Scary Quote From Sen. Clinton:

[RazBerryBeret]

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."


I've said it before and I'll say it again, she is way too tough for me.

Does this bother anyone else?

[Danger Mouse]

1. It bothers me, but do you have a link to back it up?

[RazBerryBeret]

3. of course:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

[EV_Ares]

11. Here is the link:

Clinton on an Iran Attack: 'Obliterate Them'

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Link: http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

[gsaguyCLW54]

65. bit of a miss step, but...

nothing wrong witht he sentiment behind it. An attack on Israel (which is certainly what Iran is going to do someday) should be treated as an attack on the United states.

[demwing]

89. An Attack On Isreal = An Attack On the US? Holy Shit are you serious?

Am I alone in thinking this is rather EXTREME?

[Tesha]

111. Hey, it's the 51st state! (No, you're not alone.) (NT)

[nebula]

98. Hillary should be running with McCrazy

Two nutcases on the same ticket.

[goclark]

107. Technically she is running with McCrazy nt

[Danger Mouse]

27. That's quite unsettling.

[polpilot]

83. Hill's built up suppressed anger @ Bill will have dire consequences.

[parasim]

2. Saber rattling always bothers me. nt

[RazBerryBeret]

9. Saber rattling on the eve of a big primary...

is this what she thinks will bring in the votes?
isn't her base supposed to be older women? is she trying to expand it? I just don't get it.

[patrice]

32. NPR was saying this morning that she had said Bush was a better pResident than

McCain could be. Sounds very much as though she's courting Bush's base to me.

[RazBerryBeret]

35. hey, that's one

way to get more votes, I guess.
she has to make up for the MoveOn.org members....

[patrice]

41. I was on my way to work, when I heard it, so I've got to go look up that quote.

They'll probably have it on the NPR website.

[Andy823]

55. I think she has gone

Way past the time for making sense. You never know what she will say or do next, and that's not the kind of person we need running this country! Heck I would hope we had learned that from the last 7 plus years of Bush! :eyes:

[roguevalley]

56. obliterate means indiscriminately killing babies, old grannies and

grandpas, the handicapped and sick, the young and younger, the old and older, everyone, innocent and guilty and just plain unlucky. Then there is the destruction of environment that lasts forever, the fact that the mushroom cloud hits my state first and I get 'obliterated' too. She is a sad sack, not even putting a human face on the shit she spews. i don't want anyone like this near the button. It would be like saying if Kansas attacks Nebraska, they will be obliterated. 99.9% of the Kansans would be innocent and helpless to stop their leadership from doing anything. God, that woman needs to go home.

[parasim]

95. Exactly. "Obliterate" is what Shock and Awe was all about.

It's the stuff of tyrants. It's this overwhelming show of power to show the rest of the world that you'll "Hiroshima" them if they don't bow to your every whim.

Indiscriminate destruction to prove that you're the biggest, baddest bully in the land.

[saltpoint]

60. Agree. There's no good time for it, really, and as the OP says, on the

eve of a crucial primary it is even more disingenuous.

Tears on the eve of New Hampshire, saber-rattling the night before Pennsylvania.

[merh]

4. the goddess of peace

:sarcasm:


:scared:

[Divernan]

118. This is gallows humor, but here's a post from Huff Po re macho HRC

- with her military experience, Hillary will lead in a combat team - first piloting her F15 and bombing the capital - hopefully theirs - and then she will eject, parachute, land, and lead in the ground forces. She will finish by leading in a Delta squad into Teharan and personally plant the explosives to get the religious, political, and military leaders in their bunkers. She is something.

[merh]

121. heh, gallows humor true

but she may have some convinced that is what she will and can do. :eyes:

[Me.]

5. But Not Too Tough For AIPAC

That comment was delivered to them

[tularetom]

6. So why should we vote for her instead of McCain?

She's just sort of erased any distinction between them.

[SunsetDreams]

7. She's to the right of the Republicans on this

[cboy4]

21. What a huge lie that is.

Despicable .. but not surprising coming from another blind allegiance Obama fan.

[Catherina]

52. It is? Care to dig up a quote of even a maniac like Bush talking about obliterating Iran?

or creating a nuclear umbrella in the Middle East?

[cboy4]

61. Wow. Listen to you defend George W Bush as

this some how better humanitarian.

You really think a quote is necessary to show "Mr. I'll bomb the the hell out of another country that didn't have WMD's and was never a threat to the U.S." wouldn't have a problem launching ICBMs at Iran (or North Korea) for that matter?"

You think he has to say something before he'll do it?

Please.

[Catherina]

64. She outdoing him. I'm shocked at your denial n/t

[cboy4]

67. Blind hatred must be burdensome.

:(

[Catherina]

73. Still no quote? n/t

[cboy4]

82. Still no understanding that when it comes to the issue of

whether George W Bush will use nuclear weapons, one doesn't need a quote from him saying he will actually use nuclear weapons?

You give George W Bush, one of the worse human beings to ever walk the face of the earth, far more credit than I do Catherina. :scared:

[Catherina]

86. Quotes Cboy, preferably with links

If you and other Clinton supporters can't see what a menace Hillary's hawkism is to the world I feel very sorry for our country and the world.

I'd like a quote where Bush has talked about obliterating another country with nuclear weapons. I'd also like a quote where he talked about creating a magical nuclear umbrella in a region we're willing to nuke.

Shame on you for wanting to go from 8 years of Bush to that.

[cboy4]

91. So your admiration of George W Bush, at least compared

to Hillary Clinton, rests on whether I can produce a quote from Mister war monger himself?

LOL.

I have to produce a quote from George W Bush stating he will obliterate Iran with nuclear weapons, in order for you to believe he'll actually do so?

Poor Catherina .. she who can't imagine Obama would use nuclear weapons against Iran if it attacked Israel with nukes, simply because he won't admit it.

[Catherina]

93. Thanks for confirming. Talking out of your ass. Not surprised n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

8. That seems to have been US policy for 60 years

I don't find it surprising.

[SunsetDreams]

12. Neocon policy yes, Democrats are all about diplomacy first

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Nothing she said

precluded diplomacy. It's just a lie to characterize her position as wanting to nuke Iran.

[merh]

28. We can totally obliterate anyone we want now.

She knows it, the world knows it - her words were not the words of reasoned diplomacy but of the ruler of the world's bully, like bush.

Shall I go search out your posts to find how you have damned bush for his bullying ways?

[MonkeyFunk]

54. sure, knock yourself out

But you're on a fool's errand. She didn't say she wanted to nuke Iran. She's advocating the doctrine of preemption, which has been US policy for >60 years.


edit: wrong, it's not "preemption". It's like a pre-emptive threat. And if Iran were to nuke Israel, you'd be a fool to think there wouldn't be consequences.

[merh]

59. Go look up preemption - you seem to be confusing accepted

terms - preemptive wars differ from preemption, they aren't even close. And most peace loving normal folks know you can't blow the fuck out of another nation that is no threat to this nation. That's why so many hate Bush, his illegal "preemptive" war based on lies. The NIE says Iran has no nuclear weapon capabilities, she forgot to pay heed to the Iraq NIE, what makes you think she will pay heed to the NIE if given the office?

So telling me to go search your posts, does that mean you like the US being the world's bully? Is violence and obliteration the only answer?

[MonkeyFunk]

70. did you read my edit?

I said it's not preemption.

You "threatened" to research my posts - I said knock yourself out. You could use a hobby.

[merh]

84. Okay, let's play the word game, shall we?

There is

Preemptive war(or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war

And then there is Preemption

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

Get it.

And even if it "preemption" were correct, as you frame it, as it has been mistakenly referred to, it would be to strike before being attacked, there would be a perceived threat (or lies about threats like Iraq), not in retaliation as she claims. Not retaliation for the USoA but for those we protect under our "umbrella of security". We, the world bullies, the globalists, the imperialists. The war powers act doesn't give her the power to retaliate. And other presidents may have had it as an option (or a threat of force) if the US is attacked, only bush has ordered such preemptive strikes and we see how well that has gone for him and the nation.

And there is no need to search your posts, it is obvious that you approve of the world bully, new world order. I won't find a post where you condemn it, not you, MonkeyFunk.

[MonkeyFunk]

92. before you even posted

I said "preemption" was not the correct term.

I don't know what you're going on about - you don't seem well.

[merh]

96. I'm fine

just tired of the games folks play here.

At least we know you have never damned bush for his preemptive ways, I mean you couldn't and say that hillary's position is okie dokie, now could you?

[ericgtr]

119. LOL Hillary could say she's going to nuke PA and you would defend her

Jesus, it's amazing how some of her supporters sacrifice all that is democratic for this candidate.

[billyoc]

57. She's lying to characterize her posistion as wanting to nuke Iran

by saying she will attack Iran? Really?

Do you want to edit your previous post?

[RazBerryBeret]

14. I guess I find it surprising

that she'd want to put that out there in such a tight primary...and using the word "obliterate"...

[JVS]

117. Yeah, remember when we nuked Syria and Egypt in the 1973 Yom Kippur war?

Oh wait we didn't! Maybe because your claim that it was policy for the last 60 years in BULLSHIT!

[patrice]

10. She's tough alright, with other people's lives. That's what her IWR vote shows. nt

[tekisui]

13. Wes Clark has been out saying, "We need to threaten Iran"

This doesn't make sense. THey want another war.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. I disagree

I think they want to prevent a war.

[tekisui]

17. I hope you're right.

The talk is a bit too brash for my liking. Clark did say we needed to talk to Iran, but that we also needed to threaten. I don't think they respond well to threats.

[Yurovsky]

19. And Islamic radicals always respond well to threats...

the way to defeat the Mullahs in Tehran is by going directly to Iranian people, and bypassing the nutjobs who run the country.

Iranians are wonderful people, and most would welcome a return to normal relations with the US.

"Obliterating" Iran is going to make that rather difficult, to say the least.

[Gore1FL]

97. You don;t prevent war

by being a bully--especially when you bully crazy-assed people who think dying for a cause to be a religious experience.

[Muttocracy]

18. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran,"

:wow:

Bother doesn't begin to capture how that makes me feel. She just declared war on Iran, not if they attack anyone, but if she's elected.

[cboy4]

20. What bothers me is you know as well as I that

her policy mirrors Obama's.

You think Obama would FedEx roses if Iran attacked Israel?

[babylonsister]

24. Baloney. This is what Obama said about attacking Iran, but I know

you don't really care. You're too busy not supporting anyone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5609894

[cboy4]

33. Yea, his clever response to the question is not unlike

skipping votes/answers on questionnaires regarding other tough issues.

We all know how Obama would respond, despite his candy-coated answer.

And babylonsister, despite, yes, voting for Edwards -- I'm the one who will be supporting the Democratic nominee in November.

[babylonsister]

36. Why do you always change the subject? Didn't like my response, did

you. :cry:

[cboy4]

50. It's not changing the subject....It's called citing examples.

Obama clearly likes dodging tough questions so he can pander.

Right?

If he submits a vague answer, people like babylonsister will be happy and not fear he will fire ICBMs and SLBMs -- when we all know he would respond in the same manner as Hillary.

[patrice]

25. No I don't. Question is:

What kind of INTERNATIONAL coalition can he, or she for that matter, put together in such a situation. Or is this another one where "we" will be going it ALONE?

[RazBerryBeret]

34. no, I wouldn't expect a rose delivery...

I just don't think that message is one I'd want to lead with on the eve of a crucial primary. AND if Obama said that in an interview, I would be up in arms as well.

remember the "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" comment?

I believe she should have used a better choice of words. there are many other ways she could have conveyed that message. AND if her excuse is that she needs to appear tough to Iran, well that's not her job yet.

[cboy4]

40. I don't disagree that she could have used a better choice

of words.

I don't like hearing people talking about bombing.

But the insinuation (of the OP) is that Hillary would attack and Obama would transform himself into a super hero and figure out a way to deal with the crisis without launching missiles.

[RazBerryBeret]

43. nope...

I am the OP, I never insinuated anything...
I didn't even mention Obama's Name.

merely stated that between this statement, the IWR, the cluster bomb vote and the Iraq terrorist vote, Hillary comes across too tough for me. I think she is afraid of appearing "weak"...
but that's just my opinion....

:toast:

[patrice]

22. Okay, let's think this out: In some situations it IS necessary to prevent certain things by means of

credible danger.

But if you go too far and miscreants think you're going to attack them no matter what they do, they're apt to try to get the jump on you by shooting first, so being tough CAN be fatal.

If you've told the bad guys your going to attack them, they would probably engage in a series of tests to find out how credible your threat is. So espousing your toughness sets you up for, at minimum, incremental crises, in which your opponent has the opportunity to extort stuff from you for "peace".

It's beginning to look to me like: though you do have to be willing to attack in some situations, prioritizing that information just sets you up to dance to the bad guy's tune, until an attack, from one side or the other, actually occurs, so maybe it's smarter to BE tough but QUIET.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. Nuclear Weapons "On The Table" Scares Me, So Does "Massive Retaliation"

When someone wakes you up at 3 a.m., its better if you don't that kind of shit in your head.

[patrice]

29. I understand and accept the necessity of Strength, but I absolutely draw the line at Nukes of ANY

kind.

We WILL soon see more widesperead and aggressive efforts to sell the usability of "small" nuclear weapons to the American people, because "Our military is stretched too thin. The People will not allow a Draft. It's cheaper and more effective than fielding Troops and . . . . "

[cui bono]

26. Not to mention the fact that it's not a decision for her to make, which shows she wants

an imperial presidency.

We have already found out we don't like that.

She will be bad for the constitution.

[slipslidingaway]

30. Important point, that is why all this talk of attacking Iran and

the dictator in Venezuela does not sit well with me.

:(

[arikara]

37. There is no dictator in Venezuela.

He was indeed fairly elected, unlike the fraud squatting in the white house today.

[slipslidingaway]

100. Agree and I obviously made a mistake with my original reply...

this is the post and thought I was referring to...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5610534&mesg_id=5610927

"Nuclear Weapons "On The Table" Scares Me, So Does "Massive Retaliation"

When someone wakes you up at 3 a.m., its better if you don't that kind of shit in your head."

[lutefisk]

31. Is this the earliest in a Presidential campain a candidate has threatened a nuclear attack?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/

Sounds kind of like she's painting herself into a "shoot first ask questions later" corner, on a genocidal nuclear scale. Is she going for the Cheney endorsement, or what?

Obliterate. Nuclear. Amazing.

[Chulanowa]

38. And we all know how prone Iran is to attacking other nations!

Man, every week, another nation tumbles to the ground at the might of the Iranian Military. Clearly, this is a HUGH AND SERIES threat that Clinton must handle with skill, aplomb, and a huge fucking red button.

[RazBerryBeret]

39. even before she wins the nomination! n/t

[saltpoint]

42. Well, of course, Senator Clinton is right on this.

We have to attack Iran, on general principles because it is part of the Axis of Evil. Axes of Evil? Whichever. It's evil, that was the point Dick and Condi were making, and of course, they're right on this, just like they were right on Iraq. It was evil too.

I don't know a soul in Iran, but my guess is they have no plans to "attack Israel with nuclear weapons," anymore than you and I plan to blow up a Denny's Restuarant in Fort Wayne tomorrow night. Now of course I'd LOVE to blow up a Denny's Restaurant in Fort Wayne tomorrow night, but with gas as high as it is, I just can't make the long drive. If you manage to get there without me, I wish you godspeed. Terrorists are known to dine at that Fort Wayne Denny's, so you are not only taking out a terrorist hot spot but I think you get 82 virgins in Heaven for the effort as well. Beats the hell out of a rebate coupon any day.

As for "totally obliterating" Iran if they attack Israel, I'm for it, of course. Specifically, I favor the summary obliteration by flesh-sizzling chemicals of innocent men, women, and children. Also cats and dogs. The cats and dogs of Iran have no right to live, and anyway, who would feed them after (President) Clinton obliterated the entire nation? And I don't want to hear from you pro-Gore crybabies about collateral environmental damage either, when (President) Clinton has offered to wipe an entire culture off the face of the earth owing to its indisputable menace to our American way of life.

This is a woman who can hold her shots and beer, people. This is a gun-totin' duck-huntin' shoot-em-up-babe who won't hesitate to blow the holy piss out an entire nation's people if they so much as think about attacking an ally. THAT's tough love. THAT's Hillary Time diplomacy. THAT's what made America great. By Christ, she's the champion we've all been waiting for. I'd type more but I'm drooling with admiration for her macho ballziness!

Git em, Hillary. Git em! Git em! Git em!

[RazBerryBeret]

47. holy crap...

that cracked me up...

(and frightened me a little...)
hey--see ya at Denny's....

[saltpoint]

48. - - -- - -

:hi:

[Catherina]

69. Your post is brilliant but she disgusts me so much I can't laugh

I just watched her on Olberman cackling about Scaife's support. Holy cow. She's off her friggin rocker.

[saltpoint]

72. Hi, Catherina. The Scaife connection really makes me queasy.

Scaife was a total slimeball to John Kerry and here is a prominent Democrat cozying up to him.

Yuck City!

[Catherina]

77. The list of things I can never forgive her for grows exponentially. Daily

Between the comment about obliterating Iran, her interview on Olberman and the Osama ad, today was too much. I feel drained, drained and disgusted. PA needs to push her out tomorrow.

[saltpoint]

78. Yes. Comments like what country we're going to "nuke" next is what

provoked the resentment that grew into the 9/11 attacks in the first place.

Her comment was reckless and ill-considered. She should not have made it.

And she should apologize.

[Catherina]

101. She laughs when she talks about it too.

I will never forget how she cackled when Gravel called her on it during a Democratic debate. I hope this never comes back to haunt us :(

She made it that comment very deliberately to bargain with the hard right vote in the NY/PA area. She should but she'll never apologize. I wouldn't believe an apology anyway especially since I'm one of those MoveOn freaks who was against going into Afghanistan.

[saltpoint]

102. Probably a lot of MoveOn folks are out there making calls and stuffing

envelopes, many of them ardent and true-hearted feminists as well.

Senator Clinton's comments on those activits will not serve her well in the coming days and weeks of the nom contest, and not very well either back in New York. Those activists assisted her in becoming a U.S. Senator.

[mkultra]

44. seems like and odd coment

i think its the way she stated it backwards that makes it seem so ominous.

Many people will hear just I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran,"


which may be what some American wants.

[RazBerryBeret]

45. yeah...

the scary-war-monger-Americans....
I've had enough of them...

[napoleon_in_rags]

46. Wow, stunningly retarded.

Between this and Moore's endorsement, I am pretty sure who I will be supporting going to sleep tonight, though when I woke up I was still indifferent.

[GoesTo11]

49. Calm, cool, experienced

Really, if Iran ever did attack Israel with nuclear weapons, we all know that would start a devastating war. Goes without saying.

But to go around saber rattling out of the blue is stupid, it just strengthens extremists in Iran.

This is just like Mr. Bring-em-on.

Didn't she learn anything in 35 years of experience?

Don't let this woman answer the phone at 3AM!

[RazBerryBeret]

53. you're right...

this goes without saying.

I think we would all know what to expect if Iran attacked Israel. But to say this in an interview, even before you're the nominee...I'm not sure what purpose is served...
Unless, she's gunning for McCain and wants to appear as war-crazy as he is????

[Aloha Spirit]

51. I like her line about not getting reamed over the barrel by the oil producing countries....

This is her answer to lowering gas prices: We're going to pretend to get tuff on oil independence so that the oil producing countries will try to lull us into a false sense of security, thereby lowering gas prices. But the trick is on them! Because this time, we're serious!

[Taxmyth]

58. Either this is more faux outrage or

some people are TRULY clueless. IF Iran attacks Israel, and notice the word IF, Senator Clinton used no uncertain terms in describing what would happen. And if anyone is so clueless to think that a President McCain or a President Obama would NOT do the same thing then you need to do a little reading on the history of US Israeli relations.

Let's ask Senator Obama specifically if he would do the same. He prefers to use generalizations like "appropriate response" and "I will take no options off the table" but if his intention is to do ANYTHING BUT respond militarily to an attack on Israel then he needs to come right out now and say it.

Here's a clue - he won't.

[RazBerryBeret]

63. That's exactly it....

as many posters have stated here, if Iran would attack Israel, it goes w/out saying.
Why did she need to say it? and why use a word like "Obliterate"...

remember bomb, bomb, bomb...?
this is in the same vein.

it's not being clueless. she's not even the nominee and she's talking about obliterating a country?
maybe it's about tact, maybe it's about diplomacy, maybe it's called using common sense.
OBLITERATE?

[Taxmyth]

74. Common American Sense

IF Iran attacks Israel, America will attack Iran. It doesn't matter WHO is in the White House. There will be no diplomacy IF Iran attacks Israel, there will be a massive retaliation against Iran and not only from the United States. No one is going to confuse her language with anything other than that fact. She wasn't talking about a pre-emptive strike, she was talking about IF Iran attacks Israel. That's not war mongering that is telling it like it is.

[Lerkfish]

62. "totally obliterate"???

although, to be fair, the question is hyperbole. Iran is far from making nuclear missiles, and Isreal already has nukes trained on Iran (shhh! don't tell anyone).

Isreal would counter attack, if that scenario was real and not a false flag operation, long before our missiles could get there.


but keep in mind, this is someone saying they would nuke Iran into a sea of glass.


keep that in mind, folks.

[RazBerryBeret]

66. right...

so, if Iran "obliterates" Israel, we move to "obliterate" Iran.
wow, isn't this a pleasant discussion?

hey, remember that old line
"if a woman were president, there'd be a lot less wars"

hmmmm...

[Olney Blue]

68. To be fair, the hypothetical questions to the candidates about nuclear threats

and terrorism always elicits tough talk.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

[RazBerryBeret]

76. then again,

to be fair, there is a difference between saying you're willing to strike al Quaeda targets inside Pakistan and saying you're willing to obliterate a nation.

[Olney Blue]

81. Point taken. But if Iran obliterates Israel with nuclear weapons, what

would a U.S. president do? Sanction Iran and have peace talks?

[RazBerryBeret]

85. no, I don't think we would have a choice...

but she could have used different words. obliterate sounds too much like the bomb iran comment.
from your link, ie...."if we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will"

there is a way you can say that without advertising killing every man, woman, child in a country..
but again, just my opinion.

something like: "if Iran would attack Israel the US would take action immediately" see, I'm a speech writer.
(!!)

[Olney Blue]

87. I agree-she definitely could have said it more carefully.

The hypothetical questions thrown at the candidates can get tricky.

So now I know what you are doing with your Fine Arts degree :hi:

[RazBerryBeret]

88. Ha ha ha...Jeez...

what a memory there!
hmmm...maybe I could be a speechwriter....
Nah...I'm an Art Director in a corporate retail company. (freelance for now).

[Bensthename]

71. Obama > Clinton

[FatDave]

75. "Their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States

Exact quote from her interview on Countdown.

This is fucking worrisome. Not only is she not backpedaling, she's intensifying her statements. If Iran nukes Israel, well, Hillary's prepared to kick off Wolrd War III. That's WWIII in the full nuclear sense.

Shit, I grew up in the 1980's, where we lived every day under the threat of looming nuclear holocaust. I thought those times were thankfully over.

Every day Hillary gives me a new reason to loathe her. Fucking nuclear war? Jesus fucking Christ. She's completely lost her god-damned mind.

[lutefisk]

79. Maybe she has a plan to not obliterate the millions of children in Iran?

Has she thought about what she is saying? We can all probably agree she's smarter than than Bush, yet she says these Bush-like things. I don't understand her.

[WinkyDink]

115. Maybe Iran should not have a plan to obliterate the children of Israel?

[saltpoint]

80. When IT TAKES A VILLAGE becomes IT TAKES A WAR THREAT TO LEVEL A

VILLAGE, I'm not real interested in the candidacy of the author.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

90. We don't need to obliterate Iran Israel can do it themselves

with a quick flash

Hillary just wants oil

[RazBerryBeret]

105. I wonder

If nuclear blasts have any affect on oil reserves?

I'm sure there have been studies.....

[Cha]

94. hilary's a chickenshithawk pandering to the

military complex machine(send me more bucks!)and who knows who else..'cause it sure ain't our Soldiers.

[WA98070]

99. Hope she's not tired when she gets the call she might bomb the wrong country.

[OneBlueSky]

103. "we would be able to totally obliterate them." . . .

that a presidential candidate can speak of "totally obliterating" a nation and its population is scary beyond words and demonstrates a lack of compassion and foresight that, imo, totally disqualifies that person from consideration for the office . . . this is "Bushthink" in the extreme, and there should be no place for it in our political discourse . . .

[barack the house]

104. Obliteratethat is what cartoon characters say omg.

[npincus]

106. Nice. Showing our "enemy" our cards on a morning teevee show.

That'ss another reason I won't vote for her.

[WinkyDink]

114. Oh, please. The world has long known we will defend Israel's right to exist.

[Vinca]

108. It's rather sad the first woman with a serious chance for the presidency

finds it necessary to show off her balls to such a degree. A war mongering, nuke-loving president is what we're trying to get rid of.

[saltpoint]

109. It smacks of penis envy.

Freud's theory, summarily dismissed by modern feminists, occasionally rears its head, as it were, in political banter.

Hillary's tough-gal blue-collar shtick was poorly considered in the first place and she and/or her handlers aren't very good at it anyway.

Her words were careless. She should apologize. Not to me, but to the men, women, and children of Iran.

[krkaufman]

110. "too tough" .... too tough-talking and too posturing

Definitely way too over-the-top for me. Her comments lack the diplomacy necessary for the Presidency.

[Thrill]

112. If she was the nominee. Its hard for her to seperate herself from McCain

on foreign policy.

[WinkyDink]

113. She said EXACTLY all that? EXACTLY?

[HereSince1628]

116. Same Old Shit. I've heard politicians say that crap since the Yom Kippur War

which by the way would make it part of the "Old Politics."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

120. Besides if you nuke your neighbor you are going to get the fallout