An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Iraq & Afghanistan: Why ‘Young America’ Is Not Angry?

Pennsylvania Primary Day »

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran….”

Posted by BRIDGET MAGNUS in At TMV.
Apr 22nd, 2008 | Comments

That’s a direct quote from Hillary Clinton. She said it on Countdown last night. She went on to suggest that we would not allow Iran to be a threat to Israel, and that we could “totally obliterate” Iran. And just in case anybody thought it was a slip, she reiterated it on Good Morning America.

Whatever you may think of Iran, they are a sovereign nation. It’s just a little reckless to go around threatening to “totally obliterate” them. Granted, some news sources chose to interpret the Senator’s remarks as being mere retaliation should Israel be attacked — and that’s how they choose to interpret it in Israel — that’s not how it’s being reported in Russia, and it’s not how it’s being reported in Iran. If she is trying to scare them out of nuclear development, it isn’t working very well. In fact, it may have the opposite of the intended effect if they decide they need a way to defend themselves against the United States!

There is a difference between sounding tough on foreign policy, and provoking a nation that already doesn’t like you very much.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

EEllis

Some how it seems you may have left out part of her statement. You may also want to mention that "totally obliterate" was something the US could, not necessarily would, do in retaliation for a nuclear attack. All the comments She made were about a US response to a nuclear attack on an allied country. Of course it does sound much more heinous the way you portrayed it if that was what you were looking for rather than passing facts along.

runasim

I don't think there is much point in parsing the difference beween 'could' and 'would'
If you are eager for a catastrophic war, the best strategy is to keep talking about it.
If that's not what you want, shut up, or at least mute your words.

Hillary already lost my confidence when she voted to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
A lot of people around the globe consider our CIA to be a terrorist organization, so what's the point?
These uselss gesutres accomplish nothing. They just keep aggressive tendencies revved up.

This is precisely the mistake Bush and Rice have made consistently.
Threats obviously don't scare Iran. They just give Iran reason to keep on with their nuclear aims.

Slamfu

I'm no Hillary fan but even I won't take that short quote at face value.

pacatrue

I too was a little worried that this quote was taken out of context. Here's a bit more of a fuller statement from the Good Morning America web site. It seems quite clear to me that it's in retaliation for an attack against Israel. Interpret as you see fit:

""If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel what would our response be?" Clinton said. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. That's what we will do. There is no safe haven."

"Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," Clinton said."

runasim

Yes, the statement was taken out of conext.

Nevertheless, it's a bad kind of statement to make in any context.
There is such a thing as diplomacy-speak, wherby the same idea can be expressed without sounding provocatively aggressive.

Instead, she continued on to 'there is no safe haven',,an unnecessarily open threat in today's circumstances.'.

I don't have a problem with the meaning.
I have a huge problem with reckless words and empty gestures, especially when it concerns possible war or violence.

blog comments powered by Disqus