U.S. Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, just days after threatening Iran with “massive retaliation” should it attack Israel, has now gone one further:
‘Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on Good Morning America Tuesday, ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”‘
For an interesting parallel, have a look at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent threat to “eliminate” Israel if it attacked Iran.
The State Department claimed that this outburst legitimised international sanctions against Iran, describing it as “unbelievable rhetoric…about attacking a fellow member of the United Nations. “Any civilized person finds that disturbing.”
Well, Clinton’s statement above was surely much worse than Ahmadinejad’s warning, because there was nothing conditional about her threat (“we will attack Iran”) and because as President of the global military superpower Clinton would actually have the capacity to deliver on it.
The obvious conclusion is that international sanctions should be imposed on Hillary Clinton immediately.
Filed under: Iran, Israeli / Palestinian, News and politics, Quote of the Day, US, Videos | 15 Comments
Tags: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, neocons
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
To be fair, wasn’t Clinton’s threat also conditional? If they attack Israel, then we will obliterate them. They’re both offering Mutually Assured Destruction, and Clinton’s threat couldn’t have been worse than Ahmedinajed’s when it’s the same. Although obviously we shouldn’t ignore the context, in which America and Israel are far more likely to launch an attack on Iran than the other way round.
She probably meant that, althought it’s not what she said (I “will” attack Iran – it’s not a conditional statement). It’s worse because of the context, particularly since Iran is well known to have been in the U.S.’ cross-hairs for some time now.
She was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel. Instead of challenging this absurd premise Clinton chose to use it as an opportunity to prove how aggressive and militaristic she intends to be. Well, she’s certainly convinced me on that point.
This talking about nuclear bombing by Mrs. Clinton reflects a desperate attempt to collect some more votes. Iran does not have any nuclear bomb. Israel has nuclear bomb.
Why are these people wasting time about exaggerated responses to something that will never happen? Israel and Iran should both cool it down, their threats only feeds their local politics.
Israel needs Iran; Iran needs Israel. Jews and Persian have historically been part of each other’s history for over 2,000 years.
Mrs. Clinton’s statement is just a political foolishness.
Hillary Clinton must be stopped. Only I can stop her.
http://stuffgodhates.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/10-hillary-clinton/
Oh Dear.
She looks a bit crazy in the interview too…
She also publicly threatened Iran with “a nuclear response” from the United States if it attacked Israel with nukes. She’s trying to out-McCain McCain.
The arrogance of these statements coupled with an insistence that Iran halts its nuclear development is astounding. In any allied nation, the development of nukes in Iran’s position would be lauded as a defensive strategy; only in the obscene logical framework that is our political framework can Iran be painted as an aggressor.
I’ve not done a full study, although I may do for my masters, but you’d probably have to class Iran as the least aggressive state ‘faced with comparable challenges’ (Dershowitz’s words) of the last 50 years. Perhaps Nicaragua?
The main problem here is the acceptance of the premise that Iran is likely to attack Israel in the next 4 years, without evaluating what the chances are that this might happen and under which scenarios. If Clinton had been asked what she would do if Spitzbergen attacked the USA she would be entitled to say that there would be retaliation but would, I guess, also point out that Spitzbergen would be very unlikely to do suh a thing. However she seems to have accepted the premise without evaluating it, which is dangerous.
In the UK in the second half of 2002 there were quite a lot of newspaper articles that said that the USA was strengthening the defences of Israel and Turkey “in case of an attack by Iraq”. The articles didn’t say that the chances of an attack by Iraq on these countries were very low (because of the likely massive retaliation) and that in fact the intelligence evaluation was that Iraq would only attack those countries if it were attacked by the USA. So in fact really the USA was preparing to attack Iraq! However the drip-drip of these articles served to fix in people’s minds the idea that Iraq was about to attak neighbouring countries, a myth that still persists in some quarters.
New and improved–now she comes with batteries! Sick Hillary on your friends at parties–impress the crowd! And for the older generation, now you can connect with the Clappper!
Watch your worries (and those Iranians) evaporate. No one with money should be without one.
*Offer void in certain localities.
The obvious conclusion is that international sanctions should be imposed on Hillary Clinton immediately.
but they won’t be.
America as ‘leader of the free world’ works on the “do as I say, not as I do” principle.
Gald her finger wasn’t on the trigger when those ghost snipers came at her in Bosnia. She would have obliterated Bosnia -and probably Serbia with Kosovo, too. This woman is dangerous.
Stupid question. If Iran chucks a nuclear bomb at Israel, I doubt there would be much need for the USA to retaliate, given that Israel definitely has its own huge fuck-off nuclear arsenal which is no doubt far more advanced than anything Iran might have.
As a commenter on Lenin’s Tomb noted, this idiot ‘journalist’ was affectively asking her “what would you do if a country launches an attack using weapons that they don’t have against an enemy that already does have them?”
A rational response to such a question would have been “don’t be such a prat and ask me a sane question”. Instead she chose to posture like the Emperor in Star Wars: “WIPE THEM OUT. ALL OF THEM!!”
Even worse to my mind is the response of the BBC. They described this as her “tough stance”. Like Hitler’s “tough stance” on the Jews, O BBC??