Clinton On Iran: We Will "totally obliterate them."

[Better Believe It]

Hillary: If Iran Attacked Israel With Nukes 'We Would Be Able to Totally Obliterate Them'
By JAKE TAPPER
April 22, 2008

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."

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

[meow mix]

1. she'll obliterate a glass parking lot

thats about all that is left, after israel responds

[dkf]

4. And the point becomes, if we know Israel will retaliate using their own nuclear weapons

why must Hillary go around saber rattling?

She is doing that solely to whip her dick around. SICK.

[Uben]

2. And that's not a reasonable response......

.....to Iran launching an attack on Israel? What would Obama do, give a speech?

[oviedodem]

5. Not when in the debate she extended this type of "obliteration" to Iran

if there is even a thought of an attack on another ME country. By that rationale we might as well do it now. Of course NATO would assault Iran, but when you look at it in context with her "umbrella of deterrent" it is rather neo-conish in thought.

[Better Believe It]

6. It's A Foolish And Dangerous Response At Best By Ms. Clinton

You didn't know that Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs and would destroy all of Iran and spread nuclear radiation around the globe.

I would discourage the Israel from responding in kind. Such a response would quicky engulf the entire middle east and spead to Pakistan, India, China and the world.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Among so many foolish and dangerous responses.

PA: Pull the plug on her already, will 'ya?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. There Isn't A Nation That Will Not Respond To A Nuclear Attack

~

[mucifer]

7. Watch this video about what Obama would have done in 2002

about Iraq and why diplomacy and weapons inspectors were the way to go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

For those who say he would act differently if he was a senator at the time, remember his mentor is Dick Durbin who voted against the war and encouraged Obama to run for prez.

[Zachstar]

13. A treaty does not include MAD. Obama can use The armed forces to attack.

But he does not HAVE to use Nukes. And because the only thing that will work is ICBMs A launch will cause mass launches around the world because you cant tell where the target is until the projectile starts to renter the atmosphere.

So we lob a few ICBMS and people will launch on US and then it becomes Nuclear War.

Only when it is localized to short range where it has a shot of being a localized war.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. The problem is, we know it, they know it, the whole fucking world knows it,

which is why Iran will NEVER attack Israel with nukes.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to posit that they would.

[Taxmyth]

3. rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question

Plain talk from the candidate who gives specific answers especially when it comes to policy. I suppose Senator Obama would use diplomacy should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons.

[dkf]

8. It is NEVER good to go around threatening others with nuclear weapons, NEVER.

It is the height of irresponsibility and she knows it.

Look at what she said in earlier debates when she was semi-rational:

By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288_pf.html

[Uben]

11. Yeah, but......

...she isn't threatening unprovoked attacks, just response to Iran if they attacked Israel, who themselves have nuclear weapons and could obliterate Iran in an instant. If you can't use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, what is the use of having them at all?

I think any candidate with a response other than this would be laughed out of politics. You DO NOT negotiate with a country who has launched an unprovoked attack on another sovereign nation. Just ask Saddam.

[Better Believe It]

14. You Can't Use Them

"If you can't use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, what is the use of having them at all?"

Exactly!

And that's why we need to get rid of all nukes.

[Kolesar]

15. Yes, but Ms. Clinton was playing for the headline with the words "Obliterate Iran".

IMO, she is trying to wedge off the hyper-pro-Israel voters who don't think that America's existing level of support for Israel is enough. You know, total, unquestioning support.

A woman analyst said that Hillary Clinton has to overplay the aggressive militarist talk because of her gender. It has not played well.

Thread in the I/P forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x209169#209180

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. See my reply #19, above. nt

[saltpoint]

9. I can't really picture John Edwards or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Bill

Richardson et al responding to the question in this way.

Can't see it at all.

Mrs. Clinton's remarks, even in context, are reckless and ill-considered.

She should apologize to the innocent people in Iran who are threatened by her recklessness, and then to U.S. voters who deserve better representation.

I would expect this kind of crap from Lindsay Graham, but not from a Democratic candidate.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. She'll drink to that.............

[Diamond Dog]

16. Again: The issue isn't her pandering rhetoric. It's her blatant lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSh5KORghU

"... if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power."

A lie.




This is as big a 'gaffe' as McCain's own lies.

[Barb in Atl]

17. WTF???

Bypassing whom I support for the nominee - this is nuts!!!!!

1) NIE plainly stated that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and won't for a few years
2) Israel has her OWN nuclear arsenal and will respond before US gets a whiff
3) I thought that when bush was talking nuclear attacks, everyone agreed he was INSANE.

When did these kinds of discussions become okay again? Did we all forget the kind of global damage nuclear weapons do?

Again, WTF!?!?!?!

[info being]

18. What if Iran launched a nuke on Italy or France?

Then would you support obliterating them? I'm not pro-Israel by any stretch...or pro-Hillary...but I agree with her on this.

[Political Heretic]

21. I don't have a good answer on how to respond to a nuclear attack. What I wish is:

that our politicians would ratchet down the rhetoric. Maybe a nuclear response would be unavoidable to an unprovoked nuclear attack on another country. I don't know. But I do know that there are ways to speak about security that don't escalate tensions and take a "bring it on" attitude.

I think that Senator Clinton's choice of rhetorical tone smacks of political opportunism - playing to the right on national security in a last ditch effort to pick up swing voters. The tone concerns me deeply.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. See my reply, #19, above. nt

Same applies.

[Jennicut]

24. Did anyone see the program the Last Days of Earth on History Channel the other night?

It was about 7 ways the Earh coould potentially end and I think nuclear war was #3 (climate change was #1 and all the deniers freaked out about it on the History Channel message board but thats another story). An expert on nuclear warheads said just 12 missles has the ability to dramatically change the landscape of the earth for a long time. Radiation exposure on this level is terrible and unthinkable and would literally destroy the human race. We have enough nuclear warheads to kill 8 billion people and there are only 6 billion on the planet. Hillary and others like her who stay stuff like this need to realize that if they tried to destroy Iran with retalitation we could destroy ourselves and the world.

[n2doc]

25. The "Goddess of Peace" Strikes again! n/t