"she will obliterate Iran if she is the president"
At the risk of breaking "the rules", I'm posting this a second time. I think that voters who may not have seen it have a right to know how Hillary is viewed in Iran. So many viewed her comments as similar to Bush but for some reason she's gotten a pass in the MSM. So much of our future will depend on how we are perceived around the world and this is a terrible first step.
http://therealnews.com/id/1436/20080503/Clinton+exchanges+threats+with+Iranian+cleric
http://therealnews.com/id/1436/20080503/Clinton+exchanges+threats+with+Iranian+cleric
Advertisement
Hillary is not even the nominee, yet she is ramping up the pro-war, fear-mongering rhetoric. The Bush/Cheney crew must be loving this. Now that the Iranians have responded, Bush/Cheney can point to the clerics words as greater justification to start the war with Iran that they have been lusting for. Excellent work, Hills.
May 4, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, I was listening to NPR (which I realize doesn't wholly count as "mainstream") and they included Obama's great quote from MEET THE PRESS today, when he said that Clinton's position is a continuation of George Bush's attitude of "blustering and sabre rattling" (or vice versa). I like that quote. I dislike bluster and saber rattling...
Bad enough that we have two destroyers off the Iranian shore, IN SIGHT of Iran, when our own NIE has already reported that they have STOPPED their efforts to attain nuclear weapontry. We don't need a Democrat to continue this kind of bullying.
May 4, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on what the meaning of "obliterate" is!
May 4, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are going to give us such a slap? What an asshole. We heard that same tripe from Saddam Hussein. The world is not going to let a crazy Shiite theocracy get a nuclear weapon. Not even if Obama is elected.
May 4, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What they said in return is not the point. If there's anything that we should have learned during the Bush/Cheney regime is that words matter! She doesn't need to insult Iran to make her case. Why insult the moderate element that we could be speaking to now?
May 4, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's strengthening the hand of the moderate element by making it clear that there will never be a way for Iran to attack Israel and win. As she said today, Iran is a state. States are rational. It is not insulting to tell a state that if you use nuclear weapons against our ally Israel we will destroy you utterly. What would you tell them will happen if they develop a nuclear weapon and use it against Israel? I have asked that question for days, and not one Obama supporter has ventured an answer.
May 4, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right? Imagine you're a moderate in Iran who is watching this election. After this many years with Bush, aren't you hoping that the American people have had enough death and destruction and are looking for someone who will think things through before acting or even speaking? The Iranians don't need to be told that we'll respond if they attack Israel. You think they don't know that? As a state, they'll try to prevent the obliteration of their people. But, you don't strengthen the moderates who may be trying to defend Americans who are finally speaking out loudly that the things done in our name are not ok with us! You can't insult them and threaten them and then expect them to work behind the scenes to persuade their leaders to quit provoking ours. You saw how the people reacted to the speech about what she said. Do we really need to be creating new enemies before we're even able to elect someone who will hopefully improve our image in the world?
May 4, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We had plenty of friends in Iran under Clinton foreign policy. Bush shut it down with "Axis of Evil" which only encouraged Ahmadinejad to act more boisterous. Hillary targets specific behavior, line in the sand, same as countless leaders before her. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly." And it's better support for moderates in Iran to let them know you're serious and making the braggards at the top back down internationally, rather than giving them an international forum to be self-important.
May 5, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is the exact opposite of what is going to happen.
The entire fucking reason the Middle-East is such a mess is because U.S.' interference has allowed the more extreme elements gain viability in the face of a common enemy. I realise that quote-unquote-experts do not matter but this is the basic take-away of all studies, economic, social and anthropological in the last fifty years.
I mean, just think about how the U.S. "came together" after Sept. 11th! And then multiply that to be a constant transgression over decades instead.
May 5, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Do we really need to be creating new enemies before we're even able to elect someone who will hopefully improve our image in the world?"
While the subject of improving the our image in the world is certainly a worthwhile one, I don't think the mullahs in Iran are the target audience.
HRC's statement is the de facto US position anyway and shouldn't come as news to the Iranians or anyone else. I'm a bit surprised by all the brouhaha over this one.
I have no idea what moderates in Iran are thinking, since they are not allowed to think out loud. However, I would suspect they might be thinking "what the f*** are our crazy leaders doing?"
May 5, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, moderates in Iran are allowed to think out loud. I am by no means saying it is a paradise with fluffy kittens but it is the most moderate--and, by the way, most pro-U.S.--country in the entire region.
The current administration is trying to demonise the nation and its people to cartoonish caricatures to soften the public up for war.. and looks like succeeding. After all, Wile E. Coyote gets blown up all the time.
May 5, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, What specific behavior is she targeting? White House/Pentagon representations of Iranian activities? Haven't we learned anything? Gee, it must be those "special groups" who half the time you're led to believe are Iranian, except when they need to be Iraqi shiite thugs who are, by the way, mainly resisting the Iranian-backed government we helped install. "Axis of Evil" was the wrong message and so is "obliterate".
May 5, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's targeting building and using nuclear weapons. Blind alley. Waste of money. Self-destructive. One strike and you're out. Capisch? Basta!
May 5, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink