WASHINGTON (Rooters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel. "Yeah! They gonna get it! I'll moiderize 'em! I'll crush ahmadi-what's his name between my massive thighs! Yaaarrrr!"
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said. "VENGEANCE!"
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
Her comments appeared harder than a week ago, when during a presidential debate she promised "massive retaliation" against any Iranian attack on Israel.
Obama rejected her rhetoric as saber rattling on a day when Pennsylvania Democrats voted in a party primary contest that could help decide which Democrat will face Republican John McCain for the White House in the November general election.
"One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate,'" Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a separate ABC interview. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling."
CONTRADICTION ACCUSATION
The Obama campaign also issued a statement saying Clinton was contradicting her remarks at an August debate, where Obama spoke in favor of taking unilateral military action in Pakistan if the United States had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of senior al Qaeda members.
Clinton had said she did not believe "people running for president should engage in hypotheticals" and called it a mistake "to telegraph" what U.S. strategy might be at a time of unrest inside Pakistan.
Meanwhile, Obama said he would respond "forcefully and swiftly" to an Iranian attack against Israel or any other U.S. ally, whether conventional or nuclear.
Iran, which Washington and its allies charge is seeking nuclear arms, has voiced war-like rhetoric in recent years amid speculation its nuclear facilities could face U.S. or Israeli military action.
Tehran denies it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and sez it needs nuclear technology to generate electricity.
Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but, as a policy of "strategic ambiguity," has not confirmed or denied the nature of its arsenal.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outraged the international community in 2005 by saying "Israel should be wiped off the map." A week ago, a senior Iranian army commander said Iran would "eliminate" Israel in response to any military attack from the Jewish state.
Clinton's comments came days before an Iranian run-off election for parliament on Friday that could bring fresh challenges for Ahmadinejad from a broad conservative camp as the country prepares for its own presidential election next year.
Posted by anonymous5089 2008-04-22 11:44||
E-Mail||
Front Page|| [399 views ]
Top
#1 Oh, don't tease me that way, Hilly!
Posted by Bobby 2008-04-22 12:39||
2008-04-22 12:39||
Front PageTop
#2 note this is NOT a particularly hawkish statement. Its actually dovish when you think about it. IF Iran gets nukes, and IF Iran attacks Israel, we will destroy Iran. IE deterrence. The very thing that doves on Iran use to explain why Iranian nukes ARE acceptable - they will be subject to deterrence, just like the USSR was.
Which makes it particularly odd that Obama is rejecting it. Unless Obama says that Iranian nukes are absolutely unacceptable, that has to be exactly the Obama position. It seems hes only objecting to the word "obliterate" - again a focus on words, not policy, as a differentiator.
OTOH this is a chance to bring up the Pakistan thing and try to make Hillary look hypocritical. Except of course that Pakistan is an ALLY of the US, and Iran is NOT, and the kind of rhetoric that should be used in wrt to a delicate relation with an ally would seem to be different from that to be used with an adversary one wants to intimidate (even one that one wants to negotiate with). At least it seems that way to me.
Posted by liberalhawk 2008-04-22 13:51||
2008-04-22 13:51||
Front PageTop
#3 I saw it on ABC news when she was asked this question and her response was totally inappropriate. She indicated she is going to rely on the threat of retaliation instead of making any attempt to PREVENT the Mad Mullahs from getting their filthy hands on a nuclear weapon in the first place. It's MAD all over again. But the problem with this approach is that, unlike the Soviets, the Mad Mullahs are not rational. They are feeble minded old clerics and there is no telling what they might do. It would be totally irresponsible to let it get to the point where we would have to rely on deterrence with these people.
But it sounds like we can rely on Hildebeast to do as much about the development of an Iranian nuke as old Bill did about the Pak nuke or the NORK nuke.
Posted by Abu Uluque 2008-04-22 14:24||
2008-04-22 14:24||
Front PageTop
#4 Clinton sez U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran when she's in a bad mood
Posted by Crolusing tse Tung2778 2008-04-22 14:57||
2008-04-22 14:57||
Front PageTop
#5 "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
I think Y'all need to re-read that, she's NOT saying we'd do it, she's saying the (Empty) threat should be enough.
Just election foreplay Bobby. She would promise to nuke Iran if it would get her elected. She would probably promise nearly anything for that silver chalice (the Presidency).
Posted by JohnQC 2008-04-22 18:17||
2008-04-22 18:17||
Front PageTop
#8 No wonder the Mad Mullah's back Obama....
... can you imagine Hillary with Nukes... and PMS?
/sorry... had to be said....
Posted by CrazyFool 2008-04-22 19:13||
2008-04-22 19:13||
Front PageTop
#9 Who's the cowboy now?
Posted by KBK 2008-04-22 19:37||
2008-04-22 19:37||
Front PageTop
#10 Interesting - HILLARY is gener suppor the same Option dedic CLINTONS-CRITIC CHARLES KRAUHAMMER also favors???
Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-04-22 21:51||
2008-04-22 21:51||
Front PageTop
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
38.107.191.92
166206739
By David Morgan