Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary Should Be Dismissed From The Democratic Party For Iran Comments
Has Hillary truly broken international law with her comments on IRAN? Should the United Nations take the Iranian protest seriously? How about the Democratic party, should they call the Hillary camp. and ask then to offer a formal apology on this statement? Well, Ben Cohen, an editor of the political site 'The Daily Banter.com', thinks there is violation of international agreements based on the Charter of the United Nations. See the Charter here.
"Nobody seems to have noticed that Hillary Clinton has broken international law by threatening Iran with 'obliteration.'
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said in an interview with ABC. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Why are alarm bells not ringing? Read more here
Comments (34)
Not just for this, but for her votes on Iran, and her endorsing of War Monger McCain for Commander in Chief over her fellow Democrat, Senator Obama.
Hillary is the new Lieberman, and should be drummed out of the party. She is the real Judas who has betrayed our party.
May 5, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
DISSIN THE DISMISS
Not strong enough! She should be strapped to the first nuke Iran launches our way. That should keep her mouth shut for a half life of 1000 years. Depending on the isotope of course.
(insert middle ICBM finger here)
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR WHITE GUILTY CONSCIENCE
May 6, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if she'll start pounding her shoe on the table soon too.
May 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The obliterate comments are nothing to take lightly. Combined with the threats against OPEC, we see a pattern emerging that is problematic. As noted a complaint with the U.N. was filed. I think they felt is would be actionable if she was elected. I am not sure why they are not since she is a Senator?
Is smell more Obama super-delegate endorsements.
May 5, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't spread lies about her words. If you have the integrity that Obama claims he has, then listen carefully to her words and her meaning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81Jvk5b3WzI&feature=related
May 5, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw what she said, and so did everyone else in the country.
He didnt post the ENTIRE part of the dialogue, but it wasnt taken out of context. She did say IF....so of course she isnt saying she will attack if she is President.
But you cannot make those kinds of threats just so outlandishly. You just cannot.
May 6, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
How on earth could you argue that the above isn't taken out of context?
"What would you do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel" is a rather important context!
It seems as though the Obama response is to attack the word 'obliterate', while agreeing with the sentiment of Hillary's answer.
In other words, he's playing an 'old politics' game of leaping onto an opponents words and taking them out of context, even though he agrees with what she was saying.
Nice.
May 6, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's called "tact", Foreigner.
Someone with "experience" like Hillary should practice it.
Yes, we all agree, if Iran launched Nuclear Weapons at Isreal, appropriate action should take place.
Duh.
BUT, there's a BIG difference between saying Obama has been saying, and what Hillary has been saying.
Obama's is a measured response, that shows his intelligence and judgement.
Hillary is pandering to the same "lizard-brain" reaction that got us into Iraq: KILL THEM ALL!
May 6, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh, but Obama saying he'd bomb a sovereign ally - Pakistan - if Osama was found there isn't a lizard-brain 'kill them all' strategy?
The military might of the US only works as a disincentive to aggression between other countries, if those countries are aware of the consequences of said aggression. Ever seen Dr Strangelove?
By 'tact', of course you mean 'avoid answering the question properly'. In a debate against McCain, if a moderator asked this question of Obama, and pressed for specifics in what Obama would do, either he'd essentially give the same answer as Hillary, or he'd look weak weak weak against McCain. America is not going to elect another Jimmy Carter!
May 6, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner.
Perhaps you are new our country. We've been trying to weed out the cowboy (now cowgirl) approach that conditions the unthinking folks in our fair land to respond to politics in Rambo-ese.
"Tact" means you don't use the work "obliterate."
May 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are equally guilty of taking Obama's words out of context as you claim Obama supporters are doing about the 'obliterate' comment. The 'bomb Pakistan' hypothetical was if we had actionable intelligence about Ussama ibn Ladin and the Pakistani government would not, or could not take action.
May 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Let's listen to her words and her meaning. Sound like some other people we know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFZL33nPoEU
May 6, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
She wants to obliterate people. She talks about genocide like it was a Yankees game.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/new-photos-of-hiroshima-reveal.php
May 5, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What nonsense. The hypothetical is Iran nuking another country first... i.e. Iran commenting an act of "genocide" as you put it.
For the record, I do not accept the proposition that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
I am not a Clinton supporter, and think her bellicose rhetoric is foolish and her 'policy' on this is seriously flawed, particularly in cold game theory 'what ifs', but the over-the-top winging by many about how horrific her clumsy 'obliterate' comments are/were is rather stupid, and does not reflect well on the intellectual honesty of those pushing it.
May 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole - Monday, May 05, 2008
Obama: Clinton on Iran Obliteration:
Bush Clone
http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/obama-clinton-on-iran-obliteration-bush.html
May 6, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just hope people are smarter than she thinks they are. Democratic Party, she sold you out! Either your going to hold her accountable, or not!
May 6, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, the new Democrats, replacing deterrence with hope. "Don't step over that line or we'll ask you to negotiate!"
So Iran complained to the UN. Who gives a goddamn?
Ahmadenijad was feeling his oats 2 years ago, now the mullahs aren't so happy with their foreign appearance. That's a good thing.
May 6, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Send the Clintons, the Bushes, McCains, Liebermans and other traitors to the war crimes tribunal in the Hague.
Mahmoud should be happy
They delivered Iraq right into his hands
Treason or incompetence?
Some choice
May 6, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree!!! No politician should be allowed in Washington D.C. for more than 6 years or two terms, whichever comes first. A president should be held accountable for spilling innocent blood in the 21st century.
May 6, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how would you hold the President of Iran accountable for nuking Israel and spilling innocent blood?
May 6, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone think that the President would send nukes to Israel? I mean Really?
May 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which President are you talking about.. the POTUS or the President of Iran?
May 6, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran of course!
May 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
For once I agree with you (given the hypothetical in question)... though there are some serious flaws in the 'doctrine' she is advocating and her rhetoric is foolish.
May 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im Glad you agree! Not sure how to take that, but anyhow......Iran is not going to attack Israel with a Nuke! The Democrats are supposed to be better than this ridiculous posturing....I understand politics is just that at times, but Obliterating is nonsense! If anyone doesnt already know what would happen to them, using that language wouldnt help them understand. Its child speak!
May 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israeli Air Force is not exactly a bush -league outfit. If Iran gets close to getting nukes, Israel will do the same thing they did in Iraq. Preemptive strike.
We don't help our case against extremist Islam NOW by using the word "obliterate " as a threat to a nation that we helped enslave for decades.
How many NEW recruits for Bin Laden do ya think that "obliterate" remark made possible?
May 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In some respects I agree with what you are saying as well. This hypothetical is not anywhere close to reality so so much of the hand-wringing over this 'issue' is all light and no heat.
May 6, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right. I don't want to see "all light and no heat" become "a lot of light and a lot of heat."
The issue is not one easily reduced to a sound bite.
May 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me state the obvious, its not rhetorich reminisent of the democratic party. That is the problem in a Democratic Primary!!!
May 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obliterate the Clintons
May 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but this post is bombastic over-the-top nonsense. I disagree with efficacy and wisdom undergirding the basic tenets of the proposed 'doctrine' of a Middle Eastern MAD policy that Clinton is suggesting, and her rhetoric is foolish and clumsy. That said, the post here, and many of the comments by other Obama supporters is lame, disingenuous and off-the-mark.
May 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike our MAD policy with the Soviet Union, there are a lot more tools in the toolkit than that for the Mideast. I would suggest that the nuke hypothetical as it came out in the debate is simply a fairly basic and obvious and farfetched ground rule, but the real practical policy issues will come about in terms of getting compliance with nuclear monitoring, controlling Iran's role in Iraq as well as a return to fostering human rights and open dissent in Iran.
May 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am extremely troubled by the use of "anihillation" by HRC. Her meaning was pretty clear. It seemed like pandering at the most base level.
Hopefully she's more rational at 3 AM.
May 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to all the other nonsense in this and so many other unhinged anti-Hillary posts, let me ask one thing. Suppose for one moment that Iran a) gained a nuclear weapon and b) used it, unprovoked, against Israel or anyone else? What do you think President Obama would do - say, "well gee, that was awfully naughty, but according to the UN Charter I can't really do anything"? Impose a sanction or two on them? Go to the UN and give the Iranian ambassador a really stern talkin' to?
I submit to you, rabid Obamaweilers, that despite any stupid campaign bluster (and I think Hillary's comment was over-the-top myself), the reactions of eithr Presidents Obama and Clinton in such a situation would most probably be exactly the same - a measured military response followed by intense diplomatic pressure on Iran. Same as it ever damn well was. If you think Obama would be so completely different - that he would refuse to consider military options in the situation of an unprovoked attack by any country against another - then his campaign should formulate this new Obama doctrine and get it out there, let the voters decide if that's what they want. Otherwise, you're all blowing smoke up your own wazoos.
May 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment