Obama showed last fall how to handle the hypothetical question on Iran that sunk Hillary tonight

[BeyondGeography]

What happens if Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon? The proper reaction is WTF?

Democrats should never dive into these alarmist hypotheticals without first calling bullshit. The MSM act as if the NIE showng that Iran scrapped its nuclear program five years ago was never written. All they want is a sensationalistic response that will drive readership and jerk the audience out of their slumber. An irresponsible and unnecessary baiting of a potentially dangerous foreign adversary? Who cares?

Obama showed just how to handle this type of question at the Philadelphia debate last Oct. 30:

Williams: Senator Obama, let's get at this another way. "Red line" is the current expression of the moment where Iran is concerned in Washington. What would your red line be concerning when to, if to attack Iran? What would make it crystal-clear in your mind that the United States should attack Iran?

Obama: I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point for some of the reasons that Chris and Joe just talked about. Look, we have been seeing, during the Republican debates, the drum beat of war. The president has been talking about World War III.

That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region.

And what we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, but also talking to our enemies and focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, but also talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized.

We have not made those serious attempts. This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region. It doesn't send the right signal to our allies or our enemies.

And, as a consequence, I think over the long term, it weakens our capacity to influence Iran. Now, there may come a point where those measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options. But we shouldn't talk about those options now, when we haven't even tried what would be a much more effective approach.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21528787/page/3/

After Iraq, Americans will take Reason over Rambo anytime.

[Samantha]

1. Kicking your thread

Excellent point.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Her answer sucked

but so did the question.

When are we going to learn?

[babylonsister]

3. I much prefer Obama's approach; it's the only sensible one. nt

[CantGetFooledAgain]

4. Thank you for your post

As I watched Hillary on Countdown this evening, I thought, "this is insane"; but I didn't quite have the words to express how I felt as I watched a presidential candidate threatening nuclear annihilation of a nation without even once using the word "diplomacy".

Having read the quote from Senator Obama, I can now be comforted by the knowledge that not all of our leaders, not all of our candidates, have gone completely insane. And I am much strengthened in my support for him as our nominee.

Obama will be a fine president if he stays true to the ideals conveyed in the OP.

[madrchsod]

5. Badb she thinks she is......