Clinton Camp clarifies: US to have full nuclear response to Iran using a nuke on ANY ME country.

[mckeown1128]

She has lost her mind... I just saw a Clinton Campaign bigwig on Faux News clarify her "comments" on what to do with Iran. They were talking about her comments about using a full nuclear response to Israel being nuked by Iran. The campaign guy was asked "does that apply to any middle eastern country including Dubai or Saudi Arabia. The summarizing of the answer was YES.


So, if Hillary is president and Iran drops a nuke in syria or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia... then we are going to go into nuclear war with them. WTF?

[Blue_Roses]

1. I heard her say this am

that if Iran bombed Israel, then we would obliterate Iran :crazy:

[mckeown1128]

2. but not just Israel which at least makes sense in a crazy...

pander to the Jewish community way... it doesn't even begin to make sense as to why our country would get in the middle of a nuclear exchange with other middle eastern countries.

[Taxmyth]

5. And Senator Obama would give a speech, correct?

Un Freaking Believable.

[BigDDem]

9. No, he would set up a meeting with Ahmadinejad

[Taxmyth]

Iran nukes Israel and Senator Obama sets up a meeting.

I want to hear him say that. Let's get the word out as this is something the American people really need to know.

[Lerkfish]

17. WEEEEEHAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. Hillary changed her mind on this from 2007

[Windy]

33. do you want to see the end of the world? They nuke, we nuke Russia nukes...

Jesus what the hell is wrong with you people?

Do you think that Russia or China would sit back and let us nuke Iran when they get their oil from that country and conduct trade with them?

She would set into motion a cycle that would result in the end of the world as we know it.

Cool heads and agressive diplomacy to unite the rest of the world against Iran would be what is needed to save humanity!!!!


What in the F*** is wrong with you HRC people???

[Taxmyth]

34. Aggressive Diplomacy is what Senator Clinton proposed

But should Iran obtain or develop nuclear weapons and use them on Israel, she gave a specific approach she would employ. The American people know exactly what she said, the Israeli people and government know exactly what she said and anyone in Iran seeking to obtain or develop nuclear weapons to use against Israel knows exactly what she said. There can be no misunderstandings when it comes to United States foreign policy when it comes to this highly unlikely but remotely possible situation.

If Senator Obama will NOT employ a nuclear response in this same situation than those are words that need to be spread far and wide so that the American people understand, the Israeli people and government understand and anyone seeking to acquire or develop nuclear weapons in Iran needs to understand.

So, his saying he would take no options off of the table was really a lie?

[goclark]

35. I'm American and I think she is out of her mind

It is irresponsible to make broad brush statements like that one.

[Taxmyth]

44. then you must not understand the issue very clearly

unless your thoughts are based on an irrational hatred.

Both candidates favor diplomacy to PREVENT a nuclear attack on Israel from Iran.

Both candidates favor foreign policy that includes an American response IF THE EVENT OCCURS.

If Senator Obama has now taken nuclear weapons off of the table should Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel then he needs to clarify his position as it is in opposition to his statement that he would take no options off of the table should this event occur.

And indeed, if he has now taken nuclear weapons off of the table should Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel then that information needs to be given directly to the American people NOW before they vote anymore and certainly by November when they vote for President. It needs to be delivered to the Israeli people and Government so they know what a President Obama will not do if they are attacked with nuclear weapons. And it needs to be given to anyone in Iran seeking to acquire or develop nuclear weapons for use against Israel.

[goclark]

48. You have inspired me

to donate to Obama today. :bounce:

By the way, I completely understand the issues, I have watched with horror as the Bush administration trained us on this FEAR stuff.

[Lerkfish]

38. "agressive diplomacy" equals "obliterate"? jesus christ on a trailer hitch

get thee behind me, satan.

[Taxmyth]

41. Aggressive diplomacy equals aggressive diplomacy

the inability to comprehend the difference between using diplomacy to forestall an attack on an ally, versus policy if that ally were attacked is stupidity.

[Lerkfish]

45. I would bet my IQ is higher than yours, but beyond that, you obviously don't understand diplomacy.

full out threatening to obliterate an entire country is not diplomacy, especially when you've publicly stated you will NEVER meet with that country's leader under any circumstance, which she has.

You're confusing "diplomacy" with "extortion".

di·plo·ma·cy
1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.
2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.
3. skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact: Seating one's dinner guests often calls for considerable diplomacy.

extort verb
to obtain (from a person) by threats or violence
Example: They extorted a confession from him by torture.

[Lerkfish]

11. you would prefer all out thermonuclear war worldwide?

because that is what you'd get.

Iran is partnered with Russia AND China.
What do you think those countries would do if we "obliterated" Iran?

sheesh!

[chascarrillo]

16. Well, that would be better than killing millions of innocent civilians, no?

I can't tell Clinton supporters from right wing fascists anymore.

[Lerkfish]

19. there's a reason you can't tell.

oh, and btw: they'll tell you there are no innocent civilians, if they're brown.

[watrwefitinfor]

21. I lived through the entire Cold War period.

In the '50s I learned to duck (under my desk) and cover (my head) and later I learned to laugh about the possibilities (then bend over and kiss your sweet ass goodbye).

But I never heard any politician, from any country, actually come out and threaten to obliterate another country. I've heard them talk about "mutually assured destruction". I've heard there were reports showing how "we" could start a nuclear war against the Soviet Union and enough of the ruling class would be saved (in bomb shelters) to make it worthwhile (Dr. Strangelove syndrome). And Kruschev once threatened to "bury us" though it was clear he was speaking of burying us in an idealogical way.

But to spit out, venomously, that - WE WILL OBLITERATE THEM -

I am just astounded that she would say this. I've never heard a politician go that far, not even a repub. Maybe I missed something and someone can find where it's been said before.

I have a feeling this is making headlines all over the world today, while PA is voting. And if she wins that vote it is going to be partially attributed to her willingness to 'obliterate' Iran. And all that implies will then be in play. And I think this is not going to sit well with a number of other countries.

Electing this woman is not something that will be good for our country, nor for the world, nor for children and other living creatures.

Wat

[Blue_Roses]

31. Here's a link to her comment:

Clinton's Iran Threat Contradicts Previous Position on Making Such Comments

April 22, 2008 9:50 AM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told Chris Cuomo on GMA this morning that should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons, "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."

The comment seems to contradict previous statements Clinton has made on the subject -- not so much about her willingness to attack Iran, but about the wisdom of discussing such a move.

more...


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clintons-iran-t.html


:wtf:

[bowens43]

3. she is completely out of her mind.

she is a raving, shrieking, screeching ,irresponsible, war mongering lunatic. We can't let this woman anywhere near the launch codes.

[raebrek]

4. I think she meant, not that it makes it any better

That if any country dropped a nuke on Israel.

Raebrek!!!


No, I have know way of knowing that. I don't think that Iran would bomb Saudi or Pakistan.

[mckeown1128]

14. umm I heard with my own ears...

the campaign spokesman agreed when questioned that if Iran dropped a nuke on A N Y middle east country we would nuke them.

[raebrek]

24. Well you have got me there.

I didn't hear it, I just read about it. Thanks

Raebrek!!!

[Diamond Dog]

6. What a liar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSh5KORghU

"... 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."

What a lie.

[mckeown1128]

20. haha lol that video is ssssoooooo funny...

that is a must watch video. How true... how true... lol

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Here is the deal

If Iran never gets nuclear weapons all of this is moot. That's the first thing. Assuming that Iran does get nukes, which is uncertain, there is no doubt there are other Middle Eastern nations with the resources needed to start their own nuclear program. In fact the United States has already been put on notice by Saudi Arabia at least that they will do exactly that.

The concept of America's nuclear umbrella has been part of our strategy to prevent rampant nuclear proliferation, by assuring other nations that they don't all have to run out and get their own nukes to defend themselves against potential adversaries that have nukes. Preventing a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East is the underlying rational. The secondary rational is to undermine any perceived advantage hard liners in Iran might think they would get over their Sunni rivals in the Middle East by having nukes to intimidate them with while they remained defenseless. The reason to talk about a U.S. reaction now is to influence decision making inside Iran about the pros and cons of going nuclear.

[Hola]

15. Holes in the arguement:

"The concept of America's nuclear umbrella has been part of our strategy to prevent rampant nuclear proliferation, by assuring other nations that they don't all have to run out and get their own nukes to defend themselves against potential adversaries that have nukes. Preventing a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East is the underlying rational."

Well, Israel puts a big hole in that "underlying rational".

Not to mention is there any actual evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons? Sort of important after the Iraq debacle. Let's not forget that of all the countries in that region, Iran is the only one WMD's have been used against. Maybe they should be brough in under the US umbrella. Any country that attacks Iran with WMDs gets "obliterated"...

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. There was a mutually agreed upon fantasy for a long time

Middle Eastern nations, Israel included, did not openly talk about Israel having nukes. The reason why that fantasy prevailed for so long was that the leaders of Arab nations actually felt fairly confident that Israel would not use nuclear weapons against them unless Isreal's very survival as a nation seemed to depend on it. For that reason, unlike the situation with India and Pakistan, nations like Egypt, Jordon, and Saudi Arabia never felt a need to launch their own nuclear program. The word out of the Middle East, with a centuries old fracture line between Sunni and Shiite Islam, is that the story will be very different if Iran gets nukes. It will start a Middle East nuclear arms race.

And you missed a key point. Of course there is no certainty that Iran will pursue nuclear weapons, this type of statement is designed to give them disincentives to doing so before they actually cross that line. If Iran never gets nukes this whole thing is moot. It is a discussion about what would happen if Iran USED nukes. Which raises an interesting point. Most American political leaders have been saying for the last few years that under no circumstances can IRan be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. That clearly implies the the United States will attack Iran to prevent them from getting nukes; "all options are on the table". This statement by Clinton is the opposite. It implies that the United States may attempt to coexist with a nuclear armed Iran much like it did with nuclear armed China and the Soviet Union, as long as Iran does not use nuclear wwapons.

[Maddy McCall]

28. Again, I wish I could rec this post. Your two posts in this thread....

need to be read far and wide...we need an OP, Tom.

I'm always appreciative of your grasp on geopolitics.

[meow mix]

8. hillary loves nukes n guns... while pushing that obama is a weakling farrahkan follower

really pushing for the macho-bigot vote. shes got to be ousted after this

:eyes:

[beezlebum]

10. there are so many flaws

in their pushing this.

I know this is probably clinton trying to drum up rw support via "tough talk." But that doesn't matter- pushing NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST, and preemptively, without the REALITY that iran HAS NO FUCKING NUKES is going entirely too far.

I haven't liked her for quite sometime. I have liked her even less over the last four months. Just a month or so ago, I thought i could still vote for her (said i wouldn't, but i woulda), nose held, though it would take a lot of convincing that she was not the next best thing to mccain.

after this steaming pile of shit...someone PLEASE tell me what separates her from mccain/boosch. aside from wedge issues, i can't think of much. please, so that, if she should happen to pull of some "miracle," i won't have so much trouble.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Oh, well. That's better. If we're going to have global thermonuclear war, it should be justified.

Joshua: Global thermonuclear war. Strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

(from the movie War Games)

[msongs]

13. once again the obamanistas spread manure instead of truth. talk about hyesterical nt

[beezlebum]

18. all you bring is "N/T?" and namecalling?

please- for this ignorant and hysterical "obamanista," PLEASE tell me how this is spreading manure?

i'm not being snarky- i want to know if there is more to this. Is there some deleted context? i will be fair- after all, the wright "controversy" was infuriating to me, as well as "bittergate," and so on. I won't go that way.

if there is context that i should be aware of that indicates that clinton is the anti-war democrat's candidate, i want to know. give me more than "n/t" and "you're just spreading manure."

please make me feel better that there is the possibility that this woman could maybe possibly by some miracle be our candidate? b/c the thought is rather depressing at this point...plant some flowers ("truth") in this "manure."

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

26. Sorry if we're being "hyesterical"

If we're "spreading manure" as you say, why don't you educate us about what Hillary really meant when she said she would nuke Iran.

[mckeown1128]

29. ok I'll bite...

what did I lie about... hmm... did you watch what I did... if so what did I possibly take out of context??? huh?


ohh that's right... if you don't like to hear something just call it a lie.

[LSK]

43. read this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256056

OLBERMANN: You mentioned the oil suppliers. And, obviously, that leads us into something else that really flew by during the debate, but seemed awfully important. In that debate, you were asked about a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel and your hypothetical response as commander in chief.

And you said—let me read the quote exactly—“I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region.”

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 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 mind-set and a world view 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.

[beezlebum]

47. still waiting. ehn slash tee

[Political Heretic]

22. This is really startling.

I choose my words carefully. I'm not big on trying to "campaign" for Obama. I know why I support him, and I'm comfortable with that. But I have been truly shocked and deeply uncomfortable with Senator Clinton's latest evolution. I know for a fact that if we weren't in the middle of a campaign, virtually all of DU would be united it worry and frustration at such disturbing policy.

[Pab Sungenis]

27. It's long been American policy

...dating back to the Iron Curtain days, that we would view any nuclear attack on any of our allies as an attack on the US, and respond with overwhelming nuclear force.

This kind of falls apart nowadays, however, with the inevitable nuclear war between India and Pakistan. When two of our allies nuke each other, who do we retaliate against?

[mckeown1128]

30. I didn't know that we were allies with every country in the ME.

Thanks for informing me. :eyes:

[jaxx]

32. Maybe that vote to go to war really wasn't a mistake.

She's never recanted it, and now this. I've had enough of war mongering.

[Occam Bandage]

36. Crazy. As. Fuck.

[suston96]

37. If Iran, or any country starts using nukes then it's a new ball game.....nt

[Bonobo]

39. Well I for one am relieved.

Now I know she's a dangerous idiot with no moral center. As I thought.

Thank god her political career is going to hit a wall named Barack Obama.

[BzaDem]

40. Whether or not you agree with this, I hope you don't seriously believe that Obama won't retaliate

if Iran uses nukes.

[mckeown1128]

46. 2 things...

1. If Iran nukes Syria(unlikely I know) we shouldn't start nuking Iran (killing millions of people in the process)

2. Her saying this is going to cripple any attempt to negotiate or interact with Iran on even trivial issues.

[beezlebum]

49. i am not certain

obama would avoid war, but now i am certain that clinton would not. i am not comfortable assuming obama wouldn't go against his word that he wouldn't- and he has said he wouldn't. but this is a direct threat. this is downright HAWKERY and RW bloodlust.

i think clinton has made it quite clear that she is the democratic war candidate, also acknowledging she would not even engage in diplomacy- conventional washington "wisdom" it may be, tough talk it may be, but hawkery at best- not who i want to take a chance with. i'm starting to think of her as a more liberal republican rather than a conservative democrat...

[helderheid]

42. Holy mother of God.

[mckeown1128]

50. kick and a plea for people to keep an eye out for the video. nt

[redqueen]

51. Can you imagine? HER against "Bomb, bomb, bomb... " McCain?

Yeah, that's a good contrast.

Wide range of choices there.

[Blu Dahlia]

52. SO.... we all die?

Because nukes flying around left and right doesn't bode to well for anyone.

[BootinUp]

53. I think we should invite them to afternoon tea instead.

This threat is not one that is ever anticipated to have to act upon. You know that right? Thats the reason for it in the first place.

[sandnsea]

54. Yes I'll say I told you so, I told you she was behind the IWR

That architect of the strategy and Yes she supported the actual war. And yes she is only saying she'll pull the troops out because of the polls.

[OzarkDem]

55. Link?

[Cali_Democrat]

56. Great, she clarified that she will use nukes

This woman's finger doesn't need to be anywhere near that red button.

[Zachstar]

57. The campaign just made it 10x worse.

[Avalux]

58. So how does Congress feel about that????

She sounds like Bush; making an arbitrary to attack a country without consent from the CO-EQUAL branch of government. I guess if Bush did it she thinks she can too.