Indepatriot
Indepatriot's JournalI agree with you that the press is nearly useless and that the question itself was hyperbolic. But
her answer is terrifying.
I did not twist or distort anything. "Total Obliteration" of millions of innocents is unacceptable
to me no matter the context. And context is fully provided by the link. I believe it is you who are attempting to "twist and distort" here.
Context is completely provided by both the link and the narration. Call me a dove if you
want but in my opinion her answer disqualifies her as an acceptable candidate for the presidency. You answer seems to suggest it was political expediency in a "heated campaign". Either way, no bueno.
Why don't you ask him? My belief is that he would take appropriate action. "Total Obliteration"
of millions of innocents is not appropriate action.
I read the link. I don't care what the context is, advocating Total Obliteration of any nation is
unacceptable to me as a human being.
So you're saying she's "evolved" on this issue? If she has I'd like to know. Did she apologize for
and/or refute this statement? To me, there is no "statute of limitations" on Total Obliteration.
Disturbing Hawkishness from Hillary Clinton. Is this her true belief or is it merely
"political expediency" ? Either way, this is important for primary voters to see. Personally, I've had more than enough WAR already, and I believe anyone who would advocate "Total Obliteration" of any country is unfit to lead our nation.
If Hillary does become President, I sure hope she evolves on the "Total Obliteration" of Iran.
[link:http://
|
I thought it was his youthful, trendy, good looks, carefully managed appearences poll-tested
statements, and shift with the wind priorities that were pullin' them in...
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jan 23, 2008, 12:05 PMNumber of posts: 1,253
