I’m not saying that we would sit on our hands if Iran attacked Israel, but its amazing how easily Sen. Clinton accepts the premise that Iran is going to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. A few months ago she wouldn’t answer hypotheticals, now she’s launched nuclear war on Iran over a hypothetical.
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.”
Of course, when Sen. Clinton was faced with the most important foreign policy decision of her life she chose incorrectly.
We should completely reject Senator Clinton’s comment in toto. Iran has no ability at all to attack Israel because Iran does not have any nuclear weapons. None. At. All. Israel, on the other hand, does have nuclear weapons and, at least in theory, is more likely to attack Iran with nuclear weapons than Iran is likely to attack Israel. We shouldn’t even talk about sitting on our hands because that lends a measure of credibility to Senator Clinton’s fear mongering.
The simple world view of bloggers, in this case, pro-Obama bloggers:
“Once wrong, always wrong. Once right, always right.”
I wonder what the Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall of the world think about that.
I understand they didn’t have to vote on the war. Oh wait…
If either of them were running for president it would be an issue. You don’t get to be that stupid around here.
What would Clinton do if Israel attacked Iran?
Oliver:
Don’t insult me please. That’s really one thing I can’t stand on the internet. I try to stay clear of that and I have never done it on your blog.
Obama didn’t have to vote for the Iraq resolution, and the fact that Hillary made the wrong vote is note a prediction on anything in Iran.
Again, delve in insults with people who think that’s a decent form of communication with someone you are not facing.
Israel has nukes, Iran does not. Israel occupies territory, Iran has not occupied anyone in a long long time.
Israel’s per capita is way above Iran’s. Iran is a poor country in comparison.
The US has no formal defense treaty with Israel a la NATO.
The US and Israel cooperate on weapons development; Israel often turns around and sell some of the technical stuff to China.
Mrs. Clinton finds it extremely difficult to think beyond the status quo. The US has supported Israel, ergo it should continue to do so unthinkingly. She is so yesterday.
Not saying Obama would be much better, but I get the feeling that he will give it some thought. . . . . . . then probably support Israel. But nuking Iran. . . I bet he would give that one a long thought.
I don’t see why anybody should whip himself into a frenzy on our Israel policy. It’s not going to change fundamentally in our lifetime.
To Oliver:
My little snark about Matt and Josh was not to compare apple and oranges. It was simply to come back to illustrate this distorted view of the world Obama supporters have when it come to foreign affairs ““Once wrong, always wrong. Once right, always right.”
Matt supported the war but he just wrote what is by all accounts a good book on foreign policy. I personally agree with Josh of foreign affairs although he was for the war and I was against it.
Why is Hillary the only person among us who we presume is wrong because she was for the war?
Making that point certainly shouldn’t compel you to insult me.
Oliver can insult anybody here hat he wishes to insult. It’s his blog. The rest of us are just visiting.
Now I know why I don’t visit here any more. Another great blog site turned into a Hillary-knocking, Obama-loving billboard. It’s amazing how quickly many in the Democratic party have turned against the Clintons simply because they are the opposition to Obama. I am no longer beholden to this mixed-up cause known as the Democratic Party and have gone independent. It’s a power hungry world out there, and it’s obvious to me Obama craves it as much as anyone — maybe more. “Change” my foot!
Hillary needs to get laid. Like most He-Men, she takes out her sexual frustrations in military fantasies.
Howard Wolfson said that Hillary didn’t mean “Nuclear Weapons” when she asserted that The Clinton Dynasty Restoration would “Obliterate” Iran if Iran attacked Israel.
Well, what di she mean? Corkscrew landings? Sniper fire? Another “successful invasion” like we have in Afghanistan and Iraq?
We all know Hillary meant nothing. The Milatary might actually not like the idea of becoming Mass Murderers.
Hillary, the great Panderer, meant:
“Please pro-violent fantasy Jews, Vote for me! I am running against Farrakhan’s
little brother. I will vaporize Arabs, because to me votes matter most.”
“Everyone else: never mind.”
I know people like Talk Left support the Murderess-in-Chief. Why?
Wow!
GOPmc: Obama didn’t have to vote for the Iraq resolution, and the fact that Hillary made the wrong vote is note a prediction on anything in Iran.
Just because he didn’t have a vote in Congress at the time doesn’t mean we can’t hold her to account for the her vote. If we’re restricted to comparing/contracting the two only on the specific items which they both had a chance to act on, we could consider nothing but the recent few years Obama has been in the Senate.
PTCruiser: Oliver can insult anybody here hat he wishes to insult. It’s his blog.
And if Oliver actually chose to take that attitude I’m sure he would find far fewer folks here.
Sean,
My whole point was to take a jab at the attitude Obama supporters: “Once wrong, always wrong. Once right, always right.”
It’s because Obama supporters tend to dismiss anything Hillary Clinton says on foreign affairs because she voted for the war.
I gave Oliver 2 leading Obama supporters and prominent progressives who are not dismissed from foreign affairs discussions although they were strongly for the war. To the contrary, Matt Yglesias just wrote a whole book about what our foreign policy should be and Josh also write capably about that subject. They are not dismissed because they were for the war.
By the way Jon Chait from TNR called people like me us who were against the war “abject pacifist”.
We must hold people to account but it doesn’t mean anything she says on the Middle East should be dismissed out of hand because “she chose incorrectly.” That the attitude I found ridiculous, even for someone as brilliant as Oliver Willis.
I said pro (Candidate) blogger tend to have a very simple view of the world and this was a prime example.
“I don’t see why anybody should whip himself into a frenzy on our Israel policy. It’s not going to change fundamentally in our lifetime. ”
That’s what you think, or hope.
“And if Oliver actually chose to take that attitude I’m sure he would find far fewer folks here.”
I don’t suspect that insulting people is something that Oliver does much of or enjoys but simply because a poster feels insulted does not mean that person has actually been insulted.
I’m pretty sure that Israel would immediately retaliate and wipe Iran off the face of the Earth.
You forgot that Obama has voted no on every Iraq appropriations bill. Just kidding, he voted for them. If he really oppossed this clusterfuck why does he keep voting for funding?
Well, she did vote for the war, regardless of Obama’s actions, and that’s never going to be “sometimes right.” While I don’t support any of the senators who vote to continue funding the war, particularly now, it was the AUMF vote that effectively made all the other votes possible. No AUMF, no war. Her rhetoric has been consistently militaristic and overly aggressive (only changing in 2006 when it was clear that public sentiment had turned strongly against the invasion…thanks Ned), no doubt to compensate for any perceived weakness, either from party affiliation or gender (a strategy clearly still in place). Remember Kyl-Lieberman? Didn’t learn much, did she? And now we have her embracing the administration rhetoric geared exclusively toward undermining our already pathetic excuse for diplomatic relations with the one country that might best be suited to helping stabilize Iraq (regardless of whether we like it or not, it’s true). Iran might attack Israel in the next 10 years, while she’s president (somebody needs to point out she’s only in for eight at most, but whatever), really? Based on what, the fact that Iran hasn’t invaded a country in 200 years? With what nuclear weapon, the one they are hiding with Israel’s 200-300? How would that weapon be delivered, camel? They aren’t worried at all the U.S. would intervene? Well, she didn’t say we’d nuke them…just “obliterate” them. Huge difference. So rather than elevate the debate, she continues to drag it down into Bushco territory by exploiting people’s fears and openly undermining future potential diplomatic efforts to stabilize Iraq (well, only if you believe words matter, words like “bring ‘em on”).
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has not launched an attack on any of its neighbors. Since the revolution, we encouraged Iraq to launch a war against Iran, we shot down an Iranian airliner, and have threatened them with invasion.
Iranian leadership learned their lesson. They saw what happened to an Iraq without nukes and a North Korea with nukes. One was greeted with the U.S. Army, and the other was greeted with the NY Philharmonic. They would rather welcome classical musicians than US soldiers.
And why is HRC’s threat to “obliterate” Iran more acceptable than Ahmedinajad’s statement that Israel should be wiped off the map?
Bush allowed the biggest screwup evah (9/11) on his watch. Hillary blew the most important decision of her public life. Some things shouldn’t be forgotten, no matter what has transpired since. Who knows if Hillary will make the right decision next time?
It’s amazing how quickly many in the Democratic party have turned against the Clintons simply because they are the opposition to Obama.
No, I oppose Hillary because she said that, as an out-of-state Iowa college student, I didn’t have the right to vote. As for a link, look it up yourself, I’ve posted it too many times, and it’s gotten ignored just as many times by the Clinton supporters here.
You forgot that Obama has voted no on every Iraq appropriations bill. Just kidding, he voted for them. If he really oppossed this clusterfuck why does he keep voting for funding?
Simple, if funding were to drop, where would costs be cut first? That’s right, troop safety. Don’t act surprised that the Bush administration would sacrifice human lives for a cheap shot at the Dems. They’ve already been doing it.
I’ve turned against the Clintons because they use Right-wing frames to smear Democrats. Hillary believes that McCain would be a stronger commander-in-chief than Obama. That is not a Democrat.
Trade is one issue that I’m afraid the Democrats handle poorly. If you look at the states that have the greatest levels of trade, they tend to be the most prosperous. The way to fix Youngstown is not to hope for the old jobs coming back, but to prepare the people there for new jobs. Peoria, IL may not strike many as an international center of trade, but it is the base of Caterpillar Construction, which increasingly relies upon foreign clients to boost their business. Chicago reinvented itself from old-line industry to being a hotbed of financial markets and legal services. Even Cleveland, Ohio is now an international destination for many patients seeking top-notch healthcare. Pittsburgh is now known as much for Bayer as it used to be for steel.
McCain is not the best booster for international trade, since he earned his money the old fashioned way - he married it. In this respect, Romney’s background was better, but he was hampered by fears about Mormonism and his own desire to be everything to everybody.
Sorry, I meant to type that under a different thread.
At least she demonstrates that she is decisive and will use whatever means to deter an unprovoked nuclear attack on Isreal. Her strong statement is called “deterence”. Unlike Obama’s response which was weak, vague and uncertain. Lacking substance. Like all his ideas.
I see not much is being said about his gaffe yesterday at a local diner. How did he respond to a “tough” foreign policy question?
Oh, yes, he told the reporter “Why can’t I just eat my waffle.”
Obama would rather eat a waffle rather than answer a gotcha question from a reporter, therefore he is unfit to lead this country. Nice logic. No wonder your candidate is losing.
Pam: At least she demonstrates that she is decisive and will use whatever means to deter an unprovoked nuclear attack on Isreal.
Whatever means? She only gave one option: we’ll obliterate them.
No thought given to preventing an attack. No thought to any other response to an attack. Just… obliteration.
Yes, that’s what we want in a president. Why waste time with thought?
If he really oppossed this clusterfuck why does he keep voting for funding?
Because everyone of those appropriations bills contained provisions for removing out troops from Iraq. They also contained provisions for shit the troops needed.
It’s because Obama supporters tend to dismiss anything Hillary Clinton says on foreign affairs because she voted for the war.
No, I’m dismissing her because she just said she would obliterate Iran if they looked funny at Israel.
It’s amazing how quickly many in the Democratic party have turned against the Clintons simply because they are the opposition to Obama.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Come on, Rounds, don’t be like that.