Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary vows "MASSIVE RETALIATION" against Iran.
If you doubted that Hillary is more of a war monger than John McCain, see tonight's debate when she vows "massive US retailaton" against Iran if Israel is attacked. She extendend these remarks to not only include Israel, but also vowing to inject our military in other nations, involving the US in an "umbrella" of potential conflict.
Of course what no one seems to be reporting is that she has been beating the war drum on the campaign trail, basically setting up the case for war against Iran. Protecting Israel is just her latest to justify it.
Hear her on the campaign trail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFZL33nPoEU
Scary isn't it?
Advertisement
Comments (19)
I've been of the mind for quite some time that her AUMF vote was no accident and that this is at least part of the reason for why she refuses to back away from it. To wit, she's a hawk.
April 16, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a surprise to me. In watching her back 2 weeks before the invasion, she met with a women's group, the fledgeling Code Pink. In it she made the vote equivalent to her husband acting without UN approval in Kosovo.
Code Pink back then was not as radical as it is today. The women asked the intelligent questions that Obama himself had expressed in 2002. Even more so, since their concerns were centered on humanitarian issues, our young soldiers, the women of Iraq, the economic devastation a war would cost America.
Hillary brushed off all of their concerns, very insensitively. Not unlike many neo-cons at the time.
Check it out. Hillary's meeting with code pink 2003. I have no doubt she will have no qualms about involving the US in many more conflicts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE&feature=related
April 17, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary? A hawk?
A hawk who panders and patronizes for American Jewish vote . . .
Well call me duh!
~OGD~
April 17, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah that huge Jewish American vote.
You do realize that Jews make up about 2% of the American Population. With the exception of New York, where Hillary is already a Senator and needs no further edge, they have little to no significance in a presidential election. Add to that the fact that they're one of the most solidly Democratic voting blocks in the nation, and the whole "pandering" thing makes little to no sense.
I suppose, in a very close election, Florida Jews can make make a difference (Just ask the 3,000 or so confused aged Jews who accidentally voted for Buchanan in '00). But it's really a stretch, albeit one folks love to make, to think that going after the "Jewish vote" is a main priority for any of these candidates.
April 17, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. We need to quit blaming the supposed Jewish Voter for every evil this country befalls that might benefit Israel. It is clear that Hillary is a hawk because of defense contractors and other big business interests who profit from war.
This is the same reason we need to stop saying all republicans are evil and approve of everything that has happened to the country over the last 30 years.
My guess is we have many voters of every race, religion and political party who are more than fed up with the corporate takeover of this country at the very same time a group of rabid imperialists takeover the executive branch.
We would all be better off if we stuck to attaching the blame to those who deserve - the elected aristocracy we have let have away at us for far too long.
April 17, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree the Jewish voter is scapegoated big time. Good comments.
But it's factually inaccurate to say that Jewish voters don't matter anywhere in Presidential politics. Florida in 2000, they were crucial for the Democrats in a state they seldom win.
The Jewish vote, I saw in one poll, was 48-43 Clinton-Obama. So someone cares enough to keep track. Seems worth tracking to me, like all other groups.
April 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say they didn't matter. I quite agree with your statement. That's why these bastards keep winning. When we have a 50-50 electorate and only a 60% turnout, then 2% is a huge deal.
That's why I think this year is different. I anticipate the turn-out I have been predicting since 2004. The margins will be way too big to play around in.
Barack is betting on that 40% of voters who never bothered before. Many of them have already turned out for the primaries. Historically the primaries are way less attended than the general.
I think that is the only way he is even in this thing at all, given the huge deficit he overcame coming in. I mean seriously, no body would have given Barack a chance in Hell a year ago or when they saw him in 2004.
But the first thing that went through my mind while he was speaking was, this will be our first black president.
Glad to see I was right.
April 17, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is blaming the Jewish voter? I'm blaming the candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has run a stupid campaign. It would be just like her to overestimate the Jewish vote but that doesn't mean she isn't pandering to the least attractive aspects of some Jewish voters just as she is totally catering to every small town bigot in Pennsylvania. I grew up on a farm. I don't believe most or the majority or even a significant minority of rural voters are bigots, but Hillary is going to cater to every last one who is. Likewise, she'll cater to the lunatic fringe of Jewish voters if she thinks it will give her an edge.
She reminds me more of Bush every day. I always figured he staged the Iraq War in 2003 purely for political reasons. Hillary would attack Iran to win 6 voters in Miami. That's why we can't give her a first term, because like Bush it is terrifying to think what she'd do to win a second term!
April 17, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! Sorry, mageduley... I just blogged on something similar. But yours is better, especially with the link to the JedReport video.
B/t Hillary's words "severe retalliation" last night, and her verbage playing so close to the Republicans? I have absolutely no confidence that she can keep us out of Iran.
Obama '08
April 17, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Short ""MASSIVE RETALIATION" against Iran"":
I'm a jewluvin', Iranian-hatin' warmonger.
Nice. Panders to American hawks.
April 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
first there was her vote for war which she cast "with conviction"
then there was her vote for the kyl-lieberman amendment which would give president bush authority to attack iran.
then, in a debate earlier this campaign (god knows how long ago) she said she was a believer in "coercive diplomacy", I'm not sure what that exactly means, but it sounds ominous and scary.
and now, she's vowing "massive retaliation" if israel-or anyone under her "umbrella"-is attacked.
April 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran has no intention of nuking Israel. Not now, & not ever. The problem a nuclear Iran presents for Israel is that MAD negates some of the benefit Israel gets from its own status as the sole regional nuclear power.
Under the nuclear umbrella, since 1973 the IDf has had a completely free hand in the region. They cannot be defeated conventionally, because a (hypothetical) losing Israel would escallate to nuclear war, just as they threatened in 73.
Because if this, Israel can do things like carpet bomb southern Lebanon with a free hand. No one can stop them. In contrast, if any nation had tried carpet bombing Israel in the identical fashion, Israel would go nuclear without a doubt.
But the presence of a regional counterbalance to Israel's nukes changes everything. No nation would have dared to carpet bomb a nuclear Lebanon as Isreal did a year ago. The risk of provoking a nuclear response would be too great.
So suddenly Israel lose the ability to respond to terror and guerilla warfare with massive assymetrical retaliation, as is their present policy. In fact, just as a nuclear Israel can't be defeated in war; with MAD in the region they couldn't WIN any conventional wars, either, for exactly the same reason: any big time loser can and would go nuclear (or plausibly threaten to).
April 17, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In contrast, if any nation had tried carpet bombing Israel in the identical fashion, Israel would go nuclear without a doubt."
As would any country with nukes. That's the point.
I will add, that many countries with nukes would have already used them if a neighboring country sent over 10,000 missles over the border, as the Lebanese did in 2006.
Name another country, with or without nukes that would tolerate anything similar to the over 8000 rockets fired from Gaza since the Israelis left in 2005 without flattening the offending territory.
As for threatening in '73 to use nukes, isn't it sufficiently clear to you that Israel did not use nukes in '73 even though it was both attacked first and was considered to be losing that war for the first half of it?
Lastly, If Iran has no intention of nuking Israel, don't you think they should declare that in some sort of unequivocal fashion.
I don't know how to best interpret the Iranian leaders comments about Israel. Some folks like to claim that the "Wipe Israel off the map" comments are a misinterpretation of the original quotes (which were made in Farsi). Maybe that is true and what their president said was not quite that severe. Whether or not that is an accurate interpretation, it should be no surprise that the Israelis are paranoid about Iranian nukes. The Iranians are openly hostile not only to Israel's behavior, but also, to the entire notion of Israel existing as a country.
April 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
pkafin -- you say:
"The Iranians are openly hostile not only to Israel's behavior..."
and the Iranians are not the only ones, but of course you don't mention what those objectionable behaviors are or why people everywhere the world over denounce them -- including the decent people of Israel itself!
April 17, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's lots I didn't mention about a lot of things. So, I"m not sure what you mean by "Of Course".
The article, in case you lost track, was not about Israel. It was about Iran and HRC.
That being said, I do believe that there is more than enough to complain about regarding certain aspects of the Israeli's national policies. However, policies and behaviors can change.
Those of us who are not predisposed to suspicions regarding a Jewish nation find plenty of reason to believe that, in times of peace, the Israelis are both capable and likely to behave in a more humane manner than what we have all become used to hearing about.
My point was, that the Iranians are openly hostile to Israel's existence regardless of it's behavior. There is nothing that the Israelis can do to appease the Iranians other than forfeit their country all together.
That, understandably, concerns them in an existential way.
April 18, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
A NATO like committment to Israel and Saudi Arabia??
Crazy!
I don't think delicate FP matters shoudl be fodder for cheap campaign gimmicks.
April 17, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they are our an ally.
April 17, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can all agree that Israel is quite capable of defending itself (should the ridiculous absurd scenario of an Iranian attack on them come to pass). In fact, they would massively retaliate with the arms we supplied them. I hope they don't use the arms they developed - the 200 or so nuclear weapons they have. As long as they have these, Iran will want nukes, too. But the subject of Israeli nuclear weapons is taboo while the legal Iranian pursuit of nuclear technology is treated as an international crime.
And this is not about the Jewish vote, which is admittedly small and decidedly progressive. It is about the Israeli lobby, which is overwhelmingly strong and decidedly right wing.
April 17, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this talk about Hillary as Veep for Obama or vice versa. I won't vote for any ticket that includes Hillary. On military matters one might as well vote for Joe Lieberman.
April 17, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment