifying its control is a process that is not affected by conventional deterrence.

Hell, look at the Israel-Lebanon war of '06. Rather than weaken Hezbollah as was the intent, it strengthened Hezbollah's political position in Lebanon, and reversed the post-Cedar-Revolution political trend. Look at the current operations in Iraq--one would be a fool to think that the American campaign in Iraq has done anything but strengthen the power of Iran; its numerous client parties and militias threaten to become the predominant power as soon as America pulls out.

The only "deterrence" that conventional warfare can provide is the threat of open war against Iran in retaliation for the actions of proxies. Unfortunately, that threat is mitigated with the strength of Iranian proxies across the Middle East (the last thing we need is for every Shi'a militia to launch an uprising at once) and is absolutely nullified by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

The Iranians are not going to nuke Israel. The Iranians are not the Soviets; though they have learned from where they were successful. Their nuclear weapon is a shield against American/Israeli conventional retaliation.

There are two ways to deal with Iran--to accept that they are a power in the Middle East, or to attempt to beat them at their own game. The former is inconsistent with American policy, and I have no idea how far we've come along the latter, though it seems we're making tentative progress learning the ropes in parts of Iraq. However, pursuing that course seems a bit like a chess novice attempting to beat a grandmaster by learning as the game goes.

[Leopolds Ghost]

148. You supported the Mutually Assured Destruction? Another conservative RW Dem for Hillary

I suppose you also supported the aerial bombing campaigns of
Robert S. McNamara and General Curtis LeMay, the man who

legitimized civilian aerial bombing, which was a war crime at the time
practised only by Axis powers.

Don't believe me? McNamsara said as much, and apologized for it,
in the extended interview Fog Of War.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

4. "but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and

forswear their own nuclear ambitions."

What, precisely, is batshit insane about that? It seems to be the premise of NATO.

[redqueen]

6. Uh... exactly! She's talking about expanding NATO

to the most UNSTABLE region in the world?

And you don't see a problem with that?

:spray:

Why oh why am I surprised? :rofl:

[rug]

9. No, that's not what she's saying. Read about the Baghdad Pact.

Your smileys are poor camouflage.

[redqueen]

11. Camouflage?

WTF? :rofl:

Whatever... if you had an argument you'd present it... not refer me to some pact as a justification for the most outrageous statement she's made during the campaign.

[rug]

18. Given I don't argue with smileys, leave emoticon.com and read some history.

:hi:

:loveya:

:hug:

[redqueen]

21. Aw what a pathetic strawman... did I ask you to "argue with smileys"?

No... I expected you to back up your belief that this shit ain't batshit insane.

But you can't. Oh well! Sorry for being such a cunt to you. :loveya: :hug: :hi:

[rug]

28. You should put that word in context.

:*

[redqueen]

29. Oh I am!

In the thread in which you called me a cunt, I was defending the word's use in contexts in which it isn't meant to be offensive... and you demonstrated your utter failure to comprehend the issue by seriously calling me a cunt, in order to "prove your point".

:thumbsup:

Sad that you're so dead-set against discussing how Hillary's Iran Plan isn't absolutely fucking insane... but at least you're making it crystal clear that there's no defense! Thanks! :D

[rug]

35. You haven't described her plan other than calling it batshit.

Your smileys aside, she's proposing a regional security pact, predicated on no nuclear proliferation.

Thinking is harding than typing :snark:

[redqueen]

38. She described her plan above.

Did you read it?

[rug]

44. I did.

Did you read that retaliation is not limited to an attack on Israel? That she proposed a security pact premised on no nuclear proliferation? That, if accomplished, may stabilize the second most unstable region in the world?

[redqueen]

46. Yes, and that makes it even crazier.

That you believe that this plan is some kind of panacea that could stabilize the ME... well... that explains much.

[rug]

50. Clinton is not the candidate of panacea. Don't you think the region can be stabilized?

[redqueen]

53. Not anytime soon... no.

And certainly not through promises to attack. Haven't we learned this by now?

[rug]

59. One region at a time. I'm hopeful.

[redqueen]

61. I'm hopeful, too.

But I recognize this plan of hers as utter madness which would only make things worse.

[Bake]

104. So what do you suggest that we DO in response to an attack on Israel?

Israel is our ally, whether you like it or not. What do you suggest we do, ask Iran nicely not to do it again?

I see nothing at all wrong with Sen. Clinton's proposal. It's not that different from Obama's statement that he wouldn't take any option, including the military option, off the table.

Sometimes you have to tell bullies that if they do something, they will get the shit kicked out of them.

Bake

[redqueen]

105. It's vastly different. (nt)

[Bake]

119. That's not what I asked.

I asked what do you think we should DO in response to an attack on our ally, Israel?

Bake

[redqueen]

121. Take appropriate action.

As Obama has responsibly said.

[Bake]

125. Are you trying to be intentionally vague?

Like your candidate perhaps?

I'm not suggesting that we nuke 'em if they lob a conventional missile or two into the desert, of course. Proportional response. But if Iran were to knock out Tel Aviv with serious weaponry, conventional or otherwise, what would you do? I'd say they need to know in advance that if they take out Tel Aviv, we take out Tehran. That might be a bit of a deterrent.

Bake

[redqueen]

127. Are you seriously telling me...

that you don't think the whole of the ME knows we have Israel's back?

Please.

It seems to me that you and others are deliberately ignoring the significant difference between this country's traditional position and what she proposed in her answer.

[Occam Bandage]

130. I'm pretty sure that what's happened here

is that the Hillary Defense Squad has been painted into a corner by the Goddess, and now they are simply trying to mitigate their embarrassment by making inane excuses for the simple questions, and ignoring the complex ones.

[redqueen]

131. Perhaps...

[jackson_dem]

135. This goes beyond Israel and touches in the issue of nuke proliferation

Let's be realistic. If Iran does attack another country it is unlikely to be Israel. It would more likely be one of the small Gulf states--who happen to be wealthy but small and weak.

[Occam Bandage]

144. Iran is not going to launch a conventional attack against a small Gulf state.

That ceased to be a strategic option for any Middle-Eastern state in 1991. Iran has launched attacks against other countries in the past few years, though. Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq come to mind. In fact, they're rather close to winning the war for control of the latter two.

[Leopolds Ghost]

149. "we take out Tehran. That might be a bit of a deterrent." Tehran is a metropolis larger than LA

If you said what you just said about LA, you'd be carted off to Gitmo
and tortured to death as a serious terrorist.

Apparently you think Ayers is a terrorist and you are merely advocating war crimes, like Saddam did.

[Occam Bandage]

54. And I'm saying that a regional security pact in the Middle East

is a disastrous idea, especially formed (as Clinton is suggesting) on the basis of an American umbrella. Already our military is over-stretched; now is not the time to be proposing new commitments. The situation is exponentially worsened when one considers the fractured nature of the Middle East; an Iran-versus-someone-else war is rather unlikely, especially given Iran's current militia-centric strategies. A pan-Middle-east war would be more likely to materialize first as Hezbollah/Hamas/Sadrist uprisings, and later as a series of border clashes and local-level violence, combined with strong political pressure, as both Iran and America/Israel lean on mutual nuclear threats to prevent conventional warfare from extending beyond border conflicts. Addition of an American security umbrella would not prevent or ease such a situation; it would only further confuse and worsen it.

The problem with the Middle East is not nuclear proliferation beyond Iran--and the Iranian nuke is primarily dangerous inasmuch as it strongly limits the conventional options the American/Israeli bloc has to use against Iran.

[rug]

56. I'm glad you now realize her comment was about the ME, not a nuclear retaliation to protect Israel.

[redqueen]

58. Who said it was only about Israel?

Strawman much?

[rug]

112. Your headline for one.

[redqueen]

115. That's a snippet.

I included the full text.

Are you seriously trying to imply that I was trying to say it was only about Israel?

And even if anyone did try to say that... what fucking difference would it make?

[Occam Bandage]

122. The headline mentions Israel, but by no means limits the problem to Israel.

[Occam Bandage]

64. Now? I never claimed that was the problem (see #42). The problem is clearly

that she is threatening to expand the American military umbrella to an extent roughly comparable to the expansion entailed by the creation of NATO, with Israel is the only other ally with any military strength to speak of, with a military commitment (given the term "massive") that we cannot afford at this moment, with no apparent respect to the political realities of the Middle East, and against a threat that in no way would be affected by such an expansion.

Your "oh you only now get it" claim is not only inaccurate, it has provided you with a neat escape from having to address any of the complaints I've raised.

[Occam Bandage]

66. You know, rug, you're great at telling us we're not thinking, but you're not so good

at actually addressing any, you know, thoughts.

[rug]

86. Is there a thought here?

[Occam Bandage]

120. Many. You've yet to reply substantively to any of them. Try replying to 54 or 64.

[jackson_dem]

134. NATO was created for what was then the most unstable region in the world. How'd that work out?

Although, as rug noted, what she is saying is not another NATO.

[redqueen]

146. NATO wasn't implemented while those countries were being torn apart by a civil war. (nt)

[Occam Bandage]

36. So she's expanding the responsibility of American force projection to include, potentially,

every country in the North-Africa-to-South-Asia region but but Iran, Pakistan, and India. And this does not seem objectionable?

[TahitiNut]

7. It's a global authoritarian police state and the U.S. is the police force.

We give ourselves license, in that police state, to engage in Regime Change when the "citizens" of that Global State have the temerity to adopt forms of governance of which we don't approve. In that State, we give ourselves license not just to retaliate but to PREEMPTIVELY attack any nation we call (no matter how baselessly) a "threat." What's most disturbing about this is the fact that COWARDS see "threats" where they don't reasonably exist.

[redqueen]

10. She's just outed herself as being more of an imperalist than BUSH!

Holy fucking fuck TN... how do people not see this?

:crazy:

[L0oniX]

17. Agreed. It's her new club called the DLR ight. n/t

[TahitiNut]

24. She's taking us from M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) to I.U.D. ...

... imperialistic unilateral destruction. It's the ol' decimation policy of the Roman Empire.

[jackson_dem]

136. Which threats does Clinton see that Obama doesn't?

Obama may be beloved by Moveon and the rest of the netroots but he does not share their philosophy toward foreign affairs.

[CK dexter]

8. Batshit insane is exactly right...

And more batshit insane that the MSM is completely ignoring it.

I'm a bit disapointed in Obama for not remarking on this.

Up until now, I've been considering the possibility of Hillary in the GE with slight reservations. I'm now seriously worried. I only hope it's hot air pandering.

[redqueen]

12. Ah no... it's completely predictable that the M$M is ignoring it.

She's their gal!

As for Obama... yeah... I'm wondering what he's waiting for.

[billyoc]

13. If she was ever going to get closer to the White House than the group tour, I'd be worried. nt

[redqueen]

15. ...

:rofl:

[L0oniX]

20. LMFAO

[merh]

34. wouldn't she be invited back for "first lady" reunions?

and I agree with you, if she had a shot at the nomination this would scare the hell out of me.

This stance is insane.

[Armstead]

14. Interesting Question -- What wold she have done two years ago?

When Israel and Hezbollah went at it and Israel bombed Lebanon, how would Hillary have handled that?

Based on her statements, she might have gotten us enmeshed in a full scale war over there.

[redqueen]

19. Yup!

Crazy, crazy stuff... and the total lack of response from Stepholococcus... Jesus. :crazy:

[SOS]

16. How many NIE's is she going to ignore?

She's now to the right of Cheney on Iran.

[redqueen]

22. Ah it's all right... she'll just ask Condi for her notes.

:crazy:

[elmerdem]

26. exactly!

She drank the kool-aid!

I couldn't believe it when I heard it. I really am beginning to see less & less difference between her and McCain.

[SoFlaJet]

40. yup she's right there with her hero

Joe LIEberman

[crankychatter]

27. I'm trying to find this Maddow on Olbermann video

Debate analysis... she really NAILED it... can't find it yet

good morning

Hey, is Hillary Clinton BERSERKER?

there now, Red, you don't have to

mmmmmm.... home roasted Fair Trade Monsooned Indian Malabar Espresso...

LATTE' SPEW

[redqueen]

30. Here it is!

:D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yMA-_RP1Z_Q&feature=related

[crankychatter]

37. edit and stick that up top.... great assessment IMHO

of course, I'm just a cranky old guy... a little berserker in his own right

[crankychatter]

51. there's a different Vid where it's just Rachel

a little more detailed

I will find it

[redqueen]

63. That must have been last night...

I didn't get a chance to watch.

If you find it I'd be much obliged. :)

[hayu_lol]

41. I get the feeling that you guys aren't reading too well...

but thats ok. Some of us manage.

Redqueen's most famous quote: "Off with their heads."

[redqueen]

45. My username is based on the theory...

not the character.

If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, I'd be interested to read it. :hi:

[crankychatter]

49. did ignored call you a pinko?

ooooh... imma go BERSERKER

[redqueen]

52. Hahahahahahaha... no...

just made a comment that showed that they thought my username referred to Lewis Carroll's character in Through the Looking Glass.

Didn't say much at all really... which, well... I sort of expect from anyone trying to defend this madness.

:)

[kentuck]

32. And what would an attack BY Israel trigger?

Any day now?

[Lilith Velkor]

93. Bupkis - the US doesn't even mind them having nukes.

[Leopolds Ghost]

150. US would attack the country Israel unilaterally invaded n/t

[DerekJ]

42. ONE WORD:

AIPAC

[redqueen]

48. Are they this crazy?

I think she's gone around the bend with this one.

[donheld]

99. That one word rules a lot of Hillary's opinions.

[SOS]

43. Specifics please Senator Clinton!

"an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation"

Iran would never launch an attack from Iranian soil.
So is Clinton referring to Hezbollah in Lebanon?

Hell, even Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said no to that.

This is insanity.

[redqueen]

55. Wouldn't it be nice if it were a non-whore of a host that night?

So that maybe we'd have had the benefit of hearing a follow-up question, so we could get some details?

Alas...

[Blue_Roses]

47. Rachel Maddow was talking about this with Keith Oberman last night

and she couldn't believe that the MSM hadn't even touched on this. Hillary has gone further right than Bush. One thing that has always troubled (that was before this primary--now the list goes on) me about her, is her neo-con views. She's either doing this to pander to the right or she means it. One or the other will be back fire on her. She's lost it.

[redqueen]

57. Neo-con = Neo-lib

Not exactly, of course... but close enough that we should have caught on by now.

[bunnies]

60. This is absolutely horrifying.

And you know what? I dont care what letter appears after a candidates name, I will NOT vote for the person most likely to start more wars. This is fucking insane.

And not even a follow up question from her hubbys buddy. Shocking! Sure would be nice to know where the hell she plans on getting these troops from. *cough* draft *cough*.

[redqueen]

62. Well of the two candidates on our side... she's the more hawkish, that's for sure.

She showed that proudly when she went on the floor of the Senate and repeated the neo-con lies about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda... and even 10 months into the war, was still spewing the neo-con lies about how Iraq was a threat.

[jackson_dem]

138. How about Obama advocating bombing Iran when basically only he and Lieberman were for it?

That went down the Axlerod memory hole...

[LooseWilly]

139. put the crack pipe down

Where in the hells did you gather the idea that Obama joined Lieberman in the idea of bombing Iran??

some links maybe?

elsewise, you're a crackpot... more of a crackpot than Lieberman,
who's at least got the justification of being a
wingnut Jewish zionist... a point of view that's all the rage in
Israel's RW.

What's your excuse? Jackson needs a place for it's Jews to go, so they can leave Jackson?

Or is this some sort of peripheral Clinton thing... that there needs to be
more use of the Jews in the campaign?

[jackson_dem]

140. Because I listened to him before he became the messiah

Try Google. Who else in the Democratic Party was talking about this in 2004 before Lieberman, who is no longer a Democrat?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage
http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/515/515_07_Obama.shtml

-snip-

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.

“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

[jackson_dem]

141. Because I listened to him before he became the messiah

Try Google. Who else in the Democratic Party was talking about this in 2004 before Lieberman, who is no longer a Democrat?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage
http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/515/515_07_Obama.shtml

-snip-

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.

“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

[LooseWilly]

154. I stand corrected...

It seems you are happy to take comments made in September of 2004 and cast them as telling... and cast them as being equally relevant to comments made significantly more recently.

Nevermind the fact that those comments were made in the context a considerably different set of intelligence estimates, not to mention the intelligence mis-representations that were being presented by the MSM at the time without any real effort on their part to confirm any of said information.

I also find it interesting that suddenly the communist-leaning blogs are the source of your quotes, and are to be taken seriously and at face value.

All those details are noted, and allow me a little smirk... when I doff my hat to you and admit that you have in fact found reference to Obama mentioning surgical missile strikes against a nuclear armed Iran.

I will now be picking up my own crack pipe... because it's so much more pleasant a way to pass the time than bothering to discuss things like this with someone who is going to take quotes from obviously slanted sources, that are furthermore woefully out of date... Some of us found the whole situation regarding Iran to have changed after the intelligence reports admitted that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program.

Until you can find a quote where Obama suggests such a thing post 2007 NIE report... I'm just gonna hang out here and smoke some crack.

Mmmm.... crack.

[Independent-Voter]

65. This is fucking nuts. We should have cut Isreal off years ago. Let them fight their own battles.

Shit - it's not like they, as a fully industrialized nation, don't already receive some 30% of our entire foreign aid budget. Fuck 'em.

[crispini]

67. KICK KICK KICK

and R

[redqueen]

77. ...

:hi:

[cornermouse]

69. Obama's threat to attack Iran - from the transcript -kick your little hearts out over this

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=1
see page 3

Obama's threat to attack
"SI 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."

[Occam Bandage]

71. And claiming a proportional response to an Iranian attack on Israel has been US policy for decades.

The problem is, rather, Hillary's claim of an expanded US umbrella of protection encompassing potentially all non-nuclear states in the Middle East, and claim of massive (i.e., disproportionate) retaliation for any act of Iranian aggression against any nation under that umbrella.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like our Israel policy. But there's a difference between continuing a bad policy and making a bad policy a magnitude of order worse.

[cornermouse]

74. Obama basically said the same thing Hillary did.

The earlier portion of what Obama said.

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

"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. "

[Occam Bandage]

123. That is only "basically" the same thing inasmuch as it involves weapons and Iran.

[redqueen]

72. "Take appropriate action" > "Trigger massive retaliation"

Surely you can see that for yourself.

One is a measured, responsible answer.

The other is dangerous sabre-rattling.

[cornermouse]

75. See above.

They both said the same thing.

[redqueen]

76. Sorry but no... far from it.

*sigh*

[cornermouse]

79. The threat that Obama made that we're all supposed to pretend is finesse instead.

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.

[redqueen]

83. Again... his answers are measured.

Her answer describes a NATO-like umbrella around the ME... it's not even close to comparable.

[cornermouse]

87. lol. Yeah right.

[Occam Bandage]

124. Your failure to understand is not Barack Obama's failing.

It is, however, Hillary Clinton's strategy, as it was Bush's before her.

[merh]

70. but, but I thought she was

The Goddess of Peace *cue birds, harps & violins*

O8) :nuke:

[redqueen]

73. Hahahahaha...

oh shit... I'm not gonna say it here.

Check your PMs in a sec...

[merh]

80. .

:nuke:

[underpants]

78. We don't really discuss the role and importance of lobbyist around here

other than to say that we don't like them.

Lobbyists and campaign contributors are the gas that makes DC go. We like to discuss the "perfect world" of politics often (the entire web does).

That being said this statement and the Libermann's antics of the last few years and others as well (Obama probably too) are the direct result of the influence of AIPAC.

[redqueen]

84. Yup.

Obama has bene verrrrry careful about what he says.

There was an event at some Jewish forum or another, and one of Obama's surrogates gave an answer that recognized that we have to take other Israeli considerations into account besides just those of the Likud party.

His response was reportedly met with stony silence. Heh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. What was her "massive retailiation" to Israel's attack on Lebanon?

[Lilith Velkor]

92. You mean, she was CIC back then?

Amazing thing, that Transitive Property of Clenis.

[Occam Bandage]

126. No. She was a Senator, and one with a very high profile.

[kwenu]

82. You'd think a 60 year old would have a better memory of how WWI got needlessly started.

Anyway. She's nuts and suffering yet again from mouth diarrhea. We support Israel. We would assist in defending Israel. But no one in this country is sending a fucking nuclear missile anywhere on Israel's behalf. Israel has its own (unacknowledged but widely known) nuclear arsenal.

[redqueen]

85. Maybe it's just reckless, poorly-thought-out "tough gal" pandering...

it's dangerous, though.

[Lilith Velkor]

88. In Other News: Water Wet

(OMG that's like totally INSANE!!1!) :crazy:

[redqueen]

89. It's sad that the defenses of this "plan" of hers are so pathetic.

I expected better.

[Lilith Velkor]

95. Next thing y'all will expect her to speak out against the Drug War

That would be *nothing at all* like grabbing a political third rail, nosireebob.

:eyes:

[redqueen]

97. What are you talking about?

Defending Israel, sure... that's expected.

This NATO-like deal... asinine.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Leopolds Ghost]

151. What Drug War? Explain what you're talkimg about.

There's no drug war in this country. How many wars do you want us to start, exactly, to keep your favored friends in office?

[crankychatter]

90. Stephanopoulos repeated Bush Meme of Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

and did NOT get confronted for it... NIE says NO... no Iranian nuclear arms program

this is not pandering... she knows what's coming

There will be war with iran soon... very soon

unlike the "build up" for Iraq... this will happen FAST... before we know what hit us...

and Clinton will be poised to compete for Adolph Bush's job

[redqueen]

91. Argh.

I want to argue with you... but I can't.

*sigh*

[crankychatter]

94. I want to be wrong

... and I usually am...

Iran has ALWAYS been the target... Iraq is a logistical platform for long term occupation, economic dominion and military intimidation in the region

you thought it was the oil?

The region is key to checking Russian and Chinese power...

We can't win with strict economics, and cold war tactics, as we did against the former USSR

The neo-cons are NOT going to stop for love nor money... even if it destroys the country... as long as they're on top of whatever new order emerges, they're happy

they bet the farm... unfortunately it was OUR farm

edited fer spellin' n such

[redqueen]

98. Yeah... the PNAC agenda laid it all out for anyone to see, if they care to do so.

*sigh*

[kenny blankenship]

96. Baffling. When was this treaty obligation ever submitted to the Senate and ratified?

In what year were the armed forces of the United States placed at the service of a foreign country?

[bigbrother05]

100. Thanks for posting

[Cha]

101. Iran Iran Iran..no wonder the mediawhores want

hilary..bottom line she's a fucking chickenshithawk.

[2rth2pwr]

102. You're a war monger, you are setting up the conditions for an attack on Iran.

[redqueen]

106. You're out of your mind. (nt)

[2rth2pwr]

108. You are setting it up so that no matter which country they make a move

on, we have to retaliate.

[redqueen]

109. I'm a fucking office admin.

Did you miss a dose or something?

:wtf:

[2rth2pwr]

111. Oh, that helps clear up a lot of things. Thanks.

[redqueen]

114. Nice.

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

132. Such as what?

[rug]

113. Get back to work.

[redqueen]

116. I'm working now.

Thanks.

[Elidor]

103. It's probably not getting any coverage because...

She's not going to be the nominee, so the point is thankfully moot.

[redqueen]

107. They're making plans to cause a major confrontation over MI and FL...

I hope she's not the nominee... but I'm not counting chickens just yet.

[crankychatter]

118. these two issues converge... everyone is so distracted with petty bullshit

I have a theory... and I can get NO discussion about it here at DU

Obama supporters are SO FUCKING focussed on trite, short term issues, reacting instead of ACTING

they're like cats, obsessed with shiny baubles

we really need a war room

They think it's 1960 and we're actually having a contest in some conventional way

They act surprised when the media is complicit in dirty deeds

makes me wonder if they're Democrats

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. Didn't Obama Say A Iranian Nuclear Attack On Israel Would Be Met By American Force

Are the mullahs that crazy?


Israel has 200- 400 nukes... That's enough to turn all 65,000,000 or so Iranians into glass...Seems like a bad bargain for both of them...

[Leopolds Ghost]

152. I dont hear you talk about turning Jews into glass...how come its OK to talk about Muslims to glass?

More Anti-Semitism.

(Well, no, that can't be it... Iranians are Caucasian, like Russians.)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

117. It's this type of thinking that kept me from supporting Clinton in the primary

In a word this is insane.

The last thing I'm willing to support is giving the US even more power for our military to police the world. Especially the when it comes to the ME. We'll find ourselves in an unsustainable never ending series of wars.

[bridgit]

128. Yep, an attack on Israel would incite massive retaliation; how massive has yet to be...

entertained. Israel was restrained in her response to scuds being rained down in attempts to http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_4588000/4588486.stm">drag her into Gulf War I Hamas sanctions rocket attacks on her southern border to this day. Her northern border is no picnic. And her immediate neighborhood is filled with people that seek an end to the state of Israel, pushing then Jews into the sea. I don't think that's going to happen. I think many amazing, shocking things will occur before such a threat is brought forward.

There should be a plan. Whether the umbrella mentioned here, or the one already in place. For that matter I am confident Israel will respond if no one else will.

[Leopolds Ghost]

153. In other words, Israel has been attacked by rockets numerous times, and all this bluff is horseshit

[IsItJustMe]

145. Never show your Poker hand while you are sitting at the table. To me, this was the worst gaff of

campaign, but since no one is interested in substance anymore, it goes unnotices.

[redqueen]

147. Oh it's been noticed.

Not by as many as are swept up in her theatrics about Osama bin Laden and how Obama was wrong to insult Bush...

but it's been noticed.