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?

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

Holy shit, I'd take McCain over her anyday. Lord, what has this woman become?

oh great

Actually, I don't have a goldfish. But if I had one, I wouldn't let her watch it.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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."

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...

Can I be the first to call her Hillary Rodham Cheney?

How is this not all over the news tonight?

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.

"...Seymour Hersh has written a new article about Israel's bombing of Syria last September. It's inconclusive. No one—Israeli, Syrian, or American—has a convincing explanation of what happened....

...it's interesting to remember what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were saying about the bombing soon afterward, at the September 27 MSNBC debate. Here's Clinton:

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002061.html

CLINTON: [W]e don't have as much information as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that...there was evidence of a North Korea freighter coming in with supplies. There was intelligence and other kinds of verification.

OBAMA: Now, we don't know exactly what happened with respect to Syria. We've gotten general reports, but we don't know all the specifics. We got general reports in the run-up to the Iraq war that proved erroneous, and a lot of people voted for that war as a consequence.

—Jonathan Schwarz

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?

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?!

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.

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.

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.

CNN poll of polls, give clinton a 7 point lead....but CNN said, it is "possible" that she could reach double digits.

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

Here is her full statement about this on Countdown:

OLBERMANN: Can you clarify since there was no follow-up to that which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?

CLINTON: Well, what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be its 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 could 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 them, from becoming a nuclear power. But were they to become one, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening and that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bulled into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that state by creating this new security umbrella.

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.

This is playing nicely in the Middle East.

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?

"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.

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?

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.

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.