Hillary:If i'm the president,I'd obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel

[Afro-European]

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 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

[Alpheus]

Oh please. Merely pandering for the Jewish vote.

[Kilgor]

Can Hillary be asked, If Iran attacked Israel with Nuclear weapons, what would be left to attack afterwards?

[Abbadon the Despoiler]

I dont know much about Obama but Clinton is pretty dumb with her great opinions and stories how she was under fire and so... :backhand:

[Martial]

She only stated the obvious "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

[wasser]

She only stated the obvious "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

No, she did more than that. Here is it all together from the article:



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 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."The big one there isn't the "obvious" as you stated. It's the "I'm woman and I can roar as much as the boys" threat she made. Of course, this is all if Iran should attack Israel. I wonder how she would feel if Iran should attack or support attacks against US forces...

IMO, it really just comes down to a politician saying what politicians do to get someone to vote for them.

[Sanat-e-naft]

Are you kidding me? Iran is causing a whole lot of headaches for us, but it is not as bad as it could be, and it could get a lot better with the right presidents, so......how about we threaten them. Dumb-a$$.

[Afro-European]

Israel itself can obliterate Iran,without the US jumping in.These tough talks are geared toward the powerful Jewish lobby.

[Xingbake]

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

Maybe it means, after 10 years, when we used up the oil in Iraq, we need to explore new resource.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Military-G]

I saw a news report with her and obama quoted with like wrestling lines of some sort "can you smell what barak is cooking" etc

Are these just jokes or for real .. I would think in any other country making yourself look like such a cheesy douche would pretty much end any chance you have of winning.

[Afro-European]

I saw a news report with her and obama quoted with like wrestling lines of some sort "can you smell what barak is cooking" etc

Are these just jokes or for real .. I would think in any other country making yourself look like such a cheesy douche would pretty much end any chance you have of winning.

A lil a bit humor doesn't hurt.Does it? Didn't you see George Bush tap-dancing? (while waiting for McCain to endorse him)

[Military-G]

A lil a bit humor doesn't hurt.Does it? Didn't you see George Bush tap-dancing? (while waiting for McCain to endorse him)

Nope lol, are sure it was for humor or that he just forgot why he was there?

[tehran2002]

Hillary needs to understand that Iran has no intentions of attacking Israel. Its obvious that her message is targeted to America’s Jewish population and the powerful AIPAC Jewish group . Either way I don’t see her becoming the president so lets not take her foolish words as serious.

[Snoshi]

Hillary needs to understand that Iran has no intentions of attacking Israel. Its obvious that her message is targeted to America’s Jewish population and the powerful AIPAC Jewish group . Either way I don’t see her becoming the president so lets not take her foolish words as serious.

Iran already did.. In the summer of 2006.

[Ulytau]

She reminds me Putins quote about her..

[helomech]

Hilliary Clinton=mouthpiece for votes aka cvnt

Was that my inside voice?

[Hilbert]

Talk about playing people for votes... oh well, I guess that's what all politicians do best.

[bugkill]

What makes anyone think that Israel wouldn't obliterate Iran themselves? Do people forget that they got their own nukes? It is hilarious to see how people keep on believing this crap about Iran attacking Israel, it would be suicide for them to do so.

People need to open their eyes and realize that the Iranians are in no position to launch attacks against Israel and with us invading Iraq, we made even harder for them to even conduct an conventional war. It will basically be like when us and the Russians were locked in the cold war, nobody would cross the line because everyone would be destroyed.

Israel would push the button if they are seriously attacked and I wish Hillary would shut up with all this talk about going to war for Israel. We would only need to support them, not fight alongside them, because they can whoop a$$ on their own.

[vinny_121_ND]

I am not pro or anti war. But just calling out for war blindly like that is irresponsible. I hope military personnel vote for someone else who wouldn't put their lives in harms way just for some votes.

[tehran2002]

Iran already did.. In the summer of 2006.Oh yes we saw Iranian soldiers marching towards Jerusalem. Give me a break , Iran might financially and spiritually support Hezbullah but that doesn’t mean that Iran attacked Israel. Israel and the US have a pretty good track record of supporting groups that some people might consider as terrorists . One example is when the US supported Afghan Mujahedin fighters against the Soviets. Lets not forget Osama was a big player in the Mujahedin .

[-Church-]

and the US have a pretty good track record of supporting groups that some people might consider as terrorists . One example is when the US supported Afghan Mujahedin fighters against the Soviets. Lets not forget Osama was a big player in the Mujahedin .

They werent terrorists then, they were just a bunch of bums and moronic muslim scholars and politics found a way to use them.

[tehran2002]

They werent terrorists then, they were just a bunch of bums and moronic muslim scholars and politics found a way to use them.When do you become a terrorist then? Is it only when you attack American interests? Osama was the same person back then as he is today , no difference.
And that’s just one example , I could list more if you like.

[-Church-]

When do you become a terrorist then? Is it only when you attack American interests?

He became a terrorist when he started putting bombs in buildings and cars.


Osama was the same person back then as he is today , no difference.

Not exactly, then he was working for the Americans and the Saudis. Then he managed to build himself a private army and even proposed to take care of Saddam.

Nobody is the same as they age. Im not the same person i was when i was ten.


And that’s just one example , I could list more if you like.

I could list a lot more people like you 'tehran'.

[damagejackal]

They werent terrorists then, they were just a bunch of bums and moronic muslim scholars and politics found a way to use them.

Thats a pretty one eyed way to look at it... They were always "terrorists" but at that particular time Socialism was a threat to American commercial and geopolitical interests and the Mujahideen coudn't change the world.

[BRCAK]

They werent terrorists then, they were just a bunch of bums and moronic muslim scholars and politics found a way to use them.
why would you call them bums and moronic scholars when these people were just fighting for the defence of their country? trust me these people are anything but bums

[-Church-]

why would you call them bums and moronic scholars when these people were just fighting for the defence of their country? trust me these people are anything but bums

They werent fighting for their countries, well most of them cos they werent from Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was mentionned, he's from Saudi Arabia. Countless muslim scholars with nothing to do with their lives went on to become Mujaihidins to fight zee eveel soviet invader.

We're talking about people who were uneducated and who's sole professional formation was to read the Quran. They were dumb, uneducated religious zealots. Thats who we're fighting under the label of 'the war on terror'.

[Hot Lips]

Whether we have the capabilities and/or the willingness too, I don't think a President should ever bluntly speak of "obliterating" an entire nation.

[-Church-]

Its just a good ol presidetial muscle flexing to appeal to some specific crowd.

Like John Kerry going hunting or Obama bowling, both of them looked akward and staged.

[Fade]

Whether we have the capabilities and/or the willingness too, I don't think a President should ever bluntly speak of "obliterating" an entire nation.
I agree, it doesn't exactly make you any friends with talk like this.

[rkpo]

The reporter asked the question and he got a truthful answer, if Iran nuked Israel Im sure the US would attack Iran in some fashion - it would be irresponsible not to do so to at least shutdown any further risk of nuclear attack. Its easy to assume Israel would respond but it might not be in a position to respond after a surprise nuclear attack. She didnt say she'd obliterate Iran, but she did say Iran needs to remember that the US could do so.

Not to mention its the langauge they speak, an eye for an eye, and terrorists like to take advantage of the weak.

[-Church-]

The reporter asked the question and he got a truthful answer, if Iran nuked Israel Im sure the US would attack Iran in some fashion

Yeah but thats pretty much a no brainer. The US is not only allied with Israel, they are their biggest supporters. And they tend to invade countries quite regularly so yeah if Iran attacked Israel it wouldnt be too much to think that the US might support the Israelis.

The point is that the US is one of the most hated country on earth right now along side North Korea. Thats bad.

You dont run for president and say with a straight face i will **** you up. Thats not a very responsible and appropriate response.


it would be irresponsible not to do so to at least shutdown any further risk of nuclear attack. Its easy to assume Israel would respond but it might not be in a position to respond after a surprise nuclear attack.

Israel is a NATO partner. My guess is, if they're under attack they would get aid.


Not to mention its the langauge they speak, an eye for an eye, and terrorists like to take advantage of the weak.

Lets not sink into the terrorist talk please.

[Hot Lips]

Its just a good ol presidetial muscle flexing to appeal to some specific crowd.

Like John Kerry going hunting or Obama bowling, both of them looked akward and staged.

Hunting and bowling are not on par with "obliterating" a nation. In a world where your words don't just reach the "intended" audience and which is filled with terrorism and the real possibility of wars creating chain reactions which could result in the obliteration of us all, a President has to choose their words more carefully than that.

[Ought Six]

I think discussing any Hillary campaign statement as if it actually has any relation to the reality of a Hillary presidency is silly and pointless. But that is just me.

[randomguy]

This is the kinda bull**** thats gonna make Hil-dog lose the democratic nomination. Maybe instead of trying to "obliterate" enemys, she should think about turning enemy's into allies.

[Danik]

Oh please. Merely pandering for the Jewish vote.

Yea, all 1.4% of it scattered across the entire country.

Maybe recognizing that US is ready to attack Iran if it attacks Israel is meant as a deterrent, you know that thing that keeps the peace.

[Hollis]

The quote:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."


Now read the title of the thread, they do not say the same thing.


"We would be able" is not "I'd obliterate" Maye some reading comprehension might help.


First part is responding to a question Will we attach? the second part really does not say anything. We are capable now, I don't see that changing. Being capable and doing are not the same.

[Hot Lips]

Capable and doing are certainly not the same. But, emphasizing "I will attack" and mentioning "able to totally obliterate" in the same conversation has implications, especially from a potential President, to know both are on her mind. She doesn't say "overpower" "subdue by superior force" "incapacitate in swift order" or any number of what may be more appropriate terms, she chose to say "obliterate" --- to remove from existence in regards to an entire nation. It just seems inappropriate.

[Hollis]

HL, maybe. Or she is just trying to balance the political tough guy ball on her nose.

[Hot Lips]

I think it is just tough talk in regards to campaigning, I'd hope in a delicate situation she'd be conscious of such things. Just gives me pause.

[Hollis]

I think it is just tough talk in regards to campaigning, I'd hope in a delicate situation she'd be conscious of such things. Just gives me pause.


I agree. All a part of marketing a candidate

[NicNZ]

Yea, all 1.4% of it scattered across the entire country.

1.4% plus the significant non-Jewish proportion of the voting public who believe that the US has some sort of sacred obligation to protect Israel.

[Fenix]

I would like to hear Obamas answer to the same question.

The thing is. If US does not stand behind Israel. No one else seems to.

Most of the world does not seem to have anything against Holocaust 2.0.

Which is really sad.

[Afro-European]

The thing is. If US does not stand behind Israel. No one else seems to.
.

No true. Last year Jacques Chirac said in an interview with a Israeli and US mag.(made that remark off record) that Iran 'd immediately obliterate if it attacks israel.
France,the UK and Germany are also pro-Israel unlike the US which heavily pro-Israel.

[MPNFL]

what else would you expect her to say? Hillary has been using this line of "defending Israel" for some time. here's a quote from her essay in Foreign Affairs back in November/December 2007 issue:


Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p20/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

but her comment definitely had no tact. If anything i would argue that her comment was to force Obama to come out more in defense of Israel to see how vigorously he would come out in comparison to herself (seeing that the whole Obama/muslim connection has been totally blown out of proportion).

[xav]

I think it is just tough talk in regards to campaigning, I'd hope in a delicate situation she'd be conscious of such things. Just gives me pause.

At 4:00 am if the phone rings?

[-Church-]

Hunting and bowling are not on par with "obliterating" a nation. In a world where your words don't just reach the "intended" audience and which is filled with terrorism and the real possibility of wars creating chain reactions which could result in the obliteration of us all, a President has to choose their words more carefully than that.

Yeah I understand that and I agree with you. I was just saying that this was just a desperate move for attention and extra votes.

Just like how she talked about how her father taught her to shoot a gun outside Scranton immediatly after the so called 'they're bitter and cling to their guns' outrage.

[Bulletproof]

I dont know much about Obama but Clinton is pretty dumb with her great opinions and stories how she was under fire and so... :backhand:

Yeah, she already start to lie and she is not even president.

[xav]

http://www.paulvclinton.com/

Please pass the word

[Clearday-TRForce]

I very much suppose that she lies...and that is only a part of election race against Obama. Last attempts.

[noname]

Hillary has got a snuke.

[Danik]

1.4% plus the significant non-Jewish proportion of the voting public who believe that the US has some sort of sacred obligation to protect Israel.

Jews are at least overwhelmingly democrats, the people you speak off are conservatives and typically vote republican. Still irrelevant as the guy said pandering to the "Jewish vote" not the neoconservative evangelical vote, and they do not believe they have a sacred obligation to protect Israel.

[asch]

she must divorce Bill and marry Ahmadinejad, it would be a nice pair of wannabe obliterators.
p-)

[Loke-Gao-Zhu]

Dunno if Hilary will be the next Thatcher, to show how "powerful" and "aggressive" she is by waging a warfare

[rkpo]

Dunno if Hilary will be the next Thatcher, to show how "powerful" and "aggressive" she is by waging a warfare

Don't you mean countries take on female-led countries in the hope they female leader will be gutless and not respond? If so you hit the nail on the head - she's trying to minimize that happening by speaking harshly about what should be obvious to everyone for that very reason.