How do the Clinton defenders/supporters react to her latest Iran comments?

[MidwestTransplant]

"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."

Basically threatening them with nuclear attack. And I am all for defending Israel (not to mention Israel is fully capable of defending itself), but I think she has just simply gone off the deep end and will say anything. This is a Joe Lieberman type comment.

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

[IndependentDem]

1. good question, hope you get some real responses. n/t

[bigtree]

6. 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

[IndependentDem]

8. yes, but that doesn't explain what Clinton said...

that is basically like saying "well he did it too"

i think the main difference is that Obama said he would take "appropriate action" where Clinton said "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Do you think that obliteration would be an appropriate action?

[Taxmyth]

10. Obama favors diplomacy if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons

That must be the case if you think "appropriate action" is not as rhetorical as "obliterate"

[IndependentDem]

15. i think that using the word obliterate...

implies that if they nuke our friend we will nuke them. i also think that appropriate action would include both diplomatic AND military action. but thats just my opinion.

[Taxmyth]

17. that's a mighty big assumption

any military action will obliterate at least some part of the landscape there. But if you want to think she meant using nuclear weapons should Iran attack Israel, even though she said no such thing, then to Senator Obama using "appropriate action" means he will talk to Iran in a stern manner but nothing else should Iran attack Israel. Let's make sure the American people know this.

[IndependentDem]

21. ok, I'm wrong. Since she was not implying a nuclear response...

what do you think she meant by obliterate?

[Taxmyth]

23. any military response

would obliterate part of the landscape there. It could mean obliterate a command structure, it could mean obliterate a building housing the people responsible for the attack, it could mean anything. Political rhetoric that is sharper than the generic "appropriate response" or "take no options off the table".

[IndependentDem]

25. you left out the words "totally" and "them"...

i agree that you could obliterate a single structure or even obliterate a government... but that is not what she said. she said "totally obliterate them"

it is obvious that we have different views on what she meant... i see no need to keep head-butting each other over our interpretations of her statements.

[Taxmyth]

29. Who is them?

The individuals responsible for the attack on Israel? Every man, woman and child in Iran? You seem to want to ASSume that she meant the latter rather than the former. I can find no proof ANYWHERE that she made anything but a rhetorical comment to a rhetorical question. Maybe it wasn't as obtuse as Senator Obama's "appropriate action" and "take no options off the table" but Senator Clinton isn't known for being obtuse in her answers to foreign policy questions. Rhetorical or not.

[IndependentDem]

31. ...

:this is me tapping out:

as this conversation is going nowhere.

[MidwestTransplant]

35. Not even Bush/Cheney use that kind of language

It's clear to me what she meant but if you still don't believe she was saying we would nuke them, then I would say again, not even Bush/Cheney use that kind of dramatic language.

[IndependentDem]

36. man i am glad i was sooo wrong to ASSume...

that she meant she would use nukes, oh wait i was right.

snip:
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/

[Elidor]

11. "Well he did it too"

That's half their defense. The other half is "the republicans will do this, too."

[bigtree]

13. there are only Democratic two candidates in this race

. . . and there are significant differences between the 'real' positions of these candidates and those of McCain. You can promote them as the same if you want.

There isn't a bit of daylight between the two Democrats on Iran, despite the fact that Obama ducked the vote on the Lieberman amendment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. What Is The Appropriate Action If A Nation Nukes One Of Our Closest Allies?

It really is unimaginable for nation a to nuke nation b unless nation a has its back against the walll; i.e. was about to be destroyed...

[IndependentDem]

19. i don't claim to know what the appropriate action should be...

but i don't think that the first or only option should be to start nuking people.

[bigtree]

14. at least one of Obama's options is obliteration

you explain your own candidate.

[IndependentDem]

24. there is a difference between being an option and being your initial response. n/t

[intaglio]

32. Yes, bigtree, but he didn't say

He would obliterate them! FFS it makes her sound like Gen. Jack D Ripper ...

[bigtree]

2. Obama supports missile strikes against Iran

In September 2004, Sen. Obama suggested to the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he would use surgical missile strikes against Iran: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

"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.



A year ago, Sen. Obama said we should keep forces in Iraq to 'send a clear message' to Iran: http://www.barackobama.com/2006/11/20/a_way_forward_in_iraq.php

A reduced but active presence in Iraq will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.

[2rth2pwr]

3. How would you defend Israel if attacked?

[Swamp Rat]

4. I'd wear really dark sunglasses and watch Israel turn 'em into glass.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[newmajority]

5. Israel can defend themselves

Unlike Iran, they actually HAVE nuclear weapons.

Iran hasn't attacked anyone for centuries, and after fighting with Iraq for a decade, they aren't looking for war at all, despite what a handful of Zionist extremists would have you believe.

[Occam Bandage]

38. I'd start mobilizing the American military

for an unprecedentedly extensive humanitarian mission to the millions and millions of injured, dying, homeless, and destitute in both Israel and Iran--assuming that anyone is still alive in Iran.

[gateley]

7. I'm not a Clinton supporter,

but I was initially going to write that after seeing her expand on her debate statement on Olbermann, she sounded much more reasonable and less War Monger.

Then I re-read the quote you included and followed the link, and I have to say I'm shocked she actually said that. Even though she said 'we would be ABLE' to... rather than 'we WILL...', it's still a chilling statement. Obliterate? Yikes! I'm sure that's going over well in Iran right about now. Way to pursue diplomacy, Hillary.

So I jumped in here to defend her somewhat, but am leaving kind of stunned.

[Taxmyth]

9. If she used the words nuclear attack then post the link please

Otherwise this is bullshit and needs to be recognized as such. And why didn't you post the question she was responding to?

[JackORoses]

16. that's what she means by 'obliterate', if you couldn't tell.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. The Scenario Is Highly, Highly Improbable

But what is the appropriate response if a hostile nation nukes one of our allies?

[JackORoses]

26. definitely not dropping more nukes on innocent civilians

what does that accomplish?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. In The Cold War What Would Have Happen If Russia Nuked Us

Would we have not dropped (thousands) of nuclear bombs on innocent civilians in retaliation?

I don't know what the answer is because the question is too improbable to even contemplate...

[Taxmyth]

20. No, I couldn't tell

and it's a pretty long jump to ASSume that is what she meant. I guess "appropriate action" means Senator Obama will just stand back and watch if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons. That's a message we MUST get out to the American people, something they need to know.

[JackORoses]

27. what else would we obliterate them with? pea shooters?

of course she is talking about nuclear bombs...

[Taxmyth]

30. Sure, why not

it makes about as much sense as saying she said she would use nuclear weapons. Find a different rant because you are way off base on this one. The hatred is showing.

[Political Heretic]

34. She didn't say "obliterate" did she? I believe she said "massive retaliation"

which could mean anything

[Occam Bandage]

39. She did indeed say "obliterate."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWgSBd8knYlaq-D0zQjSHKiT2nAQ

[johnnydrama]

33. bingo

It was on countdown tonight.

"I don’t buy that but I think we have to test it and one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going to permit them, if we can prevent them, from becoming a nuclear power. But were they to become one, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening and that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bulled into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that state by creating this new security umbrella."

[Life Long Dem]

22. Obama ask the question of "WHEN" action would be necessary toward Iran.

Clinton tells us if Iran "considers" an attack on Israel they are blown off the face of the earth. Obama is more level headed and Clinton is more Bush like. Bush threatened Iraq, and then Iran, and we saw what happened to Iraq. And Clinton is threatening Iran in the same manner.

[NoPasaran]

37. Bombs Away!

:nuke:
Eat radioactive death!