Clinton: “If I’m the president, we will attack Iran”
From Agence France Presse:
Democratic presidential Hillary Clinton has threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it launches a nuclear attack against Israel as she fights for her own political survival.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Senator Clinton told ABC News, asked what she would do as president were Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
[...]
Senator Obama’s camp yesterday accused Senator Clinton of trying to scare voters, as she rocked their White House race with a dark campaign ad featuring images of al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden.
The ad uses pictures of Pearl Harbour, bin Laden and the devastating 2005 hurricane that swamped New Orleans, mirroring the “3am phone call” spot credited with helping Senator Clinton to win in Texas and Ohio last month.
“You need to be ready for anything – especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis,” the male narrator intones.
“Who do you think has what it takes?”
Both Democrats have vowed to defend Israel against any Iranian attack, but they differ on how to engage the Islamic republic over its nuclear ambitions.
Read the rest here.
Comments are closed.
She is (was) a neocon in sheep’s clothing.
WHEN is she going to leave the race? Regardless of her political positions, I just can’t stand her :-/
Disgusting.
Though no more disgusting than the barbaric and demented John McCain.
I live in PA and had to suffer through her awful last minute “politics of fear” commercials–as bad as anything Rove has ever done–and new hawkish chest-strutting.
Remember, she had access to the NIE and voted to authorize war; and voted for Kyl-Liebermann.
Pennsylvanians had a clear alternative and chose to offer the blood of their offspring and their less advantaged neighbors to the idol of imperialist America.
God help us.
Why can’t she just go away?
I’m no fan of Senator Clinton, but from the context of her remarks, it’s clear she was saying she would attack Iran *if* it launched a nuclear attack on Israel, not that she would do so as a matter of course once becoming president. Beware the gotcha.
BA – Yes, that is clear. Your point? Many of us still find it disgusting.
She should be McCain’s running mate.
Michael,
Suppose Obama were president and Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Do you really think he wouldn’t retaliate? Do I really have to point to his bellicose statements on the subject?
BA
There is a difference between a defensive response and a “total obliteration” response. Moreover, one can suggest there is another undercurrent here: like McCain, Clinton thinks it is going to happen, and if one starts with that basis, it is easy to create another pre-emptive war. Hence, there is even the talk about obliteration if they “consider” an attack.
If Iran attacked Israel with a Nuclear weapon no doubt there would be a invasion of Iran. At the very least I would expect that there would be the strong consideration of the use of at least tactical nuclear weapons going in.
The best thing to do is to make sure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons period so we do not have this scenario
Also lost in this is as the link states Obama’s comment
Both call for diplomacy, but Senator Obama has gone further, renewing a promise of “direct talks” at a leaders’ level with Tehran and others the United States regards as foes, at a candidate debate here last week.
“Iran should be presented with “carrots and sticks,” the Illinois senator said, while stressing “they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons.”
Those options he is not taking off the table of course include the use nuclear weapons
JH
Jesus saved even St Vladimir.
Iran is not — ever — going to attack Israel with nuclear weapons.
This is, like the various ticking time bomb scenarios, something that American worshipers of weaponry enjoy fantasizing about, but it is not part of any possible reality. It is worth noting who constantly brings up this idea, and asking why they do it. It is not the Iranians who talk about it ad nauseam.
From Maureen Dowd, NYT, 4/23
…..She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?
Now that Hillary has won Pennsylvania, it will take a village to help Obama escape from the suffocating embrace of his rival. Certainly Howard Dean will be of no use steering her to the exit. It’s like Micronesia telling Russia to denuke.
“You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out,” said a glowing Hillary at her Philadelphia victory party, with Bill and Chelsea by her side. “Well, the American people don’t quit. And they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either.”
The Democrats are growing ever more desperate about the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. With gas prices out of control, with the comically oblivious President Bush shimmying around New Orleans — the city he let drown — and Condi sneaking into Baghdad as rockets and mortars hail down on the Green Zone, beating the Republicans should be a cinch.
But the Democrats watch in horror as Hillary continues to scratch up the once silvery sheen on Obama, and as John McCain not only consolidates his own party but encroaches on theirs by boldly venturing into Selma, Ala., on Monday to woo black voters.
They also cringe as Bill continues his honey-crusted-nut-bar meltdown. With his usual exquisite timing, just as Pennsylvanians were about to vote, Hillary’s husband became the first person ever to play the Caucasian Card. First, he blurted out to a radio interviewer that the Obama camp had played the race card against him after he compared Obama’s strength in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s. And then, with a Brobdingnagian finger-wagging on the screen, he denied it to an NBC News reporter.
“You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today,” he said, accusing the reporter of looking for “another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us.”
If there’s one person who knows about crass diversions, it’s Bill. But even for him, it was an embarrassing explosion, capped with some blue language to an aide that was caught on air.
The Democrats are eager to move on to an Obama-McCain race. But they can’t because no one seems to be able to show Hillary the door. Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you’ve got to score points.
…..
Is he skittish around her because he knows that she detests him and he’s used to charming everyone? Or does he feel guilty that he cut in line ahead of her? As the husband of Michelle, does he know better than to defy the will of a strong woman? Or is he simply scared of Hillary because she’s scary?
He is frantic to get away from her because he can’t keep carbo-loading to relate to the common people.
In the final days in Pennsylvania, he dutifully logged time at diners and force-fed himself waffles, pancakes, sausage and a Philly cheese steak. He split the pancakes with Michelle, left some of the waffle and sausage behind, and gave away the French fries that came with the cheese steak.
….
Before they devour themselves once more, perhaps the Democrats will take a cue from Dr. Seuss’s “Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!” (The writer once mischievously redid it for his friend Art Buchwald as “Richard M. Nixon Will You Please Go Now!”) They could sing:
“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. … I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. … You can go in an old blue shoe.
Just go, go, GO!”
BA:
The issue is that she hinted that nuclear weapons could be on the table. And for Catholics, that is as beyond the pale as it is possible to be.
Wow. Maureen Dowd has got even crazier since I stopped reading her… Kind of the intellectual equivalent of anti-matter.
Look, I’m prepared to believe that Hillary is a pretty despicable human being. Indeed, I’m even prepared to believe that she’s more despicable than Obama — if only because she’s had more time to practice. But even as a solid Hillary-disliker, I can’t really find it in me to think that he’s serious about “obliterating” Iran in retaliation for an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel. Take out it’s military and government, maybe. But obliterate?
I suspect that threat is about as serious as Obama’s threat to invade Pakistan.
As for whether it’s truly unthinkable that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons — I’m glad that G. Alkon is so confident, but I think everyone in the region would probably rest easier if they never have the wherewithall for us to find out.
“The issue is that she hinted that nuclear weapons could be on the table.”
So has Obama.
Should be “think that she’s serious about”
Wow, her macho act must be giving the appearance of masculinity — or is it just that I type too fast.
Who would haev predicted that the Republican-leaning people here would be the ones defending Hillary Clinton? :)
And Darwin: “he’s serious”– Freudian slip??
Well, if it’s any help, MM: If I absolutely had to pick between the two, and couldn’t refuse to choose, I would probably marginally prefer Obama as president over Hillary, simply because he’s be more pleasant to listen to over the following four years — even if he wasn’t actually any better for the country.
“Who would haev predicted that the Republican-leaning people here would be the ones defending Hillary Clinton?”
Well, I can’t speak for the others, but Karl Rove has promised to pay me a sizable bonus for every dupe, er, I mean, voter, that I can convince to vote for Senator Clinton.
Darwin — there is only one country in the middle East that has been obliterated in the last 10 years: lebanon.
I would love to know the number of new Registrations in the county that Notre Dame is in. Will the Catholics of Notre Dame save Obama?
Or did anyone think that this race would be still going on and it was too late to register folks up in the county
G. Alkon,
Absolutely no semitic ethnic groups in Europe were subjected to systematic, continent-wide extermination in Europe in the 100 years before 1935. Therefore no one should have worried, no?
MM,
Having stuck my nose in, may I clarify: would you say that tactical use of nuclear weapons against military targets is “as beyond the pale as it is possible to be” or is it only the “obliterating” use of nuclear weapons that is unacceptable?
Blackadder-
Senator Clinton just pays me directly. That way Rove doesn’t get a cut of my take.
MM
I thonk many of us Republican leaning supporters are just observing from the outside. The Dems are the only political fun game in town tow watch and indeed who can not enjoy it. It is pretty exciting though I suppose Obama suppoters are not finding it quite as exciting
I suspect many of us(*GOP likely voters)would disagree who we would rather be against us in the general
As I stated elsewhere I would very much more like to have Obama. Louisiana will be with with Hillary while with Obama I doubt it. So from my local standpoint I would rather have Obama.
Clinton specifically denied that she meant that nukes are merely “on the table.” She clearly stated that she is making a credible threat to obliterate Iran. She alludes to MAD.
“She is (was) a neocon in sheep’s clothing.”
Mark,
Clearly, Hillary is capable of indulging herself in the use of arbitrary force when it suits her personal needs. Her campaign is a testimony to that deep-seated trait — and it is nothing to admire.
But would she be as reckless on the international scene?
Well, the irony is that Bill was largely disengaged from international politics. He put his major effort in the automatic process of “globalization.” Globalization was, as he saw it, an extension of domestic economic policy. Yet, on other matters of great significance, he had to be persuaded to take any action — Bosnia comes to mind. Otherwise, he was passive — Rwanda.
Most obviously, neither GHW Bush nor Bill Clinton developed a post-Cold War Grand Strategy for America!!! Even today, the US has no Grand Strategy. For the most part, American foreign policy is an Israeli foreign policy supported by American military and economic power. It doesn’t go beyond that, to any great extent.
Now think of this possibility. Perhaps Hillary will rebel against her husband, just as GW Bush rebelled against his father. Maybe she will see Bill, like Bush did his father, to be weak. Maybe she will try to show that she is the one wearing the pants in the family. Maybe she’ll be another American ‘cowboy” once she assumes the reigns of power.
The bottom line: I don’t think she’d be a steady international leader, once having a principled vision for the future. Rather, I suspect she’d either be hesitating and indecisive or strong-willed (without a vision)f, and extremely unpredictable and dangerous.
The upshot: a deepening global isolation for America that may well become permanently entrenched. Such would be a radical transformation of the international order.
“She alludes to MAD”
No, she is alluding to the doctrine of “massive retaliation,” a doctrine that was implemented by the Eisenhower Administration and repudiated during the Kennedy Administration. It was replaced by the doctrine of “flexible response.”
Mutual assured destruction by definition requires the ability of the enemy to inflict “assured destruction” on the US. It is a status quo strategy. But, Iran lacks that capability!
Massive retaliation means that any perceived threat by a nation could involve the use of nuclear weapons, even to the extent of obliterating the country and its population. Using this threat, Hillary is signaling her intent to control the behavior of Iran, or any other nation, through nuclear intimidation. This is a strategy of fear.
Clearly, this is a losing strategy, especially in this day of asymmetrical warfare.
OK maybe MAD was inaccurate, though it’s still mad. Clinton’s comments can be interpreted to support massive retaliate or flex response. She doesn’t rule out more limited responses. But MAD, massive retaliate, flex response, and the Hillary Doctrine all rely on nuclear deterrence through assured destruction.
RR,
You’re absolutely correct. It’s not only mad, it’s crazy!
Yet, the press ignores this comment. Rather they are obsessed with misinterpreting Obama’s “bitter” phraseology.
Gerald,
Thank you for your thoughtful elaboration of Hillary’s likely possibilities. in her foreign policy.
Not to be as simplistic and as reductionistic as is Dowd has been elsewhere with W., I do think that Hillary has Daddy issues in the same way that Barbara haunts George Jr.
The biographies are in common agreement in that they document well and make the the case for the heightened negative influence that H’s overbearing and pathologically out of control father had on his kids psychological makeup.
The whole world is not the stage in which I want to see Hillary play out that particular psycho-drama.
Israel is known to have 400+ nuclear bombs, submarines that can fire longrange nuclear missiles and a “second strike” capacity. If the head governing council – which is NOT that Ahmidijad guy – became mutually suicidal and hit Israel (assuming they ever had a weapon and the means to deliver it), Israel would seem to be quite capable of “obliterating” Iran. I’m puzzled as to why she said that particular thing at this particular time.
Mark,
I’ve never read much about Hillary’s childhood. I do have a friend who saw some biography of her on the History channel or something. He told me one time awhile back that her dad was a trip — overbearing and demanding.
My view is that we don’t need her around anymore. Perhaps not even in the Senate.
I’m tired of the kind of politics that has grown up over the last 30 years — since Gingrich came to DC in 1979. Based on my experience, Gingrich was the epicenter of much of the politics we have come to hate. But for him, the politics we now hate was merely his way of accumulating power.
I remember the change in the leadership of the House Republicans from Rep. John Rhodes, to Bob Michael, to Dick Armey, to DeLay, to Boehner … it was a movement from moderation to extremism.
Eventually, the extremists will all be gone and a new Republican party will emerge. Though I would not vote for John McCain, he may be a moderating force on the party. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!
“I’m puzzled as to why she said that particular thing at this particular time.”
Marianne,
Votes! That’s why.
She won’t propose such a policy after she’s defeated — not in the Senate Armed Services Committee. It’s a nonsensical idea. But to many voters now, this kind of talk means that she is a strong supporter of Israel and a tough gal.
So, Hillary is trying to come across as tough — as no pushover. She feels she has to prove herself. But is she smart and compelling? Will she be able to lead? And will her staff be able to relate to her and challenge her without popping Prozac!!! If not then she would be isolated were she to win the White House.
To my way of thinking, she certainly hasn’t exhibited many noble qualities. Her campaign tells a tale of chaos and one false start after another. Yet, hasn’t her campaign been the only major organization she has presided over?. From what I can tell, she has generally played the role of a high level spectator — and a follower..
“I remember the change in the leadership of the House Republicans from Rep. John Rhodes, to Bob Michael, to Dick Armey, to DeLay, to Boehner … it was a movement from moderation to extremism.”
Let us not forget that the so called moderation of the GOP pretty much kept the GOP in the minority for 40 years in the House.
After a while getting fed scraps and told how wonderful we should feel over it got old
“Let us not forget that the so called moderation of the GOP pretty much kept the GOP in the minority for 40 years in the House.”
Yes, I’m fully aware of the history of the GOP in the House. I have always been a part of that minority. But the failing over those forty years lay not in their moderation. Rather, it had more to do with the Republicans being unable to theorize a meaningful or practical social policy. They have been unable to address the challenge of inequities and the fundamental need for social justice. For them, social policy has always been an economic policy. That remains true today. Thus, one of the three legs of national leadership has been missing.
Since the Gingrich march to extremism (in both policy and temperament) Republicans are now in the predicament that they have even less scraps than ever before. This is an astonishing fact.
To my way of thinking, a whole new generation of Republican leadership is needed to gain ground. This new leadership would be advised to find ways to address the challenge of social justice. Should they not, the reigns of power will be beyond their grasp for a very, very long time.
I recognize the Democrats have problems too — their social policy has been unsuccessful. But I won’t elaborate on this problem now.
But I will say here that the underlying problem for both parties remains the same — an adherence to an atomistic view of the individual. How this shortcoming manifests itself is different for both parties.
Gerald Campbell:
I think your analysis of the blind spots in Hillary’s (and Bill’s) world view is spot on, but I want to ask you (and DarwinCatholic and RR and Black Adder) a question: Don’t you think that SOMEBODY should now ask Hillary Clinton this question: “Now that you have so closely tied America’s foreign policy choices to the fate of the nation-state of Israel, what, during your tenure as President of the United States, should America expect to get from Israel in return for this commitment to protect her unilaterally?”
What Hillary Clinton has offered Israel is, in effect, a “mutual security pact” without ANY provision of help from the Zionist State to secure America’s national interests in the region. It is in America’s national interest for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to be defused. If America offers Israel unilateral protection against a “first strike” by Iran or by some other Arab State in the region, the LEAST America should expect from Israel is the right and the opportunity to broker a lasting peace settlement that should include the dismantling of illegal Israeli settlements and the recognition of complete Palestinian autonomy within the pre-1967 borders. Of course, this wouldn’t have to be spelled out by Clinton, as an answer to the question I’m suggesting, but, in OUR national interests, she should at least HINT at it.
If Clinton is unwilling to state publicly that she would expect some Israeli concessions to American national interests in return for such a guarantee of protection by the U.S., then she is what I actually suspect her of being–a “neo-conservative” in foreign policy, who–like the lot of them in the Bush Administration–have, for various reasons (including allegiance to “dispensationalist” religious heresy) sold out the national interests of America to those of the Zionist State.
Shame on you for a headline that totally distorts what she said. I thought we were trying to bring a tad more accuracy than can be found in the regular media? LOL. Apparently its still about grabbing attention with misleading rhetoric. In fact she’s quite less likely to invade Iran than the warmongering McCain.
I didn’t distort anything. It’s a direct quote. And the context can be seen from the rest of the post. She may be less likely to invade Iran, but she clearly wants us to think otherwise.