« Foiled Again: Top GOP Prospect Opts Not to Run for Open AZ House Seat | Home | In Final Zogby Tracking Poll, Hillary Leads By 10 In Pennsylvania »
Clinton: We Will "Totally Obliterate" Iran If They Attack Israel
During an interview set to air tomorrow on Good Morning America, Hillary Clinton used some graphic and direct language to phrase the standard promise of protecting Israel in case of any attack by Iran or another country.
"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."
Advertisement















Finally - just as I'm turning this thing off -
She's lost her damn mind.
thank god she's out of money.
SDs - listening? You nominate her, and I'm writing in Obama. Electability? Don't make me laugh.
April 21, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I was about to go to bed to.
Thanks, Hillary, for giving me nightmares.
Thank God she has no chance.
April 21, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
well see, once she kicks his ass in penn.
April 22, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, well . . .
April 22, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
and if they nominate him, i'm writing in clinton.
April 22, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why?
April 22, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I see what the fuss is about. Rhetoric is used often by politicians. Just look at Obama saying he promises to be out of Iraq in 16 months, when he knows that is not necessarily the case.
Clinton's appealing to the Jewish base. But she's also sending a strong message to Iran, a country that has been foolish enough to threaten that it might attack Israel.
April 22, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the big deal: She's threatening nuclear war against Iran. That's considerably more inflammatory than Obama's 16-months-out-of-Iraq pledge. It's not even the same game; it's not even the same fuckin' ballpark, as they say.
April 22, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
We could "obliterate" them without using nuclear weapons. However, if they were to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, what would you consider an appropriate response? A telephone call from President Obama?
April 22, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought she explicitly stated a nuclear strike would commence upon an attack on Israel. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. IMO, for what it's worth...probably not much.
April 22, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. As far as I can tell she didn't mention America using nuclear weapons. But the question was how would America react if *Iran* used nuclear weapons on Israel.
What kind of a reaction would you expect if Iran detonated atomic bombs in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?
The premise (Iran using nuclear weapons) is scary, the response is standard.
April 22, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's rhetoric and there's rhetoric. I might be willing to believe Obama's "no mandate" for his health plan is just rhetoric. I'm not willing to believe Clinton's "we will obliterate Iran" is just rhetoric.
Seems kinda risky.
April 22, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you Lynn
Thi is a woman who voted for the war that should have never been waged and never been fought BECAUSE she wantedto prove she was a warhawk.
This same woman then went on to vote for the K-L amendment to escalate troop strengh in Iraq dependent upon what was happening in Iran.
Hillary also told us there would be massive retaliation in the M.E. by USA if anything happens to Israel.
This woman is now talkingabout nuclear war!
She is out of her everlasting mind and will take us all out in mushroom clouds to prove she is no wimp.
We do not need her idea of 'aggressive diplomacy'.
Thank God she has let the cat out the bag...she is worst than McCain and the neocons rolled up together.
Hillary is a warmongerer!!
Not only is she planning to take the Democratic party down to win the nomination but should she do so she is prepared to take out the world.
Crazymad foolish vastrightwingconspiracy lieing beltingbackshots spouse of a sleaz bag.
April 22, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
i don't recall seeing the threat from Iran to attack Israel. last time i checked, Iran hasn't attacked another country in 800 years.
got a link supporting your claim ?
April 22, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm... Death to Israel is their equivalent of God Save America. And weren't Iran and Iraq at war with each other for 20 years or something not so long ago?
April 22, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Rhetoric" isn't threatening to obliterate the civilian population of a nation that does not remotely threaten yours. That's not rhetoric, it's either pure lunacy or pure evil. Hillary needs to find a pastor who can teach her the 10 commandments.
April 22, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rhetoric" isn't threatening to obliterate the civilian population of a nation that does not remotely threaten yours. That's not rhetoric, it's either pure lunacy or pure evil. Hillary needs to find a pastor who can teach her the 10 commandments.
April 22, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm writing Obama in too. I've already decided. No matter what happens, Barack Obama is my candidate and he has my total, unqualified support.
April 22, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. No. NO. Please don't do that. I might have to shower afterwards...with a brillo pad, but I'll vote Clinton over McCain anyday.
April 22, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
My fellow americans, do we seriously want this woman's finger on the "nucular" button?
April 22, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone else noticed that Clinton in many of these statements has been setting up a hypothetical which is a red herring of a sort, since according to the most recent NIE there is no evidence that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, or even intending to develop them. Perhaps she thinks these sorts of statements will distract people from noticing that she's losing.
The other people are trying to ramp up the fear of an Iranian nuclear threat are Defense Secretary Gates, extremists in Israel, and a gaggle of neocons who have served in the the Bush administration in various capacities. So she's putting hereself in great (Republican) company in making these comments of hers. One thing that's good about her comments though, is that they serve to make the superdelegates' decision far, far easier, since it's increasingly apparent - in more ways than one - that there is only one Democrat remaining in the race.
April 22, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone else noticed that Clinton in many of these statements has been setting up a hypothetical which is a red herring of a sort, since according to the most recent NIE there is no evidence that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, or even intending to develop them. Perhaps she thinks these sorts of statements will distract people from noticing that she's losing.
The other people who are currently trying to ramp up the fear of an Iranian nuclear threat are Defense Secretary Gates, extremists in Israel, and a gaggle of neocons who have served in the the Bush administration in various capacities, for whom Iran was always the primary target of their plan to remake the Middle East (Iraq was just a warm-up). So she's putting hereself in great (Republican) company in making these comments of hers. One thing that's good about her comments though, is that they serve to make the superdelegates' decision far, far easier, since it's increasingly apparent - in more ways than one - that there is only one Democrat remaining in the race.
April 22, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Buddha, what the bloody hell is this? What group is she pandering to this time? How many insane war hawks are voting in the PA dem primary anyway? By the way what IS the endgame of this unbalanced shill anyway?
April 21, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a bit late for this to significantly affect the PA primary, obviously, but a few people told me when I was canvassing on Saturday that they would make their decision on election day, so it could actually have a small effect.
April 21, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think we have nukes?
Its a detourant silly.
You whiners are really weak.
April 21, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
deterrent
Damn Crown.
April 21, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mean deterrent?
April 21, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny!
April 22, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
That or deodorant.
April 22, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Detourant (de-tour'ent) n. What you put under your arms when the road ahead is closed and you have to go another way.
April 22, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 22, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, thats worked GREAT so far.
April 21, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have nukes to deter attacks on us. Same reason Israel has two to three hundred of its very own laid away, as it happens.
Thing is, if Iran is not deterred by Israel's nuclear arsenal, it's not going to be deterred by the threat that we'll come along after the Israelis have already nuked the place to down to glowing glass and nuke the cinders.
Although, if the wind changed between the time of Israel's strike and ours, I suppose we could kill a few hundred thousand extra people in countries downwind of the second strike with the extra fallout. That would certainly be a big bonus if you're a neocon given their apparently limiteless belief in the efficacy of killing as a means of effecting positive change in the world
April 22, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, was about to say that. It's called the US arsenal, not everyone else's arsenal. They are there to protect US citizens. It goes like this, "you hit the US with nukes, we destroy the world." It's not, "you hit someone else, and if we don't like you, we destroy the world."
I can't believe I'm having this conversation with supposed Democrats. WTF!? I'm former military and a hardcore neorealist, but this seems like some kind of bizzaro world...where human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, and mass hysteria are the orders of the day.
April 22, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does the term allies have no meaning to you?
But let's get this straight. If America gets intelligence that a guy you don't like (Ie bin Laden) is hiding out in Pakistan, it's ok for Obama to say that he'll launch missile strikes in a friendly, sovereign country. But if Hillary says that she'll obliterate a country that has just detonated nuclear bombs in one of the most politically fragile parts of the world, you think that's crazy?
I suppose you think American shouldn't have given Israel that arms lift during the 6 days war either, eh?
April 22, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's didn't merely threaten war or proportionate response -- she threatened to obliterate the country. To me that means she's just threatened to kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people.
April 22, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Dr. Venkman.
April 22, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. lets see.
The newest NIE says they stopped their nuclear program in 2003 and there is no evidence that they are seeking any kind of weapon.
Hmmm. Guess Hillary didn't read that one either.
In fact she sounds just like Bush and Cheney - LITERALLY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFZL33nPoEU
What exactly is aggressive diplomacy exactly?
Is it "disarm or be disarmed"?
When they scream that they don't have nuclear weapons do we call Iran liars and invade anyway?
What constitutes an attack on Israel? A handful of Hezbolla extremists? Is that enough to launch a full scale attack on Iran?
All you people giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt, saying that this is just a campaign tactic, you'd better think about it.
Hillary is not a democrat. She's a neocon.
April 22, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
hooray, you got it, man!!!sweet.
April 22, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, you keep ascribing that word "weak" to us and fail to look at what she said. She said she would use nuclear weapons to "obliterate" Iran. "Obliterate", gotalife. Is she running for Bomb-Bomb-Bomn-Iran's VP?
You refer to McCain as McWar. I deduced that you are anti-war. Was that incorrect? McCain and Hillary Clinton are surprisingly on the same page regarding Iran. They both want a war.
McWarmonger/ObliteratorClinton
Unity 08
(Three CIC's on Day One!!!!)
April 22, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Original Detourant - Detourant keeps ants out of hummingbird feeder. Invert device, fill with water, turn device upright. Hang Detourant from top ring, ...
April 22, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why do you think we have nukes?
Its a detourant silly.
You whiners are really weak"-Gotalife
Help me here;just because we have nukes, should we blithely threaten everyone with them just to prove a point.You even point out yourself that they are a detourant (sic) and thats how it should be.Not war war war!Your logic (or lack thereof)is quite staggering and I dont think pointing out that this warmongering tone is NOT the kind of leadership we want from our CiC in the 21st century.No sir!
April 22, 2008 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing I've seen her nuke lately is the echo chamber. Stirred up like angry ants today. Your fear is just displaced anger at what is going to happen to Obama in PA today. She is reiterating that Israel is protected under our umbrella. That's a necessary condition to Israel ever giving up its own nukes. Her position is actually visionary. But ants, busily biting her ankles, can't envision that.
April 22, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Mr. National Security Advisor, what umbrella treaty would that be?
April 22, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The one you think is impossible.
April 22, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Her position is actually visionary."
It's visionary if you're a Roman about 2200 years ago. America is already showing the strains of empire; now would not be a good time to drastically increase our investment in being the world's army.
April 22, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What empire did NATO build?
April 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
If anybody feels we should go to war with Iran, they should vote McCain.
Will she preemptively strike Iran? Listening to her justification of the Iraq War, I don't think she would rule it out.
Scary stuff.
McCain / Hillary 08
April 21, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit, I'd take McCain over her anyday. Lord, what has this woman become?
April 21, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not premptive.
Nukes are used as a deterrent from others using them.
She is stating the obvious to be strong national security.
April 22, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, the Goldwater Girl strikes back.
Time for Obama to unleash his Daisy ad.
April 22, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah! If you have nukes, why not use them! We spend trillions to disable other countries from having nukes so that only we can have them.
April 22, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saber rattling even Cheney hasnt done. And for good reason, it didnt work out too well for Kruschev and helped spark a 40 year Cold War, chiiling the bones of generations of citizens in both countries.
This is worse the Kruschev, who was mis-quoted and was provoked by a power who actually had nukes. No one should be talking about ending the lives of millions of people in a hypothetical threat world. Can you say Iraq?
And oh the hypocrites. Remember the Obama Pakistan comments taken out of context?
I will choose a most considered foreign policy, a balance of deterrence and diplomacy- communication fitting a commander in chief- and responsible umbrella commitments.
April 22, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what gets me about what she said. She is willing to 'obliterate' Iran if she deems it necessary, yet 'Iran' is a nation full of people who agree and disagree with their government. So what she is saying is essentially 'Kill them all and let God sort them out', kill the guilty along with the innocent.
What in the hell is wrong with her?! She sounds like a damn neocon or an overtightened wingnut. That 'Democrats' like gotnolife actually approve of this kind of talk tells me that there are a lot of pretend Democrats out there.
While Hillary is stating the obvious, in doing so she is giving ammo to the Iranians who can exploit what she says for propaganda against us. Her statement is about as belligerent as you can get without actually going to war.
I was considering voting for her if she won (legitimately, not gifted the win), but not now. Since our state allows write in votes, I will put Obama no matter what.
Hillary is no Democrat. She is a Liebercrat through and through.
April 22, 2008 6:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, goatboy, she is fundamentally rewriting US foreign policy. Last time I checked, Israel was not a member of NATO. She is doubling (tripling?) down on her Thursday debate screw-up. Her lackey Wolfson already misspoke once about her use of nukes as part of this scenario, and now he'll have to do it again as she made more news on Countdown tonight.
Amateur hour. Nuking for voters.
April 22, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, yet again, dumbass, how does threatening to nuke Iran after the Israelis are done nuking it down to radioactive lava add to deterrence or contribute anything other than destablizing hysterical hostility?
April 22, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh great
April 22, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
How irresponsible. I wouldn't hire her to watch my my goldfish.
April 22, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't have a goldfish. But if I had one, I wouldn't let her watch it.
April 22, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if that little speech is accompanied by her taking off her shoe and pounding it on the table.
April 22, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
She really is like Goldwater.
I hope Democrats is PA can see it.
I actually feel sorry for gotalife: he so convinced Obama supporters are cultists, he didn't notice Hillary becoming Republican before his very eyes!
April 22, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
in PA. Time for bed. Goodnight folks, Go Obama!
April 22, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran will not attack Israel itself for many reasons. There is no need for such hawkish language, it only causes more conflict and helps the current government in Iran stay in power.
April 22, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Add to that the fact that Iran has never attacked anybody, ever.
But guess who does it all the time.
April 22, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you see 300?
April 22, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
To say that in that way is insane. Bush wouldn't have said this. (Cheney...that's different.)
They don't even have the capability to build the bomb yet - let alone weaponize it - and she's set back any efforts at diplomacy in a Clinton presidency back to the starting point (or past that, even). If it were to happen, God forbid, then you take the proper course of action, whatever that may be - but you don't give them a heads up!
It's clumsy and overtly pandering to the war hawks. It'd be nice if she didn't feel some need to prove to the boys' club how tough she is.
The weird thing is that she seems not to utter a word unless it's been poll-tested; perhaps there's an element out here that thinks that's a wise course of action.
April 22, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife...
Just a tip: It's deterrent, as in deter, as in to prevent. Not detourant, as in detour (I guess?), as in alternate route.
I'm not sure I understand the Hillary quote as it has been contextualized and broken up...
Is she saying "we will attack Iran"--full stop? And only then adding the additional obliteration threat IF they attack Israel?
Or is she saying we will obliterate Iran ONLY if they attack Israel?
Either way, it's frightening.
The aggressive, militaristic threat to use nuclear weapons against another country is...horrible. It seems like she's trying her hardest to define Obama as weak and soft by talking about him as a "whiner", comparing herself to other strong presidents, and pumping up the volume on the militant talk.
But god DAMN it we've already spent 5 years in a war that is costing us TRILLIONS of dollars, guaranteeing that our country has a lower standard of living for GENERATIONS to come, and resulting in the deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people. Why does she think it's a smart campaign move for a Democrat to threaten another war?
I can smell the desperation all the way from PA.
April 22, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a tip. Snide remarks about typing and spelling errors on line is bush. Serious people don't make them.
April 22, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a tip.
Snide remarks about nuclear war are bush.
April 22, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then why do you make them? Oh. I see. Sorry, and thanks for the self-accusation. 5 minutes outside the echo chamber. 1 hour on the wall of shame. Would you like to turn in any of your fellow echoers in return for a reduced sentence?
April 22, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. She want's the Iranians to know that we will attack them? Is she really threatening nuclear war? Or did I read that wrong. Is that the best idea? I'm just wondering.
April 22, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you nailed it. She's threatening nuclear war.
April 22, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
She did the same saber-rattling on Olbermann's show this evening
Clinton also cackled it up when Keith inquired about the endorsement she received from Richard Scaife, saying something like she all about bringing people together?!
Keith looked as sickened and outraged as I felt. HRC is a walking, talking disaster. All the signs are there.
April 22, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That cackle you heard was nervous twitter -- as in, she was uncomfortable about the subject and was lying.
April 22, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In body language terms, she cackles when she is caught at something.
Like this psychotic laughter when asked if Bill taking money from the Columbian government represented a conflict of interest. Pretty serious question right? Apparently Hillary has a psychotic sense of humor none of us are aware of.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f1_pEZDX8A4
When she is telling an outright lie, she injects "you know" every third word.
April 22, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilliary laughs when the topic is surreal. When the politics seem so out of kilter with what we PERCIEVE to be the reality of the historical statements she has represented to us.
I am beginning to think she laughs when we actually see the truth but can't grasp it due to the cognitive dissonace of the conflicting perceptions with the actions. She laughs at our cognitive dissonance knowing that what we see is not what we get from her and she gets a real chuckle when the true reality bubbles up to the surface, knowing that it is so inconcievable and the dissonance so loud that we have to suspend reality in order to believe what is actually true as it seems so incredibly incongruent.
Hillary is dangerous. If Americans do not wake up snd realize that we are doomed. Hillary is just as war mad as McCain. She even said that she would consider McCain for a cabinet position on Larry King. I can't help but think he would be Sec of Defense as that is where they are both kindred spirits.
Hillary will be just as happy as McCain to be in Iraq for 100 years. She has not once believed that we should not have gone to war, she only thinks the war was executed poorly by Bush but anyone who thinks she thought this was an unnecessary war is living in a fantasy war.
This woman is worse than Thatcher who went to war to prove her mettle.
April 22, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
He might be angry that after defending her against unfounded, constant attacks from Scaife for years, she goes and kisses his hand for political expediency. Doesn't make one feel good about taking hits for someone who doesn't seem to care about that.
April 22, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS:
Gotalife...its preemptive, not premptive. I know the double "e" seems awkward, but that's English for you, it's a messy bastard of a language.
April 22, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks spelling troll.
April 22, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
There should be a comma after the word thanks, fyi.
April 22, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I needed to smile. Thanks
April 22, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if I was a betting man, and I am, I'd bet that the toilet paper roll in your bathroom is hung in the improper, underhand position!
April 22, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Iran has 70 million people Israel has 7 million people. If Iran wants to all it has to do is invade Israel. They don't need nuclear weapons.
Remeber when Iran president Ahadinejad said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Well Clinton just threaten to do that to Iran. I'm sure this will get them to slow down their nuclear program.
Once a country have nuclear weapons their isn't a whole lot another country can do. The hard part of making a nuclear weapon is the knowledge. You can't bomb knowledge once it is obtain.
Hillary has been talking to the neocons and Doug Coe and is looking to bring on World War III. Do we really want to have another crusade.
April 22, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are no WMD in Iran. Hillary would know that if she read the newest NIE. Or maybe, like Bush, she just doesnt give a shit.
The Bush administration reacted swiftly Monday, arguing that while the latest intelligence report is "positive news," they won't abandon their strategy of applying "intensified international pressure" on Iran.
Calling the new intelligence "complicated" National Security Advisor Steven Hadley explained the intelligence community has known for a few months there was "new information" with Iran's nuclear weapons program.
President Bush was told in August or September that "new information" with Iran's nuclear program could be coming out but the president was only informed last Wednesday that the nuclear weapons program in Iran was halted in 2003. Vice President Cheney knew a week before the President was informed because he sat in on preliminary meetings, according to Hadley.
Hadley said the President was told in August-Sept to keep using the same talking points as he was using before when speaking on Iran. "He [Bush] was not told to stop talking about Iran's nuclear weapons program. He was not told to change what he says about it. What he was told was, we have new information; it is interesting; it is going to take us some time to understand it," Hadley explained.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/nie-report-iran.html
Or if you don't believe the NIE. How about the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
An informed source told IRNA that the report has stressed that Iran's cooperation with the IAEA before October had been "limited and reactive", stressing that Tehran is showing a policy of full disclosure toward the agency from October on.
The report further stressed that the IAEA welcomes Iran's active cooperation as a positive development.
http://www.payvand.com/news/03/nov/1069.html
April 22, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And let me be clear about something - if Obama had said the same thing, I'd also call it insane. Some things just are what they are.
April 22, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
He probably will if asked.
April 22, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's had the opportunity, as he's been asked repeatedly about Iran and Israel - and he hasn't said anything remotely similar. He tends to ignore hypothetical questions like that regardless of subject, as he should. They're inane, and serve no purpose - particularly when they're as far-fetched a scenario as Iran nuking Israel. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the dynamics at play between those countries knows that Iran wouldn't NEED to nuke Israel.
But you knew that, and are getting your jollies by trolling. I understand.
April 22, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like he'd make a great President!
April 22, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You GO, girl!!! Wipe out them fuckin' Iranians! Kill 'em all! They're just a bunch of ignorant ragheads, right Hillary? If their government attacks Israel and kills a bunch of innocent citizens, then it's only right that we should kill a bunch of innocent Iranian citizens in retaliation.
KILL 'EM ALL, HILLARY!!!! KILL EVERY LAST ONE OF 'EM!!! SEND 'EM TO HELL!!!! WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT CIVILIANS?!?
April 22, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
During the most recent debate, she said:
"We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. . . Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons, but they are intent upon using their efforts to intimidate the region. . . we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power."
Perhaps she didn't get the news a few months back that Iran scrapped their nuclear program years ago, and didn't notice that Olbermann destroyed President Bush for exactly the kind of behavior she is now exhibiting?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlF2YcnWUio
In January, she said...
". . . we are pursuing every available diplomatic avenue to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program once and for all."
...and in November:
"Iran . . . must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply . . . ALL options must remain on the table."
These are not coincidences. Senator Clinton knows very well what she is saying, and that she is fearmongering on the issue... even though her statements are not factually supported by the available intelligence.
She should either run as the candidate for the Republican Party or for the Likud... but a Democrat, she ain't!
April 22, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
April 22, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that was in an NIE. You know she doesn't have time to read those before she makes decisions.
April 22, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah... and besides, everyone knows that intelligence doesn't poll well.
April 22, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neocon psycho...
I'm serious, folks, she wants Lieberman's spot at the RNC convention just so she can go all Zell on Obama.
Honestly, though, if she didn't read the Iraq NIE, then it's safe to say she probably hasn't read the Iran NIE.
April 22, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
God damn this woman. God damn her to hell.
April 22, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
RODHAMN this warmonger!
April 22, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK then. Was her problem that she needed to somehow appear tougher? I can't see how that is possible. She can't really mean that, anyway. I mean, it's a little early to go around threatening to drop the bomb on people. Let's at least get elected first.
April 22, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, let's not get her elected? At all?
April 22, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
derangement IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 22, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right up there with Extemporaneous Bill!!
April 22, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've missed you idiotic. You show up at just the right time to diffuse some of the tension.
April 22, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Idiotic, where can I find your t-shirt?
April 22, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess when Obama finally defeats her in the next few weeks we'll see the:
McCain/Clinton ticket unfolding.
Remember McCain IS ready to be Commander in Chief, according to Hillary.
How can she say SHE is if Obama is not?
Yes I can---vote for Obama in the general election either way.
April 22, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again showing that the Israel Policy any future Clinton government espouses will no connection to anything that would ACTUALLY be in the interests of the United States.
Is it too much to ask when discussing Israel that we consider our own interests for a change?
April 22, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Traitor! Heretic! How *DARE* you!
ANTISEMITE HAMAS LOVING TERRORIST!
- Paid for by AIPAC for Hillary PAC.
April 22, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Im sure this was taken out of context....but I know on more than one instance we have all seen and or heard Mrs. Clinton try to act "hard core" on tv.
And let me tell you about fake ass people who have never been in a fight, and who threaten other people, like they live on a video or movie set. They are usually just blowing hot air. Soon as people show up with guns or ready to brawl they only have excuses.
Think about what you say and WHO you are saying it to, before you say it. (i.e. watch the next road rage incident, I bet that guy/girl didnt think that other guy/girl would follow them home and punch them in the face before they stuck up their middle finger and yelled obscenities out the window at them...did they? Now they are on the news for getting punched in their face because they decided to act hardcore to someone they dont know.)
Mrs. Clinton, with all due respect, shut the fuck up. Its not in you. Your not hardcore. You have lived the plush life. Dont talk shit to a bunch of folks who have lived a harder life than you, because your 20k miles away and you think they wont touch you, or us. THAT does our nation more harm than good.
And EVEN if you were going to do that, dont get on the damn news and spout off at the mouth like a kid. America is a great nation(it has its moments), but we are not in a good spot right now. And we dont need any more people knocking at our front door wanting a fight.
It is irresponsible and shows your naiveness(sp?) and inexperience with dealing with other people. Not just the Middle East.
-Just my thoughts
April 22, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure it wasn't. She's a filthy Republican hawk. She always has been. She helped to get us in a war with Iraq. Now she wants to attack Iran. A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of the same old shit.
April 22, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is embarrasingly counter productive, it is for 1-issue voters and perhaps for a certain segment of 1-issue super delegates -- strength in Mid east.
However, this is ridiculous given Clinton's critique
of Obama's position on Pakistan and Al Queda opporatives.
They must have done some internal polling that pushed for a stronger position.
However, we need engagement with Iran to solidify Iraq's new government. Threating dictator's doesn't really work for _obvious_ reasons. Mutually assured distruction did not work well --- it's absurd to hear it resurrected.
April 22, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn.
Iran will never attack Israel. Never.
Israel has Nukes. Rockets. Jets. Subs.
That is a no-brainer. So this is just an empty Hillary-Rove trump card. More distraction. More noise. More madder music. More Hillbilly does BillyO shrill.
Yawn.
Boring as hell.
Wake me on May 6th when the N. Carolina and Indiana primaries throw a bucket of water in the face of this witch-bitch.
That's her "I'm melting" moment...
Yawn.
April 22, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. You'd think those Israeli subs with nuclear-tipped missiles would be deterrent enough, perhaps?!
The whole suggestion would be preposterous from any rational person... but coming from Hillary, it's scary.
And what happens after a massive nuclear retaliation when the fallout spreads across Asia?! Nuclear fallout in Indian rice or in Russia's grain?!
Bah. Let them eat yellowcake!
April 22, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right that Iran will never attack Israel. Hillary has no understanding of the region, if she did, she would not make such gasbag pronouncements.
But she said:
What kind of person says something like that? What kind of person can speak of inflicting that kind of horror on a people? Of obliterating a people?
I'm so glad she has no prayer of being the Dem nominee.
So weird that she makes these assertions now, the day before the PA primary. In 20 debates this had not surfaced until the last one. So strange.
April 22, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The silver lining in this cloud is 1) Obama is getting great practice, HRC and MCCAIN appeal to the same swing voters he needs in the general and 2) Makes McCain look a lot like the democratic leadership ...... which if MCCain is Dem-Lite why will his fanatics turn out?
April 22, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, we deal with this:
McCain, who was to release his medical records mid-April, now has postponed it until May "sometime": melanoma can come back years down the road, and if it does in his case, he is toast. I suspect there are reasons these records are not being released.
TOO OLD TO BE PRESIDENT.
April 22, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't believe in melanoma. You can change the world with your thoughts. Refuse to believe.
April 22, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Danny Federici (Springsteen's keyboard player for the unwashed here) died of melanoma this week. He was 58.
April 22, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know that is what he died from, how tragic.
April 22, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. He didn't. He passed from this world because he had things turned upside down. He didn't know the difference between Host and Guest. I do.
All limitations are self-imposed. Don't allow indolence to lull you into a skewed view of the world.
April 22, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scientology much?
April 22, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has nothing to do with Scientology, dipshit. You're an ignorant prat who will die of a horrible disease someday if you don't learn some self control.
April 22, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
When it is cold, the cold kills you. When it is hot, the heat kills you. Deal.
April 22, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are insane, cute little bunny aside.
April 22, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There will come a day when the whole world is insane. And they will look at you, and they will say, 'You are not like us. You are insane.'"
- Abba Anthony
Actually, you have no idea what you are saying. You are asleep. Your sanity is part of your dream. You'll wake up someday. Your only choice is how long you avoid it.
April 22, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that fur real? (poke)
April 22, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's hope for you after all...
April 22, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no spoon.....
Man I'm going to have to watch the Matrix again and mix up some mind altering drink. What are you having?
April 22, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off the bus on Huff Post says:
The last news about McCain's medical records came in a short item on CNN.com on April 3: "The McCain campaign said Wednesday the Arizona senator's medical records will no
longer be released by April 15. They now say the new timetable is 'sometime in May.'" That was the fourth time this year that the promised release of medical records has been postponed.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO DOCTOR RECORDS, NO PUN INTENDED.
April 22, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting.
Last I heard, the doctors were going to explain his records.
Something is up.
April 22, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think so too. A girl I worked with had melanoma show up on her back, they removed it, very small spot. She was in her 30's. Five years down the road, it shows up, now systemic. She died. It is serious and deadly, obviously.
April 22, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is part of your own personal nightmare. You have chosen to include it. You don't need to.
April 22, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are just *adorable*, arent' you?
April 22, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This whole line of thought is terribly threatening to your view of the world, isn't it? Something within you feels the desperate need to "do battle" with me. That's not you. The question is, what is it?
April 22, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Do battle?" "Enemies?" Are you a GI-Joe Rabbit? Are you one of (wink-wink) THEM type of rabbits?
April 22, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it wasn't for the supreme court there is no way in hell I would vote for Hillary. Hell her slogan might as well be:
Hillary: Just like McCain, but extra abortions!
April 22, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm not so sure. She had no problem throwing prochoice advocate under the bus.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
Kind of makes me wonder who she will appoint. She's lied so much on the campaign trail can we actually believe she will appoint decent judges?
April 22, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This statement sums up the difference between Hillary and Obama in a nutshell. While Obama sees other people as intelligent adults, capable of seeing reason and willing to compromise, Hillary sees them as ignorant monkeys who need to be threatened in order to keep them in line.
I respect Obama. Hillary is my enemy.
April 22, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
That you require enemies says everything anyone needs to know about your phycho-boobery-babble.
April 22, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your life is your own. So are its consequences. Good luck to you.
April 22, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
hell, the persians have only been around for 5 thousand years. that don't mean a damn thing to someboby who lived in arkansas. what is all the fuss? she 's only talking about nuking foreigners.
April 22, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here come the crapture!
This will cost her the Jewish vote. "Obliterating" Iran would obliterate a lot of other countries in the neighborhood, INCLUDING Israel.
What an insult to the intelligence of the world!
April 22, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Crapture!" Priceless!
One would not want to be around for the Second Coming, after all...
April 22, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, this kind of unsubstantiated fearmongering about the Iranian nuclear program that our own intelligence services said was scrapped is nothing new for Senator Clinton:
"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda. . . If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological And chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
In fact, during the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq’s supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq’s possession of such weapons "are not in doubt" and were "undisputed." Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2005 speech at the UN was "compelling", although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims, in many cases going to the actual sites of claimed "weapons facilities" and "mobile biological labs", only to find absolutely no threat whatsoever.
Even during the four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 that her husband launched at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, she played the role of cheerleader and apologist, claiming that...
"the so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs. . . When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.”
There were, of course, no weapons labs in Saddam's presidential palaces, and UN weapons inspectors -- who were still doing inspections -- were ordered to pull out at the request of the Clinton administration.
To imagine a Hillary Clinton presidency would be to imagine one scandal after another, interspersed with conveniently scheduled attacks upon other countries.
April 22, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC owns Hillary.
That is why it all makes since. Hillary and McCain are nothing but the new Kristol and Krauthammer in the Democratic administration. You watch they are going to be saber rattling and launching attacks.
April 22, 2008 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what we know about Pennsylvania....
As of 1am edt...
3 polls show Hillary Clinton winning by double digits.
6 polls show Hillary Clinton winning by single digits.
1 poll shows Barack Obama winning by single digits.
Most Polling companies will have new released info. coming out sometime this morning.... it will likely give us a better chance of knowing who is going to win and by how much.....
CNN will have live courage starting at 6pm and ending at 11pm edt.
Out of all the polls SurveyUSA and InsiderAdvantage have been doing pretty good jobs...however, they don't agree this time around... with surveyusa showing a single digit win for hillary and insideradvantage showing a double digit win for hillary.
April 22, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus--what drug are you on? By tomorrow evening, we will know who won. What in the FUCK difference could polls make at this point?
April 22, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It was much better than 'Cats.' I would see it again and again and again."
Snap out of it.
April 22, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tomorrow is Earth Day and HRC, in her infinite wisdom, talks about obliterating a country. Nice.
April 22, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, it's closing in on 1:00 now and, for some strange reason, I've got insomnia.
It seems likely that by tomorrow morning, this will have blown up into a major diplomatic shitstorm, with the Iranians and every Shi'ite in the Middle East going absolutely apeshit insane and our fragile tacit alliance with Iran against al Sadr in a shambles. I'm just wondering if she will she still be the candidate who's Crossed the Commander in Chief Threshold (TM), is Ready on Day One (TM), and has the Strength and Experience (TM) to know when not to show her hand to potential adversaries?
Guess I'll know soon enough.
April 22, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has the strength and experience to start our next war on day one!
April 22, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid there is truth in your humor.
April 22, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>CNN will have live courage starting at 6pm and ending at 11pm edt.
Um ... I'm sure you mean live coverage starting at 6pm.
But if you actually did mean live courage, it's worth tuning in to watch it. Who would have thought anyone in the mainstream media was capable of it?
Wow! I'm impressed. Finally all this freedom of the press means something.
April 22, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
For Hillary, it looks like she thinks that the Commander in Chief threshold is a nothing more than a willingness to blow shit up.
2002 - Iraq War Resolution
2007 - Kyl/Lieberman
2008 - Nuke Iran!
April 22, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh shit!
April 22, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
These statements are a disaster for the United States.
If she were to become the Democratic nominee, she is giving Bush the license to attack Iran before his term expires. She is rubber-stamping the escalation of force. She is also further destablizing Iraq, because when a world leaders says that an attack on your Shia culture is inevitable, it has the habit of cementing resistance. Do you think Sadr and other militias that are being covertly supported by Iran will take kindly to having all voices in agreement that Iran will be obliterated "eventually"?
This is not strong foreign policy. This is reckless foreign policy that endangers us all. Was it strong foreign policy when Bush said "Bring em on"? No! He was fomenting resistance to the US occupation, and the casualty rate spiked after that comment.
Iran will never attack Israel except as an act of defense. However, Israel has had plans on the table since the Bush administration came to power outlining a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities (power plants). Iran would be stupid not to retaliate... and Hillary is saying that this would lead to the obliteration of Iran... an ENTIRE NATION OF PEOPLE.
This only cements resistance to the United States. Do not confuse this with tough foreign policy. This isn't tough... it's insane. She has locked herself into an unjustifiable position if she were to become President.
I can not in good conscience vote for her. She is essentially saying that Iran is where the world ends, and she promises to take us there. That is not bold. It's suicidal. I, for one, will not participate in a mass suicide in order to appear "tough."
April 22, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
100% agreed and well-said.
This needs to end tomorrow.
April 22, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, I'm shocked that she would speak of obliterating a people with such ease.
How come this has not surfaced before? So this is why she voted for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman amendment. She believes in the neocon philosophy.
But I keep coming back to that one point – she would obliterate a people. And she spoke of it as if it was a positive thing.
April 22, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The vote was the smoke, and now the fire appears.
April 22, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
hillary clinton just promised to attack iran within the next 10 years.
""I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran."
and i thought john mccain was trigger happy when it came to iran...
April 22, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Future war criminal Hillary Clinton: Kill'em all and let God sort'em out. Yee-Hah! Do we really want Dr. Strangelove at 3 a.m.? This woman is deadly dangerous. It's time to take her Viagra away before she destroys everything in her path.
April 22, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry. This was just a little post-menopausal craziness. She'll be fine. Until the next time...
April 22, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I be the first to call her Hillary Rodham Cheney?
April 22, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
That ............woman....is a fuckin psycho.
April 22, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the way Obamites take what she says out of context.
Why are you afraid to tell the truth?
Why don't you idiots watch the interview and then start your profanity?
Because you are too lazy. Because you are slovenly thinkers.
Because you are content with being ignorant.
Because you let someone else do your thinking for you.
And don't have sense enough to know that "someone else" isn't thinking about your interests.
April 22, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd insult you but....ah, forget it. How much did the ESP helmet set you back? You know, the one that tells you what..."Obamites" (your word) are thinking? A nuanced device it must be, but it appears to be rendering you a bit mad in spots...
April 22, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
His ESP helmet doubles as his colon.
April 22, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the way Hitlarites take what people say out of context.
Why are you afraid to tell the truth?
Why don't you idiots explain why she says""I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran,"?
Because you are too lazy. Because you are slovenly thinkers.
Because you are content with being ignorant.
Because you let someone else do your thinking for you.
And don't have sense enough to know that "someone else" isn't thinking about your interests.
April 22, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK then. Show us the way. Teach us mere mortals. What, pray tell, was the Senator from Armageddon saying exactly?
You seem to get all puffy about Obama supporters shortcomings but never elucidate us on what Hillary said that was so prescient and wise.
From what I see, she took our NATO policy and applied it to Israel, a country that is a steadfast ally of ours but we have no nuclear defense treaty with. Seems kind of stupid to throw that into the public bloodstream.
Show me the way slumlord.
April 22, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go, genius.
"Well what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be it's continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times, we used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world, and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. In addition, 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. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves. In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement where we said, 'No, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.' It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one, some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs. 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 it, from becoming a nuclear power, but were they to become so, 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 bullied into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."
That's what she said. No distortions. No interpretations. Just that. Start with information, not noise, and you'll reach different conclusions. If you're capable of that.
April 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um have you seen it? It doesn't air until tomorrow. But we know enough about her stance from the campaign trail to know exactly how she said something.
At the debate she vowed "massive retaliation"
The quote here is she will "obliterate" them.
Nothing out of context and we can judge on her previous statements.
April 22, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is this not all over the news tonight?
April 22, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I know, this is some serious crapola, the absolute last straw. This thraldom must end.
April 22, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This would be ALL over the news if Obama said something this outrageous.
April 22, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that Hillary doesn't like to take her intelligence from the US, she takes her info from Israel and AIPAC... just like when she took the Bush and AIPAC line with the Syria bombing.
Sy Hersh confirms: Syrian facility bombed by Israel was not nuclear
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_reports_on_Israel_bombing_0203.html
"...Hersh's best guess as to the motivation of the bombing is that it was partly Israeli politics and partly "a message for the Iranians that we're coming..."
See a pattern here?
April 22, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran,"
This line alone should disqualify her from ever holding high public office. She's playing politics with doomsday scenarios. I can't trust a commander in chief who's that cavalier and irresponsible. We've had one for the past seven years.... and how's that been working out for everybody?
April 22, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That line alone has solidified me never casting a vote for her. Every time I think to myself that I should bite the bullet and gamble on her being better than McCain she does something to offend me or offend humanity. This is the worst by far. Bomb Iran. The same Iran that has handed over numerous Al Qaeda operatives. The same Iran that saw progressive leaders lose power(however limited it was) to Ahminejad after peace overtures to the US were rebuffed. The same Iran that to this day would change its tune in a minute in regard to nuclear fuel if it could get on good terms with the US. She wants to murder Iranians for votes. Not just any votes. The votes of those evil or foolish enough to subscribe to the hawkish war criminal neocon ideology that Fox covers like ESPN does sports.
Hillary just told us all that she is willing to be a war criminal to win this election. Now I will tell anyone who will listen that she is not fit to sweep streets let alone lead any American in anything.
April 22, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here's what she really said. Feel foolish? You're not alone. You're in the echo chamber. You'll never have to feel alone again.
"Well what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be it's continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times, we used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world, and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. In addition, 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. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves. In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement where we said, 'No, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.' It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one, some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs. 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 it, from becoming a nuclear power, but were they to become so, 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 bullied into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."
April 22, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only a jackass like you would be comforted by her lying to you. Would Iran be the only nuclear power in the region? Israel and Pakistan don't count? You really think Iran wants to get nuked by Israel? GTFOH
Where in your quote is "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said." ??????????????????
So she really didn't say what she said now? Feel foolish? Your head is up your ass. You're in the echo chamber. You'll never have to feel alone again.
April 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tomorrow, senate debate on NET NEUTRALITY. Be there to support, please. KEEP INTERNET NEUTRAL.
now back to the discussion.
April 22, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is such a wanker for campaigning like this.
April 22, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just very upset to hear Senator Clinton on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. She stated that if Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel the she, as president would respond with nuclear weapons. I really hope I am not alone in thinking that this is a very scary comment. Anyone who has ever seen pictures of the devastation after the nuclear attack on Hiroshima should never even be able to say what she has very coldly stated. I think putting Hillary's finger on the button could be the worst mistake this country could make.
April 22, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama has had three previous opportunities to knock Hillary Clinton out of the race. First, in New Hampshire in early January where all the polls pointed to an Obama win; second, on Super Tuesday in early February where a win in California would have been enough to cripple the Clinton campaign; and then most recently in Ohio and Texas in early March, where a popular vote win in either state would have been enough to effectively knock Clinton out of the race.
Senator Obama has another opportunity today in Pennsylvania - and it seems that he still won't be able to knock her out, even if she wins by single digits.
And It appears that he will not be able to do the same in the up coming contest, even if he was to win north carolina by 15% or more.
April 22, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
D- for relevance: too much reliance on the bleeding obvious. The growth of his support has been slow, steady, sure. Hers has been a five-car collision.
What superdelagate will stand for the obliteration of Iran?
Preemptive nuke war...you only get one.
Pax,
M.
April 22, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, you think Obama wants a black and muslim centered White House.
I can't take what you say seriously since you came out of the KKKloset.
April 22, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your point is ...?
Hillary was well beyond a prohibitive favorite going into this, and she'd be out already if she weren't stubborn as hell and extremely powerful in the inner circles of the democratice "leadership".
April 22, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Back in the California Primary (super Tuesday I think), Senator Obama still wasn't even known well yet, he was just starting to make his name as a potential opponent to Hillary after winning Iowa. John Edwards was in the race, and Barack narrowed Clinton's 20 percent lead she had as more people got to know the Senator.
April 22, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she thinks that the best solution for global warming is a nuclear winter?!
... or that it's not genocide if the innocent civilians we're culture we're exterminating aren't Jewish?!
...or maybe she's campaigning for that "pro-Apocalypse" vote?!
April 22, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to "Drudge Report Website".... Internal Polling shows that Clinton has a 11 point lead in Pennsylvania....that website was last updated at 11:10pm edt on April 21,2008.
Also,
Suffolk, ARG, Insider Advantage...show Clinton with a double digit win.
Zogby, Strategic Vision, Quinnipiac, Mason-Dixon, Rasumussen show Clinton with a single digit win, ranging between 6 to 9 points.
SurveyUSA shows Clinton winning by 6 points, however this is the first data to show a single digit win, all other surveyusa data showed her winning by double digits.
Because all the Polls show her betting Obama some where between 6 to 13 points....a double digit win is "possible".
April 22, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I see, so I can take this as tacit agreement that Iran should be nuked?
April 22, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Omg she is talking Armageddon. What does she think China and Russia would do if we obliterated Iran? And this is how we are going to change our image around the world, with a president who talks like this???? Her mask has slipped off, showing behind it a neocon warmonger.
obliterated = to remove or destroy all traces of; do away with; destroy completely.
April 22, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if you had prudent contingency plans in the back of a dusty filing cabinet, why on EARTH would you play politics with nukes? Why would you lead, from the dem party, with the time-tested diplomacy of....OBLITERATION?!?!
(smack head, hoping to wake up)
Somethin is serusly wrong here...goin to git us all serusly kilt.
Pax,
M.
April 22, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Debra, "you" = "Sen Clinton" not the Royal You.
April 22, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given that Hillary's many advantages (universal name recognition, a huge fundraising head start, the backing of the entire Democratic establishment and a popular ex-President campaigning for her tooth and nail) I find ironic that anyone would try justify the fact that she has managed to avoid being knocked out yet as a sign of strength. Even if she manages to avoid another knockout tomorrow, it's only a matter of weeks before the referee calls it on points.
Too bad that her reputation has suffered a fatal blow as a result of her despicable conduct durning this campaign.
April 22, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your polling doesn't reflect what the wider audience will conclude after hearing Hillary speak of obliterating Iran using nuclear weapons. A proclamation like that is so tremendously reckless and foolhardy. It paves a way for us to start using smaller nukes instead of conventional weapons on opponents. We would then be a destabilizing force in the world. Also you are assuming that Russia and China would have no interest or say in this matter. They could easily step in and say wait a minute, you are not going to start threatening this smaller nation, that we have trade with (and supply weapons to). We will not allow you to use your nukes as we present a real deterrent.
Their is just no reason for her to say that. Not to mention that Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons. Perhaps we should try some diplomacy to forestall their acquiring them. Hers is just a threat of an endgame. She's pounding her chest to appeal to some PA demographic.
April 22, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"obliterate"? Holy crap.
She's devolved from sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife to talking about her gun totin' to doing Crown Royal shots to...threatening to nuke another country???
What is happening to you, Hillary? Seriously, I am worried about the woman I once looked up to and respected.
April 22, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pollster John Zogby: “A big one-day of polling for Clinton. If a 10-point victory is the
pundit-driven threshold she needs on Tuesday, it looks like she can do it. This does not look like a one-day anomaly – undecideds dropped to only 5% in this latest single day of polling, and they are
breaking Clinton’s way. As I suggested yesterday, if white and Catholic voters, who still are the
biggest portion of undecideds, actually vote, Clinton will have her double-digit victory. Just today alone, she polled 53% to Obama’s 38%....Statement was made on Arpil 21,2008.
April 22, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And would you prefer a medal or a monument? We can have both made with blinders.
April 22, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
CNN poll of polls, give clinton a 7 point lead....but CNN said, it is "possible" that she could reach double digits.
April 22, 2008 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, have you heard about any new polls released? I haven't seen anything lately!
April 22, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and check out the latest post...Hillary has a lower favorability rating against Obama...in her own state. How do you like them apples?
April 22, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What will be interesting about this tragic story is to see whether the MSM will even pick it up on an election day. I think they should, but it is likely that they may not for fear of appearing to "interfere" with a current election underway. Here's hoping (with another post above) that some "courageous converage" starts at 6:00 a.m.
It is sad to see that Hillary has gone MAD, in several senses of the term.
April 22, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey HillaryClinton08, you're not a serious member of the blogosphere if you don't know that Zogby's latest poll was available at 3:41 a.m. and had been for several hours. He's now saying his two day polling is a 10 pt lead for Clinton, which means that yesterday's polling only showed a 5 pt lead (49-44) as the previous day as at 53-38 and his two day total is 51-41. Of course, day by day Zogby has gone Obama +4, Clinton +6, Clinton +2, Clinton +8, Obama +2, Clinton +15, and Clinton +5. Either that's a lot of volatility, or Zogby is clueless. He predicted California as +10 for Obama and Ohio as +2 for Obama, so he's not exactly reliable. I vote for clueless.
Pablo
April 22, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell is going on here? Why is a Dem candidate making all this noise about nuking Iran? Time was when we could safely leave this to the Republicans and then skewer them with it in the fall. Now we have someone who, damnit, is still a contender for the Democratic nomination talking obliteration, umbrellas, etc. God help us in the fall if she's the nominee -- we've lost the high ground on this issue. At least once a week I think about the hooting in the Joint Chiefs' conference room as they replay stuff like this.
Who's whispering in her ear? Blackwater? Oh, wait. Nevermind.
April 22, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, who cares ?
She's essentially festering the feud with Iran and uttering the most hawkish idiocy we've heard since GWB and your 'response' is : "she's ahead in the polls " ? what kind of mutant are you ?
btw ... I'm just observing once again.
"bitter-gate" : Time to market = ~nanoseconds
"obliterate-gate" : Time to market = > 1 day so far ...
But nah ... I'm delusionnal and drinking kool aid ... everyone that's not a cultist knows that the media are "in-the-tank-for-barry" .
April 22, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is her full statement about this on Countdown:
Although the more elaborate explication of her view here moderates somewhat the impact of the "totally obliterate" excerpt above, I still think Clinton's expression of her policy is a clear example of unnecessary saber rattling, especially the unequivocal threat to use nuclear weaponry. She could have simply reaffirmed our intention to protect Israel from aggressors and left it at that. This would have made it equally clear that an attack on Israel wouldn't be tolerated while avoiding a worsening of the already antagonistic relationship between the US and Iran.
April 22, 2008 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The quote about attacking Iran cannot be accurate. I realize it reads the same way in Tapper's article at ABC's website, but it simply cannot be correct. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she promise to attack Iran if elected President?
Can anyone confirm or correct this quote?
April 22, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
No she didn't promise to attack Iran if elected President.
She promised that if Iran had a nuclear capability and launched against Israel, then she would launch against Iran. Just a reprise of the old Cold War MAD doctrine.
April 22, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." - Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY
So, not only will we attack Iran, but if they attack Israel, we'll totally obliterate Iran. Nah, that shouldn't destabilize the Middle East too much.
Never mind that Israel has its own nuclear arsenal, and Iran has none, meaning Israel could bomb-bomb-bomb Iran themselves if it came to that. Never mind that her statement commits us to a non-diplomatic solution. Never mind that Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 100 years. (The US sure has, though.)
THIS is the person we want answering the phone at 3 a.m. in the White House? May God in His infinite mercy avert such a disaster.
April 22, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
And never mind that Iran could develop nuclear weapons over the next 10 years. And never mind that she said Iran should keep in mind that we would be ABLE to obliterate them. She didn't "commit" us to obliterate them.
But I guess you're saying that if Iran produces nukes, and strikes at Israel sometime in the next 10 years, that we shouldn't forego diplomacy as our reaction? Good, good. Did you acquire all that foreign policy expertise by spending 3 or 4 years overseas as a child, like Obama did?
Some people shouldn't even be allowed to VOTE for who might answer a 3 a.m. phone call.
April 22, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is playing nicely in the Middle East.
April 22, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. I was going to take it easy today, and now I have to burrow a shelter in my backyard and stock up on canned foods and water.
April 22, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's just giving MoveOn the finger this morning. Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons.
April 22, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So your feeling is that Clinton is just trolling?
April 22, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, you're absolutely right. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. But she wasn't talking about this very instant. She was talking about the next 10 years. Iran is very capable of producing nuclear weapons in that time.
And I think it's doubtful she said that to flip off Moveon. She's in a campaign, and she just might be trying to win it by continuing the theme of being a strong decisive leader when it comes to national defense.
April 22, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try a more likely hypothetical, Senator Clinton.
What would your response be if Israel launched a nuclear strike on Iran ?
Attend a cheering AIPAC costume ball?
April 22, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep tellin ya and tellin ya, but you don't listen. If she doesn't get the nomination, which is hopeless, she will go 'Lieberman' or go
McCain/Clinton 08. yadayadablog.com
April 22, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs."
_____
This is not rational.
The whole purpose of any nation obtaining nuclear weapons is to instill in the mind of a perceived enemy a reluctance to attack out of fear of retaliation.
Essentially: Don't fuck with us.
April 22, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're exactly right, biff. North Korea didn't pursue nuclear technology in order to use them, but rather for the respect that having it wins.
April 22, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sex with a movie star.
April 22, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This Hillary Rambo Clinton bit is going to far.
She's talking about genocide!
April 22, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed, this is the kind of tough talk the world has been waiting to hear from a candidate to the presidency: more "bring it on."
When is this embarrassment to real politics and her husband going to GO AWAY?
April 22, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's not going to nuke anything.
She's a phony. This is a desperate attempt to look "strong." Instead she's looking "insane."
The NIE found that Iran had ten years before being capable of developing a nuke. Does Clinton spell out how she might persuade them from doing this? No -- that would look weak. Like talking to our enemies looks weak.
You gotta be strong, like George W. Bush strong, to get votes, she must figure.
April 22, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tonight, she will drink the sweet nectar of her final political victory on the national stage.
She just wanted to chase it down with a presidential fantasy, a Cuban missile crisis of her own mind, staring down the Iranians with nuclear brinksmanship.
April 22, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Dr. Venkman.
April 22, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obliterate: to remove utterly from recognition or memory; to remove from existence; destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance of.
This is not a word that any Democrat, nay any American, should ever utter with regard to another nation. It's use is cavalier and utterly irresponsible.
Iran is a nation of more than 70 million people, people with families and dreams, people with a rich and beautiful history, people who actually like democracy and interaction with the modern world.
Yes, they have a crazy president and a problem with theocracy. We know how some of that goes. But Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah are not the whole of Iran. They are a diplomatic problem to be solved.
I understand that it's important to carry a big stick, but sabre-rattling isn't useful. We need carrots. We need engagement. We need useful conversations in the region.
What we don't need is anymore neocon blustering! Hillary Clinton, you are an amoral, chickenshit, chickenhawk and an embarrassment to the Democratic party. Go take the VP spot on McCain's ticket.
April 22, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're worried about those 70 million Iranians, you'd better help them get rid of their crazies before they get nuclear weapons and use one against Israel. I'm really sick of the way you people invert things around here.
April 22, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really think that threatening them with obliteration is the way to keep them from getting nukes?
I'm all for keeping nukes out of the hands of Iran.
But saber-rattling is not the way to do that. Paying attention to the intelligence and working diplomatically makes better sense. Working internationally makes better sense. Developing dialogue and regional agreements makes better sense.
Ratcheting up the crazy talk is, quite simply, NOT HELPFUL!
I want a president who is calm and thoughtful when it comes to the Middle East, not one who operates out of a pathological fear of not looking tough enough. We've had eight years of chickenhawks running the show. Time to let rational adults have a shot.
April 22, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you smoking? You think Iran wants to get Nuked by Israel?????????? Or are you forgetting Israel has nukes? More likely conveniently leaving out the fact that the US and Israel started the arms race in the Middle East.
Ahminejad has no power to start wars and the true rulers of Iran are not looking for any fights. So why are you supporting bullshit neocon talking points coming out of your favorite whore's mouth? Because you're just as full of shit as Hillary is.
Go shove your nuclear parasol. The US, Hillary and Israel wont admit Israelis have nukes so how would they be removed if they are consistently denied existing? But you ants crawling up Shillary's ass can't understand that.
Shillary is a visionary? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 22, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"you people"?
You mean liberals?
April 22, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'd love to help them get rid of their crazies...and part of the process in doing so requires not cavalierly threatening to obliterate their whole country, just to score political points here in the USA.
Jeez, you think Hillbots of all people would appreciate nuance, but no, it's all about talking like Rambo and scoring points with Bill O'Reilly. Yeee-hawww!
April 30, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obliteration" is genocide. I thought all decent Americans were against this kind of stuff. Oh, it's Hillary. Scary.
April 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink