She said that "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]."

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

She was speaking on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday.

Was she wrong to say this? I have always assumed that the US would react exactly that way to an attack on Israel. I don't think it would have mattered who the US president was at the time.* Have I been wrong in that assumption? Should she have just left it an unspoken threat?



*I have to admit that, until Israel's military recently proved itself to be less than it once was, I also assumed that Israel itself would have retaliated in a much stronger way than she was attacked, and not really needed any US help.

I have always assumed the same thing. What purpose is there to even having nuclear capabilities unless it is available to threaten massive retaliation? I think political opponents always have to nit-pick every public or semi-private utterance to try and gain some advantage. Obama tries to make Hillary sound like Ahmadinijad (sp?) or Geo W. Bush; itching to launch another avoidable war, and she, in turn, will try to make Obama sound like Neville Chamberlain. Politics, as usual. IMO.

Politicians are generally quick enough to duck questions by calling them hypothetical - this one was very hypothetical. Do politicians usually so readily and categorically answer questions about possible international incidents ten years in the future?

Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon and everyone is running around trying to stop Iran from developing one, or from perceiving the need to develop one - that's the first priority.

Macho talk of obliteration plays into the hands of hardliners in Iran, who benefit from war-talk and heightened temperature - it gives them an excuse for oppression, weapons build-ups and so on.

The current US administration is trying hard (or it certainly seems so at times) to manufacture an incident in which Iran is seen to 'attack' one of its ships. If an 'attack' on Israel means obliteration, what does an 'attack' on the US mean?

Clinton's answer was maybe passable, but she could have done a lot better, pointing out all the possibilities other than nuclear Armageddon. We got through the Cold War without that. She could have come up with something more thoughtful.

'"Senator Clinton during the course of the campaign has said we shouldn't speculate about Iran, we've got to be cautious when we're running for president, she scolded me on a couple of occasions on this issue, yet a few days before an election, she's willing to use that language." Moments later, on "This Week" Stephanopoulos told Clinton what Obama said on "Meet" and asked if she had any regret about her comment.

"Why would I have any regrets? I'm asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran," the former first lady said.' www.abcnews.go.com

When it comes to Presidential politics, it takes a real man to have the gnones (Mr. Frank, please check the spelling ) to make such a statement.

My message to Hillary...YOU GO GIRL!!!

And further:

"we would be able to totally obliterate them"

Iran needs to know this, in no uncertain terms. Hillary Clinton was in line with her comments.

LR, are you referring to "gonads?"

quote:

LR, are you referring to "gonads?"

I thought it was a cross between that and cojones.

It looked to me like a cross between 'cojones' and 'genomes', but whatever it was, I second the sentiment. I see nothing wrong with hypothetical nuking, and I will defend "WITH MY LIFE, IF NEED BE" - her right to say it.

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
It looked to me like a cross between 'cojones' and 'genomes', but whatever it was, I second the sentiment. I see nothing wrong with hypothetical nuking, and I will defend "WITH MY LIFE, IF NEED BE" - her right to say it.

________________________________________________

Hi Frank:

I guess this is Hillary's idea of diplomacy.

hippolips

If Clinton had been asked what she would do if offered the vice-presidency, she'd have given a much more nuanced answer, being careful to clarify the context and question the assumptions.

Maybe nuclear deterrence is (or will become) highly important in the case of Iran, but obliterating Iran following an attack on Israel would be a last resort - a final failure at the end of a long chain of failures and missed opportunities. (It would pretty much be the end of the Middle East, too, unless some way of containing the effects of nuclear explosions within borders is invented in the next ten years.)

One of those failures would be missing oppportunities to encourage moderate and realistic opinions and factions in Iran. Bellicose talk of obliteration alone, as if that were the key point, encourages the lunatic hardliners (who exist in the US and Iran) who might actually welcome a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East. It might win Hillary a few votes among those who are gleefully enthusiastic about using the US's military power, but it hardly demonstrates her leadership. Look at the advances painstakingly, haltingly but peacefully being made in disarming North Korea. A real leader would be pointing to that as the way forward, no matter how poorly it goes down with the punditocracy and the armchair warriors.

The US has tried 'obliteration' on a smaller scale - of Falluja - and Israel has attempted it too - of Hezbollah in Lebanon. In both cases countless innocents were killed and nothing was resolved or even really obliterated.

Clinton maybe should have mentioned nuclear deterrence, but she should also have stressed all the alternatives possible before the point of obliterating a country would ever be reached - in the same way she would have done on the vice-president question.

If this were just a case of Iran not liking Israel, I might agree that her comments went too far, were too strong. But Iran is already on record regarding what it wants to do to Israel.

With regard to the "end of the Middle East" comment, wouldn't that be true once Israel is nuked, regardless of what the US does?

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
But Iran is already on record regarding what it wants to do to Israel.

On record, yes, to be carried out, no.Leaders say what their public wants to hear (as does Hillary Clinton).It's their duty 'to make a speech for Buncombe'.

quote:

But Iran is already on record regarding what it wants to do to Israel.

Lost in translation. I wonder how Clinton's statement came across in Persian?

One of the problems with the interview was the careless use of "Iran" - "if Iran attacked Israel" - as if all 65,000,000 people were to be behind such an attack and all would deserve obliteration. It's part of the war-monger's rhetorical bag of tricks to dehumanise the situation that way.

Clinton might have done well to point out that the Iranian government (let alone the country) is not monolithic and that there are moderate voices that need to be encouraged. The idea that "Iran" is the bad guy, and "Iran" wants to destroy Israel, is dangerously simplistic. Think of Ahmadejinad as a kind of Dick Cheney - would you want the US to be judged and characterised on the basis of Cheney's remarks alone?

There are a million things Clinton could have said smarter than 'obliterate Iran'.

"Think of Ahmadejinad as a kind of Dick Cheney - would you want the US to be judged and characterised on the basis of Cheney's remarks alone?"


Fairly or unfairly, the US is being judged by the words (and actions) of a few.

Your point that the leaders of a country not representing the entire country almost makes sense, until one realizes that, to the rest of the world, every country's leader represents that entire country. Of course, in the 1930s and 40s, there were Germans who were appalled by Hitler's actions. Should England, and later the US, have merely expressed disapproval because, after all, he didn't represent all of Germany?

War represents the ultimate failure of diplomacy. But it must be recognized that, on some occasions, diplomacy fails, and war becomes necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by hippolips:

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
It looked to me like a cross between 'cojones' and 'genomes', but whatever it was, I second the sentiment. I see nothing wrong with hypothetical nuking, and I will defend "WITH MY LIFE, IF NEED BE" - her right to say it.

________________________________________________

Hi Frank:

I guess this is Hillary's idea of diplomacy.

hippolips

Hi Hippo,
Seems a normal enough response to a question: "What would you do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel?" Why don't you tell us how you would respond with "diplomacy". I'd like to see what the more "correct" answer might be.

How about "I actually am very hopeful that we don't get into a position where we have to get into a conflict"?

Or, "I certainly share the concern about Iran and about the leadership, and I think it is very important that we increase as much as possible the financial pressure, the diplomatic pressure, the political pressure, and at the same time keep all the military options on the table."

Yes, she could have said that. Then all she'd have to deal with would be the the people crying out that she evaded the question. Of course, she'd get asked the question again.

And then she could respond along the lines of, "Yes, if everything else had failed and for some reason a nuclear attack on Israel was launched from Iran, we would respond in kind."

Whatever happened to 'talk softly but carry a big stick'? Clinton is auditioning for the role of President in real life, not Rambo VI. (Does she think that enough of the people are not very clear on the difference?)

Her words have real consequences. Of course the Iranian version of Fox News will now be playing "we will totally obliterate them" on a loop (the same way the iffy translation 'wipe Israel off the map' is fed to us, out of context, here).

Jumping straight to the idea of obliteration is a self-fulfilling policy, heightening tension. Clinton could have been just as firm in holding to the idea of - in the last resort - nuclear deterrence without being inflammatory.

The question set the condition that whatever was done prior to a nuclear attack did not prevent that attack. Her re-stating what was given would seem to many as being uncooperative, at best. She was asked a direct question, which had a certain set of circumstances. She answered the question asked. Isn't that what most of us which all politicians would do instead of dancing around and avoiding the question?

I am not a huge Hillary fan; the man I wanted to get the Democratic nod left the race early. But it seems to me that, judging from what has been said here, Hillary was put in a no win situation. She was asked a direct question. She answered the question asked. She did not evade the question. What would the responses been had she evaded answering?

If she was asked "What would you do if Cheney shot your dog?" she'd be obliged to give a direct answer without any ifs, buts or caveats?

Which event is actually more likely, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, or a Cheney assault on a pet?

The US (and Israeli) nuclear deterrent may well be the very reason why a future nuclear attack would be unlikely, but it's not something a serious politician should use as an electioneering prop.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Which event is actually more likely, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, or a Cheney assault on a pet?

The Cheney assault. But he would have to be aiming at something else.