Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran Hillary-style

[XOKCowboy]

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

"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."

She's getting more Republican by the day.

[shraby]

1. Worst part is she is talking about obliterating them

with nukes.

[datopbanana]

7. im pissed we used them against the japanese

i know all the estimations made about how many lives it saved by ending the war quickly... but there just had to be a better way than wiping a city full of innocent people off the face of the earth.

[bigtree]

9. Obama says "no options off the table"

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said that he would work to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians but that he would "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 in the region."

Iran need understand, he said, "that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, ...one whose security we consider paramount, and ...that would be an act of aggression that...I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clintons-umbrel.html

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Saying all options are on the table is different than saying "I will attack and Obliterate Iran."

duh

[bigtree]

12. no it isn't. you just want us to pretend it is.

[grantcart]

16. In diplomatic talk there is a huge difference and in the long history

of politicians running for office both parties have been very careful not to explicitly use nuclear arms in the heat of campaigning.

This is in fact a very real and shocking escalation of rhetoric.


But beyond this what does an attack on Israel mean? Will she threaten the obliteration of the people of Iran if Hamas attacks Israel as an Iranian surrogate?

[guyanakoolaid]

21. Of course he doesn't want to get caught in the Republican trap of being labeled "too soft"...

to use nuclear weapons in a last defense. Hillary, meanwhile has obviously fallen for the "fear and disinformation" the Republicans love to push.

Disgusting. :puke:

The former president of Wellesley College's Young Republicans has finally thrown off the Democratic mask for good.

[mattclearing]

26. You are incorrect.

Pledging to attack a country and saying that you reserve the right to do something based on circumstances are the exact opposite of one another. One is a promise, the other is a conditional open statement.

[krkaufman]

28. Yes, there is a difference. One explicity threatens obliteration of a country ...

... leaving little to no room for interpretation, while the other leaves the response completely open.

It is about diplomacy, and understanding the other side's perspective. Clinton has now publicly asserted US dominance over Iran, which puts their leaders in a weaker domestic position in regards to negotiations.

[earthlover]

31. Hillary's statement escalates rhetoric and paints us into a corner

Obama's measured approach leaves us more options to deal with threats, and is less inflammatory.

Hillary's statement is amatuerish. Sounds tough, macho, and plays to fear. But, once again, Hillary demonstrates that she is NOT READY for the complex diplomacy required of a commander in chief.

Hillary is different from the Republicans, how?

And it is particularly ironic that last Summer, when Obama said he would consider military action if actionable intelligence showed we could get Bin Laden or top Al Queda operatives....and Hillary pooh-poohed this by saying a president does not show his hand in advance, a president must keep all the options on the table and it is counter productive to say in advance what our response would be.

But I guess it is ok to talke about annihilating Iran!

[Zachstar]

37. Um no. There is a huge difference between normal military stance and saying you will attack.

Any president has all options on the table. That is why they are called the commander of the armed forces.

[anigbrowl]

49. It's very different Bigtree

Saying options are on the table is a warning to countries (in this case) not to mess with you. Talking about 'obliterating' one is a naked threat. I am rather shocked to hear Hillary clinton throwing around such language. I think she is trying to out-Republican the Republicans to show how tough she is.

I mean, a Democratic candidate going around saying they'd obliterate another country we have problems with? Why not just go and propose a final solution to the problem?

[rodeodance]

24. only in biased minds.

[Taxmyth]

2. Did she say this in response to a question?

This makes it look like she just came out and threatened Iran. Maybe if the question preceeded the boxed statement the meaning of her words would change, ya think?

[grantcart]

4. Doesn't matter - you don't make up policy of thermonuclear mass destruction on the basis

of a question.

"Any attack on Israel would be considered very serious and we would take appropriate action" is the standard answer all candidates have given to the same question for decades.

The same about an attack on Taiwan.

[Taxmyth]

8. She said thermonuclear mass destruction?

I don't remember seeing that anywhere.....maybe you could show me where she said that? You wouldn't be exaggerating now, would you?

[grantcart]

14. Your right she only said "we would be able to totally obliterate them"

Of course she may be thinking of obliterating them will massive dropping of pillows but the conventional thinking is that it is more efficient to use our thermonuclear 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."



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

[Taxmyth]

15. Who is them?

The individuals responsible for the nuclear attack on Israel? The entire nation of Iran? I couldn't find where she was specific about who or what was getting obliterated and you seem so adamant about what she was saying. Surely you have a different source from which this certainty arises?

Or is it just bullshit?

[grantcart]

18. She was responding to a question

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.


here you can here it in her words
http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/clinton-i-will-obliterate-iran/

Here in another interview with MSNBC
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.


More citations
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=52613§ionid=351020101

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/clinton-on-iran-attack-to_n_97860.html

http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/04/21/clinton-on-iran-attack-obliterate-them

[Taxmyth]

19. And she answered it

a rhetorical question answered with tough political rhetoric. If she had said that she would obliterate the entire country with nuclear weaponry, then I could see where there could be some concern. That's NOT what was said and should not be implied.

[dkf]

20. She did say it:

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/

[grantcart]

42. And in answering it she has done something that no serious candidate

for president in either party has done in 50 years with the same question.


Everytime that question has been answered responsible candidates have answered with something like


In the event of an attack on __________________ as President I would consider it an attack on the vital interests of the United States and act appropriately.

Question would you use nuclear force?


We would look at all options and not take anything off the table.



If your going to be intellectually honest yourself you have to admit that Hillary Clinton has engaged in reckless unparalleled saber rattling in order to pander for votes.


It is exactly the same reason that she voted for the IWR.

[Taxmyth]

43. Serious candidates

She left no doubt in the American people's minds, no doubt in the Israeli peoples minds or their governments views and no doubt to anyone seeking to acquire or develop nuclear weapons in Iran to be used against Israel.

If Senator Obama would employ a different approach as I am seeing so many of his supporters suggest, then he needs to clarify and be specific that he would NOT use nuclear weapons should Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel.

This would be important information for not only the American people to know but also the Israeli people and their government and anyone in Iran seeking to acquire or develop nuclear weapons for use against Israel.

So his saying he would take no option off of the table WAS really a lie or a misstatement?

[grantcart]

44. .

So his saying he would take no option off of the table WAS really a lie or a misstatement?

It is the only rational statement in a political campaign


You don't make thermonuclear strategic use policy on the campaign trail

[Taxmyth]

46. Rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question

and someone whose known for being specific in their approach on the campaign trail when discussing policy gets attacked by supporters of someone known to be decidedly non-specific when discussing policy. Some people prefer to hear things explained in a way they can understand, some people are offended by a direct approach. The American people will decide which they prefer as a majority, both now and in November.

[leveymg]

40. But, what if Israel strikes Iran first, as they often threaten? Will we join them?

Is that what Hillary is saying? An Israeli first-strike -- or, a strike after some third-party provocation -- is the more plausible scenario.

She seems to be tieing the fate of the United States to that of Israel, no matter how irrational Israel's actions might be.

Is tnat the message we want to send to a country that started a preemptive war with its neighbors in 1967? And, I don't mean Iran. That message is pretty damned provocative, in itself.

[grantcart]

3. Actually during the entire Cold War there was a concerted effort by both

Republicans and Democrat Leaders never to use thermonuclear war as a campaign point. An exception by Johnson was a single advertisement and he was widely criticized for it.

[dailykoff]

5. She's making McCain look like the peace-nik.

Seriously, he's off paying homage to civil rights leaders while Hilly tosses out the read meat. :crazy:

[Zachstar]

38. Bingo!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. she's ready on Day 1 AND 3 AM = to blow up another country

wow, thats change!

[TahitiNut]

10. She must've forgotten that part where Congress has the sole authority to declare war.

It seems her comprehension of the Constitution isn't much different from Cheney/Bush.

:puke:

[guyanakoolaid]

22. Well, there have been a couple of pro-war resolutions that have come up, but don't worry -

Hillary always votes "yes" for war.

:patriot:

[pompano]

13. Yea,

she like John are just having a McFit. Trying to be McShowoffs. She needs the support of the McLeiber-poo warmongers.

McYawn. :eyes:

:sarcasm:

[Life Long Dem]

17. And what report is going to say Iran is "considering" an attack on Israel? n/t

[Major Hogwash]

Hillary is McCain in a pantsuit - wake up people!!

Hell, I'm not even that damn liberal and I can see that!!

[Major Hogwash]

23. And by sounding as rightwing nutty as McCain, Hillary helps who here?

McCain!!

Isn't that obvious - YET?!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

25. How can anyone still support her?

She's attacked Democratic activists and now this?

I'm waiting.

[rodeodance]

27. There is no difference between the OP and a RW smear against Hillary. Rove is proud of you.

[krkaufman]

29. How is the OP a smear, when it is merely quoting Sen Clinton? n/t

[XOKCowboy]

30. Pretty typical

Reporting a quote she made is now a smear.

[stevenleser]

32. Not to mention sexist and probably from a state that doesnt matter.

:rofl:

[krkaufman]

36. Yeah. Just like criticizing her vote for the Iraq war is "negative campaigning"

Obama is supposed to play nice while Tonya and her surrogate Gillooleys knee-cap him.

[Zachstar]

39. Only in the minds of desperate Clinton Supporters.

Try to do anything to deflect attention from Queen Clinton (Actually sorry I forgot the term was GOP "Goddess of Peace" ) While trying to do anything to get dirt on Obama.

You know what will happen if we get that desperate when going against McCain? We fail!

[barack the house]

33. I've been watching her for several yearssome clips most may of missed on cspan she always was.

[barack the house]

34. I've been watching her for several years some clips most may of missed on cspan she always was.

[barack the house]

35. Plus if that is the case who do Republicans most dislike??

[ElsewheresDaughter]

41. your deplorable words about a democrat will come back to bite you on the ass

[thewiseguy]

47. FYI, she aint a democrat. A democrat would not go around threatening other countries with nukes.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

50. wiseguy?

:eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. She is the first National Democrat since Biden and Kucinich

to imply that the United States can co-exist with a nuclear armed Iran provided that Iran does not actually attack other nations with nuclear weapons. The rest are stuck at saying "under no circumstances can the United States allow Iran to get nuclear weapons" which implies that the U.S. should attack Iran before it even has nukes rather than only after it actually uses them in warfare.

[spin]

48. Nuclear weapons are a deterent...

And hopefully an effective one.

Iran should be made aware that launching a nuclear weapon at Israel would be a lose, lose situation. Rational leaders wouldn't consider starting a war when it would end the the TOTAL destruction of their own countries.

The problem is that not all leaders are rational. Religious belief might just play a major role. Leaders that fervently believe in their religion might react in an irrational manner and we might find ourselves in a "self fulfilling prophecy".

A fascinating link that compares Jewish, Muslim and Christian views on the "end times":
http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/eschatology.php