More Hillary insanity, now she threaten Pakistan!

[rinsd]

"But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."


"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America"

[NYCGirl]

1. So where are the nuke references in Obama's statements? Or the word

"obliterate"?

[jackson_dem]

6. "all options" is diplomatic code for nukes

[NYCGirl]

8. So nice of Hillary to skip over that pesky diplomatic stuff and just say

OBLITERATE.

Sure saves a lot of time.

[Cant trust em]

12. If there's anything that Clinton knows about, it's code words. NT

[PoliticalAmazon]

34. Quote/source for "obliterate" quote:

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080047523&ch=4/22/2008%2010:25:00%20PM


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

Now you tell me what type of attack will "obliterate" an entire country's population? It can only be a code phrase for "nuclear attack."

She is fucking NUTS.

[PoliticalAmazon]

37. Here's another source, dateline

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8uptD1-xxWKIJiK7hpLKtgW7olA

[Diamond Dog]

2. No cookie for you.

Mebbe a lil' Kool-Aid, though.

[monicaaida]

3. WOW

WOW, AND BUSH DID OBAMA'S PLAN AND GOT HIGH LEVEL TERRORIST, AND WHAT YOU KNOW 9 MILLION PPL STILL ALIVE

[sandnsea]

4. Yeah, the terrorists who attacked US

Not nuking a country that attacked Israel or any other ME country in the "security umbrella".

[Texas Hill Country]

5. and Obama said different?

[Occam Bandage]

9. Amusingly, Hillary supporters are unable to recognize Hillary supporters defending Hillary.

[Cant trust em]

15. and they say that we don't know what Obama's positions are.

What a display.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Every Obama supporter in here immediately recognized

1: That contrary to OP's claim, the words were Obama's.
2: The difference between his words and Clinton's.
3: The level of success his plan had versus the level of success Hillary's Bush-style saber-rattling has had.

[Cant trust em]

25. What shocked me most about Clinton's remarks was the lack of diplomacy

No mention of the word in even a throw away manner. All she would have had to say was "Of course we will pursue diplomatic strategies first". That would have been the end of my talking point.

[Occam Bandage]

26. As I've said in other threads, a candidate who was not completely incompetent would have said

something like this:

"Well, that's a very big 'if.' Iran, as you well know, was found by the American intelligence community to have suspended its production of nuclear weapons. The more relevant question to be considering now is what can be done to ensure Iran does not reconvene its nuclear program. And I believe that a stick-and-carrot diplomatic approach would do much better than the belligerent saber-rattling we've seen the past few years.

Obviously America has strong ties to Israel, and we will meet any action against Israel with a swift and appropriate response. Since we're speaking about such a grave hypothetical, I don't think it's appropriate for me to take anything on or off the table at this point."

[rinsd]

29. Obama on Iran nuking Israel

"Meanwhile, Obama said he would respond "forcefully and swiftly" to an Iranian attack against Israel or any other U.S. ally, whether conventional or nuclear."

[Occam Bandage]

32. That is also an intelligent response. Do you see how he

maintains US policy of retaliation without declaring a specific form of retaliation? Do you see how he reassures Israel without telling the average Iranian that they are going to perish in a nuclear furnace? That is how candidates who understand diplomacy respond to questions about hypotheticals.

[rinsd]

40. So one candidate speaking plainly vs another using code.

Responding swiftly and forcefully does not mean he is going to write them a stern letter.

It means Iranians are gonna die.

[Occam Bandage]

43. So...you're bashing Obama for speaking about foreign relations diplomatically?

And expressing preference for a candidate speaking with all the tact and intelligence of Bush?

Like I said, Hillaryworld is a scary place.

[rinsd]

51. I am fine with tact.

I'm not arguing that this was some kind of diplomatic genius on Hillary's part.

Its the chicken little ridiculous scenarios proffered by Obama supporters today.

You and I know that response from an Obama administration for a nuclear attack on Israel would be massive if not nuclear.

Obama is not aniti-war. He is anti-stupid war and for protecting this country and her allies.

[Cant trust em]

33. Great answer.

This is why Clinton bothers me. She's too similar to republicans. I don't mean that in a flaming way, but she undercuts our ability to confront them on anything when she is so similar. She uses half-baked GOP talking points, so let's look at it this way. If security was your primary concern and you had McCain who is for Iraq all the way, uses bomb-bomb-bomb Iran jokes and then you have Clinton who is like that but weaker, which one would you choose? All of her foreign policy initiatives are like watered down versions of GOP positions. Unlike Obama who is a true opposition candidate. John McCain loves the war in Iraq, he was opposed from the beginning.

[rinsd]

31. Actually, that 2nd paragraph is Hillary. The 1st is Obama.

[redqueen]

56. *snort*

[PoliticalAmazon]

39. DOH. He did not say he would "obliterate" Iran. Hillary is fucking NUTS. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

7. So to you, committing genocide is comparable to launching targeted strikes aimed at Osama bin Laden.

Hillaryworld is a scary place.

[rinsd]

16. In Hillaryworld, we differentiate between threat and action.

Examples in the OP and what Hillary said are examples of threats towards others.

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of MAD.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Indeed I am familiar with MAD. And *that* is why I recognize

that what Hillary said was incompetence writ large.

Deterrence is a given. Iran not only has nothing to gain from nuking Israel, it has absolutely everything to lose. Israel has an extensive nuclear arsenal, and would not exercise restraint in retaliation. America's involvement in any war in which Israel's existence is threatened is a given as well. Iran is not going to nuke Israel.

Threatening to "obliterate" Iran for an action that it would not (and could not, given its lack of an active nuclear weapons program) perform serves absolutely no purpose save to antagonize. What do you believe is to be gained by antagonizing and threatening Iran? Do you believe that the Bush administration has been successful in its consistently aggressive, confrontational approach to middle-eastern politics?

[rinsd]

28. Again this would be in response to a nuclear attack.

"Meanwhile, Obama said he would respond "forcefully and swiftly" to an Iranian attack against Israel or any other U.S. ally, whether conventional or nuclear."

Both are speaking about retaliation. One used more forceful language.

[Occam Bandage]

36. Yes. We are discussing a hypothetical. That does not mean that one must throw diplomacy

out the window.

[PoliticalAmazon]

41. She didn't say it would be in response to a nuclear attack. n/t

[rinsd]

46. Yes she did.

WASHINGTON: Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran if it launches a nuclear attack on Israel, in an interview broadcast on Tuesday.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Hillary told ABC News, asked what she would do as president were Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. "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://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Hillary_to_obliterate_Iran_if_Israel_attacked/articleshow/2973381.cms

[Hola]

35. MAD

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of MAD, however I have never heard (not even from Bush) of a President saying to another country that he/she would "totally obliterate" them. These things are better left unsaid because they just make people mad (see Kurschevs 'we will bury you' remarks).

Macarthur wanted to Nuke soviet-back N. Korea and he got quickly slapped down.

[JackORoses]

10. face it, she really fucked up on this

She has incited International Outrage.
She will have to answer for her bloviating.

[PoliticalAmazon]

42. "Fucked up"? She's NUTS. Threatening nuclear retaliation? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Don't forget to threaten mighty Grenada, Hillary. Bogeymen are handy for politicians.

[Marie26]

13. That's sort of a cheap trick. nt

[BzaDem]

17. Why? Because you have a different Obama-lens than your Hillary-lens?

Yes, of course, as do most people on this board.

[Marie26]

57. LOL, I'm a Hillary supporter

It's still a cheap shot.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Striking the terrorists surgically is different than nuking an entire country

sheesh.

[BzaDem]

18. The whole hypothetical was about what if Iran nuked an entire country.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Nobody said anything about Iran nuking "an entire country."

The question was about "Iran being reckless enough to launch a nuclear attack."

Hezbollah detonating an Iran-supplied dirty bomb in Tel Aviv would, according to her declaration, result in the death of every Iranian man, woman, and child. Did she actually mean to go that far? Probably not, no. I'd prefer to have a President who doesn't accidentally go around threatening genocide.

[PoliticalAmazon]

44. Agreed. Hillary/suporters are trying to rewrite what she said. n/t

[WA98070]

21. In previous debates Obama made a very similar statement and Hillary attacked..

him for it.

Which ever way the wind blows there goes the Clintons.

[PoliticalAmazon]

45. Obama never said he would "obliterate" a country. Hillary is a LOON. n/t

[LSK]

23. why is this insane?????

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

24. False equivalence is all they got.

[rinsd]

30. Fake outrage is all you guys have.

"Meanwhile, Obama said he would respond "forcefully and swiftly" to an Iranian attack against Israel or any other U.S. ally, whether conventional or nuclear."

[Occam Bandage]

38. I'm neither false nor outraged. I simply think it was the wrong type of "diplomacy." I want

a President who is more diplomatic than Bush, not less. Even Bush generally avoided babbling about obliterating entire nations.

[rinsd]

55. My apologies the fake outrage comment should not have been directed at you.

I expected this out of Hillary, though in the general election.

I was wondering when she would issue a tough guy type quote.

[PoliticalAmazon]

50. You telling me I have "fake outrage"? I am OUTRAGED in this era of ...

...nuclear proliferation, that Hillary would threaten with nuclear obliteration of a Middle Eastern country. It is irreponsible and, frankly, IMO the indication that she is insane. I mean, she is really insane.

I cannot believe why Hillary supporters aren't outraged.

[rinsd]

53. Yes fake outrage. See your post #48

[madrchsod]

27. so did obama......

this is where the war should have been fought but they have no oil there and there was little gain for the defense industries.

[beachmom]

47. Obama did not threaten to "obliterate" Pakistan, but a surgical strike

on al Qaeda threats. Sorry, they're not equivalent remarks. By a long shot.

[PoliticalAmazon]

48. Note that Hillary did the Bush thing, linking of Pakistan to 9/11 deaths...

...Bush Jr did 9/11 to Iraq, Hillary did 9/11 to Afghanistan. The majority of terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, and OBL was operating from Afghanistan.

Hillary is more crazy than Bush Jr, and that is saying A LOT.

[rinsd]

52. That first quote is Obama's. The 2nd quote is Hillary.

I knew I would get at least one :evilgrin:

[ieoeja]

49. On this one I agree with her.

There is a huge difference between launching a raid and launching a war. Noone thought it was wrong for Israel to rescue their hostages in Entebbe. This is pretty much the same thing.

I would frankly be shocked by any presidential candidate saying they would NOT try to capture Bin Laden if they knew where he was regardless of whether we had permission or not.

I give Hillary credit where credit is due. She got this one right.

[Az_lefty]

54. WTF? This is essentially what Obama said and got trounced for...

total fucking hypocrisy!
:grr: