Obama: Clinton on Iran Obliteration:
Bush Clone
Barack Obama criticized Hillary Clinton on Sunday for her threat to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. He said on Meet the Press,
'MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton was asked about if Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel, and this is the answer she gave. Let's listen.
(Videotape)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): (From "Good Morning America") Well, the question was, "If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?" And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that.
We would be able to totally obliterate them.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "Obliterate them."
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: What do you think of that language?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, it's not the language that we need right now, and I think it's language that's reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and, in the meantime, we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran. So--and, you know, the irony is, of course, Senator Clinton, during the course of this campaign, has at times said, "We shouldn't speculate about Iran." You know, "We've got to be cautious when we're running for president." She scolded me on a couple of occasions about this issue, and yet, a few days before an election, she's willing to use that language. But in terms of... terms of...
MR. RUSSERT: But would you...
SEN. OBAMA: ...in terms of...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you respond against Iran?
SEN. OBAMA: It--Israel is a ally of ours. It is the most important ally we have in the region, and there's no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise. So--but it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush. And this kind of language is not helpful. When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach."
I had complained at the time that this diction is monstrous. I mean, it is surreal to have Democrats discussing whether it is appropriate for the US to "totally obliterate" another country. It would be one thing if she had threatened the Iranian military. Targeting civilians, who would be included in the "total" obliteration, is a war crime.
Clinton stood by her remarks: "I don't think it's time to equivocate. [Iran has] to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in." The premise that "they" only understand the language of massive violence is in fact a rightwing premise more characteristic of W. and Ariel Sharon than of the Democratic Party tradition.
Clinton's remarks would not be unusual if she had confined herself to saying that the US would forcefully retaliate for any WMD attack on Israel (though the US has no treaty obligations that would require such a response, unlike in the case of NATO). It was the "totally obliterate" phrase that that was objectionable, insofar as it implied the commission of a crime against humanity.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/05/2008 06:08:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
37 Comments:
This is one more reason why I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. When she tries on this "Macho Man" persona, it is appalling. We have had 8 years of "Macho Men"; and it has left us with thousands of dead and injured servicemen and women; an economy in recession with no end in sight; and moral bankruptcy. Let the cowboys and their failed policies go back to the range. Hillary wants to project an image of "toughness". Someone needs to let her know that strength comes from intelligence, good judgement, superior decision-making skills, sound reasoning, ethical behavior, compassion, and decency.Old shoe leather is tough. A tough steak isnt worth eating. And, a "tough" leader, who lacks competence and intelligence; who doesnt respect human rights or the law, is just another tinpot dictator.Threatening to annihilate the entirety of a population is immoral. Bush/Cheney and their extreme right-wing cabal have done enough damage in the Middle East. We do not need more of the same warmongering and fearmongering in the region. When are these idiots going to realize that it just doesnt work? In the end,it comes back to bite you in the butt. Do we really want 100 years of war?!
Obama's answer was identical to Clinton's, he just objected to the term "obliterate". No problem with the result, just call it "forceful action" and Obama's good to go.
The correct answer to this question from an American point of view is to run down the facts and then to state our interests.
The Facts:
1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons and so cannot launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
2. Israel does have nuclear weapons and so can launch a nuclear attack on Iran.
3. Israel's far-right wing and Israel's far-right wing supporters in this country have been pushing for an attack on Iran. Preferably by the US, but by Israel itself if the US cannot be bamboozled into fighting the Israeli far-right wing's wars for it.
The Q & A:
1. The question the American people want answered is will I attack Iran?
2. The answer is I won't attack anyone unless they attack us. I will reinstate the Department of Defense and disband the Department of War. No more "pre-emptive war".
3. The next question the American people want answered is will I support an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran.
4. The answer is no. I will not support an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran, nor on anyone else and Israel needs to know that: that although the US supports and has always supported Israel, even when it was not in our interest to do so, the Israelis are on their own during an Obama administration in any wars they start.
That is the answer from the point of view of American interests. None of the three duopoly candidates analyses things from that point of view.
The answer from the point of view of the Israeli far-right wing is somewhat different. The words "nuclear attack" and "obliterate" pop up in that context.
This weekend the bad faith interpretations and petty parsings of Clinton by Obama supporters hit a new high, or low, generally.
At this point I'm thrilled at the prospects of Obama falling short, and badly short, simply because his major (and many minor) online supporters are so remarkably vain and resentment-driven, and such suckers for intelligent-sounding positions that don't actually get to the bedrock reality of the problems. (And yes, I wasn't exactly bottom of my peer groups at MIT, Caltech, or Harvard. Or where I am now.)
Clinton may not have an attractive team or portfolio of policies, but she'll obviously get deep enough into the messes that await that they don't matter and she will then, for lack of alternatives, have to do the right thing. Obama's people are too precious and egotistical to go at the job right, and their analyses are shallow but easily marketable- rather like their leader. The day I think Obama's crowd might actually willingly make career sacrifices for the public good, that's the day I might be able to vote for him. Obviously, not yet.
In 1986, Israel was conservatively assessed as possessing between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. It is most unlikely that this armoury has been reduced in numbers or sophistication in the last two decades.
No Middle Eastern arab country has a nuclear weapon capability and, given the Israeli lead, not one is likely to rival Israel in the field before at least 2020.
In these circumstances, it is remarkable that any US presidential incumbent or candidate should suggest or threaten the need for American intervention by nuclear means; still worse to mouth "obliteration".
Purple
juan,
i'd a different take on it
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2008/04/004517.html
i'm still neutral on the two candidates, and i think you're attachment to one and analysis of the other in just the partisan context of the moment misses anything that isn't "valuable" in _the_ _partisan_ _context_ _of_ _the_ _moment_.
i hope that's enough underscores.
ebw@wampum
What is the point of that sort of comment anyway( Mrs Clinton)? Besides Iran is unlikely to ever launch nuclear weapons against anyone. Only one country has ever done that and I'll bet every thing I own that Iran won't be the next.
This sort of argument is just so stupid.
Why is it not possible for Obama to simply say that Iran is at least 10 years away from possessing a nuclear weapon, even if they were trying to do so, and even if they had one, they would not be stupid enough to launch a first strike against the only nation in the region with a large nuclear arsenal? Besides, we have plenty of time to work with the Iranian government to make sure they don't get the bomb.
Why must every US politician prove his or her manhood by threatening military action against nations that pose no threat to us or our allies? Why must every US politician swear to protect and defend the most powerful nation in the Middle East even when doing so is not in our national interest?
This is a good visual on US Middle East policy that shows how isolated and out of touch we have become.
Iran no longer takes USD in payment for its oil or gas. And it has cut The Deal and is cutting more deals that show that the US' declaration of economic war on Iran is worse than a bust, it's nothing more than an impotent bluff, like an old silver-back Gorilla uprooting small trees and pounding its chest. As long as you're not within arms' length of the gorilla you've got nothing to worry about.
Energized Iran builds more bridges
If a marker is to be put down, the turning point came on March 17 when Iran and Switzerland signed a 25-year gas deal. According to the Swiss government, the deal between Elektrizitats-Gesselschaft Laufenburg and the National Iranian Gas Export Company is worth US$42 billion. It is the first of its kind in the recent past in which a European energy company has actually signed a firm contract with Iran. So far, the practice has been to sign non-binding memorandum of understandings (MoUs).
Looking ahead, the Financial Times added, "Following the [Swiss-Iranian] deal, some European leaders have voiced concern about new investment in liquefied natural gas (LNG), the sector in which groups such as Total, Royal Dutch Shell and Austria's OMV have struck preliminary agreements [with Iran] but have yet to sign formal contracts. Iran has warned such companies they need to conclude deals by June or it will look elsewhere for investment."
China has speeded up negotiations over its $16 billion gas deal over Iran's North Pars gas field. China's National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) signed a memorandum last year to expand the gas reserves of the North Pars field and also purchase LNG from the output for a 25-year period, but was holding back from signing a contract, given the US-Iran nuclear standoff.
It will be China's second big energy deal, with the Chinese oil refinery Sinopec having signed in early March a $2 billion deal to develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field. Defending the CNOOC, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Beijing recently, "Cooperation between CNOOC and Iran is a business act between enterprises. We believe that the actions to address this [nuclear] problem should not undermine normal trade and economic cooperation with Iran."
Gazprom's bid is to secure the rights to develop several sites at Iran's South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf and the North Azadegan oil deposit in southern Iran. Gazprom is already participating in the development of the South Pars' second and third stages jointly with France's TotalElf and Malaysia's Petronas. The project is operating in design mode to produce and process 20 bcm of gas annually. South Pars holds 60% of Iran's gas reserves, equivalent to 10% of the known global gas reserves. It forms part of the North Dome deposit, which is regarded as the world's largest non-associated gas field, located partly in Iran and partly in Qatar.
Nonetheless, the competing energy security interests of the EU, Russia and China were reflected at the London meeting of the "Iran Six" last Friday. Plainly put, no one wants confrontation with Iran. Mottaki said Iran would soon have its own "package of proposals" to resolve all regional and international problems, including its nuclear program. In essence, after having thwarted the US's campaign to isolate it, Iran is now shifting diplomatic gear to ensure that its integration with the international community becomes irreversible. It looks beyond the lame-duck George W Bush administration and is judging the mood in the US correctly.
According to a major survey released in Washington last Wednesday by the prestigious Foreign Affairs journal, energy costs are the number one foreign policy concern for seven out of 10 American respondents; the economy has pushed "terrorism" into second place. A large plurality of opinion favors effective American diplomacy to try to establish better relations with Iran. Energy security outpaced all other concerns by a long shot. The survey underscored that American opinion is connecting energy policy to national security issues in an unprecedented way.
Waging war against Iran is not in America's interest. If that was somehow unclear to you before, it no longer is now. Clinton/McCain/Obama are all behind the curve, kow-towing to the ancien regime, the Neocon far-right and Israel, when Iran has quietly been done the deals and emerged on top.
Gravel/McKinney/Nader have been saying as much for years.
It looks like the 7 of 10 Americans whose vision has been refocused by the absurd effects on the global energy economy brought about by the Neocons' greed and myopic focus on Israel are about to help the duopoly itself to refocus.
This is the year of the Perfect Political Storm in the United States.
Vote Gravel/McKinney/Nader and lash yourselves to the masts. Here we go.
Obama's anwer is not better than the Clinton's one. Do you really think that Iran could attack Israel without an Israelian attack ? Faced with a stupid question, the only responsive answer of a would be president is to show why the premises of the question are already wrong. When you begun phantasizing over totally irreally attacks, then you know you are the citizen of an aggressive and war mongering country. The USA are more dangerous to the rest of the world then Iran. That neither Clinton, nor Obama was able to deconstruct this stupid question is sad. An epoch is as much defined by the questions debated than by the answers. That such illegitime questions can be taken seriously by presidential candidates of the USA is saddening for the rest of the world.
Maybe its a Freudian slip, but his answer seems to refer more to a case where Israel attack Iran ... "we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise".
Probably just a slip. But, in the real world I would expect people are more worried about what to do if Israel strikes Iran rather than the other way around.
Clinton's remark was monstrous. It's insane that any Presidential candidate should make such a remark, or should sing "bomb bomb Iran" as McCain did.
But it's just as unacceptable for Obama to put all the blame for the problems on the Middle East on muslims, as he did during his racist racism speech. And it's just as unacceptable for Obama to explicity validate Bush's policy of not talking to Hamas, while the Israeli governement is inflicting what it itself called genocide on the people Hamas represents, and while a supermajority of Israelis want to talk to Hamas.
Please stop putting Obama on a pedastle. He's no better than McCain and Clinton. None of them has a clue.
I've been wrong. I thought I was alone in thinking that Tim Russert is a lightweight and a fraud.
Russert Watch: Sunday, 5-4-08
In which we propose a new name for 'Meet the Press'
By Todd Gitlin
Mon 5 May 2008
Gitlin writes: It strikes me that Russert must think that he is obliged to rake through the muck when enough of it has piled up during the previous week. Here is how he broached the subject in his stentorian intro:
"The epic Clinton and Obama battle continues. Issues such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the soaring cost of gasoline and food prices dominate the debate.
'Dominate the debate' evidently means 'dominate media coverage of the campaign.' So Russert must construe his role as channeling, compressing, and summarizing the state of play in the media. In this sense, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he volunteers to serve as an echo chamber. In which case the show might be renamed: The Press Meets the Press."
Full story Here.
.
The use of the term 'obliterate' is reminiscent of all of the previous tyrants' desires to eliminate without a trace all of their rivals. We find this in almost every conflict, culminating with the 20th Century and the attempts of Addled Addie and Jo-Jo Stalin making quite concerted attempts at erasing whole populations. The Cambodians tried their own formulas and several many others have imitated the more ruthless of rulers. Even today, the 'Isra-Elites' are focussing their attentions on the indigenous Palestinians, making up in lengthiness the pain and suffering that might even be seen as humane experienced by 1940ies' Warsawians short-livedness.
The irony of the circumstances is that any attempts on the 'Isra-Elites' existence will thwart the plans of the evangelical 'Christians' who are 'saving' that Eastern Mediterranean entity for their own nefarious purposes, namely that of obliterating the population once a greater majority of the Judaists relocate there. The actions of the Arabs or Persians just piss everyone off, homogenising (once again) the 'Holey Land,' removing the monopoly held by one historically vilified group. The Armageddonisers will not get their way so long as the enclave is not secure enough for most every reverer of Solomon's Seal to be moved there. No one else - not Saddam Hussein nor Mahmoud Ahmadenijad - is allowed to engage the 'Isra-Elites' militarily inasmuch as they do not share the overall objective of bringing about the desired end of the World, complete with fantastical 'Messiah' returns and all.
We all know that the first one should not be viewed as to be so stupid as to trust any group - especially the current spawn of zealots - to come once again. It is entirely possible that the plight of Palestinians is one that is intended to prevent one of that group from claiming - as the first one might have - divinity. Nevertheless, the issue of any deity would not be so mentally inept as to return for a repeat performance of not only the cruxifiction but the ensuing 2000 years in his (or her) name!
The American political Januses who on the one hand offer support and on the other further the aims of the olbiterators can do nothing more than walk the narrow aligned planks of the fence between the two factions with all of the aplomb and grace of any other circus highwire performers. The 'Isra-Elites' are only suggestable as staunch allies in that they represent the last great hope for redemption for those who have been recently identified as useful idiots in the realm of politics.* As we've seen too much lately, religion - barred by the U.S. Constitution as being a test for political office - is at the forefront of every campaign, from Younger George's favourite 'philosopher' to the Americans' primary love affair with South Carolina (States' latest foray into theocracy) to Obama having to be diverted by some revvin' reverend who can't see his role in the modernised version of slavery (and was it not the 'Christians' who brung'd all them folks from over yonder over here?). Even HillBillary has become a trained seal having learned to not only balance but juggle religious balls on her nose while arfing her through prepared statements.
'Obliteration' has much to do with a cultural mania the purpose of which seeks to presume superiority of one group over another, the concept of supremacy unyielding to the gentle tugs of reason. Of course, someone named 'Clinton' might have an outsized sense of entitlement to political prominence if only because of the addictive nature of power and the privileges derived therefrom. One of the perquisites of power has to be the ability to make statements without the fear of rebukes and with impunity overall, no matter of unreasonable and repulsive they may be.
Invulnerability has its downsides, of course. One of these is some sudden realisation that one is not omnipotent as a fellow named 'Clinton' may have found out from the House of Representatives or from his own family. Another fellow from the House itself named 'Condit' found the same sort of thing out. Both were brought down to Earth by very similar young women.
Yet, the urge to use speechifying in an absolutist's form, reflecting the oft-reported and oft-quoted mistranslations of a Persian leader's words as a sort of game of 'chicken' is indicative of some sort of inherent imbalance. Once more, this is dangerous for anyone treading the narrow boards all set vertically in a line in that one might easily fall into one camp or the other, in any case seen as being then in the wrong camp. The solution is to get off of the fence at a point, away from where extremes are too dangerous, leaving them to their own devices, leaving the business of the government to address the other 200 million Americans for whom idealisation of Narcissism is the stuff of comedic routines seen most appropriately under the Big Top.
* http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/evangelicals.ap/index.html
You are absolutely correct. This casual talk of nuclear annihilation should terrify us all.
Comments by Senator Clinton on The Week with George Stephanopoulis
"And with respect to Iran, I have advocated vigorous diplomatic engagement. You see, we don't even really understand exactly how decisions are made in Iran, because we have been so isolated from Iran. They have an elected leadership with Ahmadinejad, who's all over the TV, but I believe most decisions are made by the clerical leadership, the Supreme Leader, that actually is responsible for the Revolutionary Guard.
And we need to have a very intense diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I've advocated that for several years, in order for us to try to manage whatever they might do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But a lot of our experts look at Iran and they say there is a mass of Iranian people who want to be allied with the United States, want a democracy, and when they heard you say that if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, we would obliterate Iran, they say that undermines -- experts say that undermines exactly the kind of people we want to be encouraging in Iran.
CLINTON: Well, the experts I consult with don't say that, George. Because here's what we're trying to convey. No. 1, we have to do everything possible to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And I will do that. It would be destabilizing and dangerous for the world if Iran were nuclear weaponized.
No. 2, because of this split leadership and because of discontent among the people, we want to create some upward pressure that sends a very clear signal to the Supreme Leader and to Ahmadinejad and others, that going forward on nuclear weapons is not a free choice for Iran. And the very idea that they would translate into action some of the most outlandish comments that have been made by some of the Iranian leaders, and even contemplate wiping Israel off the face of the world, means that we've got to make it clear to them that will not go without massive retaliation.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said we should extend our nuclear deterrent, including that threat of massive retaliation, to other countries in the region -- to Saudi Arabia, to Kuwait, to the UAE. And wouldn't that end up requiring a permanent U.S. presence in the Middle East that is even more extensive, would rival what we now have in Iraq?
CLINTON: But George, we have a permanent set of bases. We are in Kuwait, we're in Bahrain. We have our troops on the ground in other countries. Turkey is a NATO ally. We have a presence that predates our involvement in Iraq. And the reason we've been there all these years is to serve as a buffer, to serve as a check and balance on the originally designs of Saddam Hussein and on the potential threats from Iran.
But what I have said...
No, but what I've said is that if Iran continues to try to pursue a nuclear weapon, if you're sitting in one of the other capitals in the Gulf region and in the wider Middle East, you're not going to let Iran get that nuclear weapon. You're going to have your own nuclear weapons race.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the implications of that policy, as it was during the Cold War, when we said an attack on Paris is like an attack on New York, is that an attack on Riyadh is the same as an attack on Indianapolis? Is that wise policy?
CLINTON: Well, George, you know, I go back and look at what we did during the Cold War. I remember it very well, because I'm old enough to have been told to get under my desk in case we were attacked by the Soviet Union. I never understood what that was about, but we all did it, remember? And we had a Cold War where each of us, the Soviet Union and the United States, had missiles on hair trigger alert, aimed at the cities in our respective countries. And we deterred the nuclear conflagration that could have occurred by having tough diplomacy, by having presidents who really stood their ground, who said, "don't you dare think about this," and we will...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that was based on the idea that they were rational.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe President Ahmadinejad in Iran is rational?
CLINTON: Well, that's why they need to know -- see that's the whole point of my argument, here, George. You really helped me out by making it even clearer.
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: We don't know exactly who makes the decisions in Iran. That's why we need this intense diplomatic effort to try to figure out who actually is, you know, saying what Iran will do.
But there are the vast majority of Iranians who are rational, who get up every day; they go to work; they go to school; they love their families. We have to empower them, both in a positive way, but also with a very clear message, that their leaders need to be very careful about any kind of decision that they would contemplate.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So who would be eligible to come under the U.S. nuclear umbrella?
And what would they have to do to get that protection?
CLINTON: The theory that I'm putting forth is, we have to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. We have to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the region, because I'm not so concerned about them falling into the hands of states, which is bad enough, as I am about falling into the hands of terrorists.
Because what you just said about Iran -- Iran is a state. It's an institutional being. That's why it is deferrable. Al Qaida is not. So we cannot permit there to be proliferation of nuclear weapons.
So, instead of having Saudi Arabia saying, well, you know, Iran and we are, you know, not on the same page here; we've got to have our own weapons, what we want to work toward is some kind of security agreement to prevent that proliferation.
And we're talking about the potential deterrable effect of our being able to say, don't even think about it, Iran; I don't care who's making the decisions; come join the rest of the world community; be part of the world economy; be part of us trying to have a more peaceful and prosperous future. "
John Lee illuminates the nut: no more selling oil in dollars is issue. Thus Bush's secret orders to increase covert actions against Iran and cooperate with groups the US views as terrorists. It's ok if they're on our side! Just don't think about next year. Or the Mayan calendar.
On "obliterate": the word is unconscionable. It does clearly constitute a war crime, and for a presidential cantidate to be so intent on winning that they will admit being willing to authorize a war crime, the statement should constitute a litmus test on conformity with fundamental American values. Not objecting to "obliterate" is also extremely stupid. What of the price and availabiity of oil after obliteration?
I wish it weren't so, but Hillary appears to be an autocrat, and not to have the right stuff to be a fine American President. Seeing her with O'Riley was the last straw, but I didn't find what she said there to be unexpected, though it was very disappointing.
I am disappointed too in Obama, because his most important skills include discernment and a superior ability to accurately draw distinctions in complex moral conundrums.
I don't expect Hillary to retreat or re-think this. Willingness to warn of military action fits her too well. I have hope that Obama will re-think this. He has shown that he understands the next president will be compelled to rely more on diplomacy to reconstruct America's international relationships that the Bush cabal have destroyed.
Particularly in light of the "obliteration" thread, it bears repeating that the American military has been depleted, tied down, and exposed by Bush who has placed too many eggs in Baghdad's basket. One must contemplate America's military standing should a nuclear weapon find its way to Baghdad. That "commander" Bush has managed to put the US military in such a situation is a strategic blunder of unequalled proportions.
Douglas Feith thinks we should attack Iran.
Hillary's comment is "forceful," but seeing as it is in line with the fundamental nuclear strategy that the US pursued throughout the Cold War (under democratic and republican administrations) I don't see what you all are so upset about. The whole idea is that the threat of obliteration will deter Iran. Of course this leads problems of credibility and the question of whether Iran can be deterred from passing nuclear material to a terrorist group. Without being disrespectful, it is very odd the complete pass that you seem to give Obama on this issue. What are his plans for Iran? How is he going to change the fundamental philosophy and behavior of a regime which has considered America the Great Satan since day one? How will he succeed where Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush failed? I don't think the Iranian clerics will be bowled over by his ideas about hope and change. And statements like this puzzle me:
"Besides Iran is unlikely to ever launch nuclear weapons against anyone. Only one country has ever done that and I'll bet every thing I own that Iran won't be the next."
How do you know this? A hunch? This is the same regime which ordered thousands of boy-soldiers into minefields to clear the way for Iranian tanks. Their president has publicly stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map. It would not take much nuclear capacity to do this. What makes you so sure it will not happen?
I like Clinton! Be fair.
It's 3 a.m., the phone rings...
What's that you say, Mrs. Clinton?
"Monstrous"? OMG, we better accept Samantha Powers' resignation again.
This is ridiculous.
The atrocities being perpertrated in sadr city are an attempt to dampen any iraqi shia response to a war on iran, remember Sayd Muqtadas pledge to defend Iran in 2005?
Yet it seems Iran is backing Maliki and Hakim, Who will not lift a finger in the event of war on Iran and will talk about the need for 'dialogue' and all the usual shite impotent arab leaders sprout.
Iran is meant to be the chess master. she should be doing everything in her power to empower Muqtada. Maybe Muqtada will not allow so much power to Iran now but in the long run it makes more sense and the sadrists are a stronger bull wark against the sunnite cult.
Frog: "Their (Iran's)president has publicly stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map."
Untrue. What he did say has been previously reviewed by Professor Cole and others. It was definitely not what you wrote.
If the threat of deterrance is sufficient, why does Bush have several carrier groups parked within striking distance of Iran? Kennedy didn't commit that many for the Cuban missile crisis, which was real. This is a crisis manufactured for the American consumer. Get along little dogies. Y' know. Texas drovers.
"We would be able to totally obliterate them."
I'm an Obama supporter, but where in this sentance does Clinton say that we(she) would obliterate them? Is she not only sabre rattling as a deterrent? Isn't that basically what she's now claiming? Clinton is displaying Bush mentality at its worst, but she's not suggesting that we obliterate anyone, only that we could.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Let's talk about Iran. But first, a little update:
Oct 25, 2004:
“VIENNA (Reuters) – Nearly 380 tons of explosives are missing from a site near Baghdad that was part of Saddam Hussein dismantled atom bomb program but was never secured by the U.S. military, the United Nations said Monday.
(snip)
“The New York Times, which broke the story Monday, said U.S. weapons experts feared the explosives could be used in bombing attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces, which have come under increasing fire ahead of Iraq (news – web sites)’s elections due in January.
“The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been barred from most of Iraq since the war and has watched from afar as its former nuclear sites have been systematically stripped by looters.
“Fleming said ElBaradei informed Washington of the seriousness of the matter on Oct. 15 after learning about the disappearance of the explosives on Oct. 10.
“One substance found in large quantities at the Al Qaqaa facility was the explosive HMX, which Fleming said had “a potential use in a nuclear explosive device as a detonator.”
“Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the HMX had been sealed and tagged with the IAEA emblem while being stored at Al Qaqaa.
“Iraq was permitted to keep some of its explosives for mining purposes after the IAEA completed its dismantling of Saddam’s covert nuclear weapons program after the 1991 Gulf war.
“Fleming said HMX also had civilian and conventional military applications. In the months prior to the second Gulf war, the IAEA was certain that none of the dual-use materials were being used in a nuclear weapons program.
“Diplomats at the IAEA have warned that materials useable in nuclear weapons could easily be shipped out of Iraq and sold to countries like Iran or terrorist groups believed to be interested in acquiring nuclear weapons.
“U.S. FAILED TO SECURE KNOWN NUCLEAR SITE
“The New York Times report cited White House and Pentagon (news – web sites) officials – as well as at least one Iraqi minister – as acknowledging that the explosives vanished from the site shortly after the U.S.-led invasion amid widespread looting.
“The minister of science and technology, Rashad M. Omar, confirmed the explosives were missing in an interview with The Times and CBS Television in Baghdad.
“A Western diplomat close to the IAEA, who declined to be named, said it was difficult to understand why the U.S. military had failed to secure the facility despite knowing how sensitive the site was.
““This was a very well known site. If you could have picked a few sites that you would have to secure then … Al Qaqaa would certainly be one of the main ones,” the diplomat said.
(snip)
“U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) was informed about the missing explosives only within the last month, the Times said, adding that it was unclear whether President Bush (news - web sites) was aware.”
My, what tiny memories we all have, we and the Times. Seems I recall this story was corroborated by a Minnesota tv station (how quaint--a local Minnesota tv news crew in Iraq! When was their last visit? Let's all chip in for a return visit.) who took film footage of munitions dumps being ransacked by organized Iraqis using pickup trucks. Seems it was US soldiers, not marauding Iraqis, who broke the IAEA seals on those munitions dumps, didn't find any nasty WMD's, and then left the dumps unsealed as they wheeled off looking Bush’s phantoms. Seems appropos that a 2008 update with that Minnesota station about their reportage of 2004 would be appropriate.
Now let us talk about how dangerous Iran is.
I will not support Hillary because she is way too eager to prove her "cojones". I was an early supporter and stopped doing so when she voted for the Iran resolution. I think if she's president she will let the far right intimidate her into starting a war with Iran just to prove that she's tough enough. Sorry - but the presidency is too powerful a post to give to someone who's not secure and comfortable enough in their own skin.
Wow, massminuteman, I am impressed by how impressed you are with your own intelligence. Yet you have not backed your claims and smears up with fact. And this post is a reaction to HRC's threat to obliterate Iran - a threat heard round the world as many nations hav responded to it. Let's stay on point.
Hillary is precticing old Washington politics that don't work anymore. The Iran issue is 100% Israeli, Iran is no danger to the US. Protecting Israel when they are the biggests bully in the ME ? Again ? All rules apply except to Israel ? Again ? Pure BS.
Make Israel adhere to the standards that it and the US want to impose on Iran. Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty ,which Iran has done. Israel refuses to allow IAEA inspections of their nuke facilities, which Iran has done. Israel refuses to comply with any UN resolutions, which the US protects it from.
America's media silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and their lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric with regard to Iran's nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member, is an example of the kind of outright double standard that the United States has been following in its foreign policy.
And we try to get Iran -- an NPT member -- to stop enriching uranium and expect not to sound outright hypocritical? Iran has every right to defend themselves against Israel. The IAEA in Israel ? The reaction would be spectacular and filled with claims of persecution and divine right.
It's absurd the pretense that Israel stands as the pathetic guardian against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the ME. Israel is the biggest bully, destabilizing, warmongering, belligerent aggressor there and needs to be dealt with before Tehran.
Unconditional, unquestioned, never ending financial support of Israeli is bad for the US. Israeli policies are no longer in line with US policies, and, as a result are making the US more of a target than ever in the Islamic world.The US arms Israel and shields Israel from international and UN repercussions which does us enormous harm in the eyes of the world. What if Israel attacks Iran ? Would we then obliterate Israel ?
Good news? There will be when Israel and the US recognize a two-state solution, a separation between their country and this one, the United States.
Clinton’s vile rhetorical pronouncements, calling for the obliteration of Iran, or any other sovereign entity within that region of the world, words if they were to fall from the mouth of any other elected leader of another country, would be considered the lunatic ravings of a tyrant. As President, god forbid, she would be wiping her rear end with the Constitution in the same fashion the present empiricist, corporate administration has done, who stands on the mountaintop, clutching a nuke in each hand, spewing villainy and hatred against those who do not fall on their knees in submission.
If mad-bomber McCain weren’t already enough to worry about!
We had better not hear any criticism from her, or the neo-con ranks she is obviously pandering to and courting, when other nations begin to grow weary of our brutish posturing and begin clamoring for the obliteration of the U.S. from the face of the map. Might does not make right; it only breeds contempt!
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
The only country that has ever used nuclear against civilians is US. Somehow it is still justified that hundreds of thousands died in Japan - talking here about civilians (women, children etc.) Hillary Republican Clinton should keep her mouth shut. US is not such a superpower anymore and US politicians should learn and acknowledge that their blunders will and actualy have consequences.
I am actually very suprised that the Jewish lobby continues to dominate any conversation about the Middle East. I don't see the US government having an independent policy in the best interest of this country.
By the way, I read that by 2020 the population of Israel will be predominantly Arabic. Is this "great" democracy going to give these people equal representation or are we talking about African Apartheid king of state?
"The premise that 'they' only understand the language of massive violence is in fact a rightwing premise more characteristic of W. and Ariel Sharon than of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY TRADITION."
?? Hiroshima? Vietnam?
I agree with the totality of this article:
"I mean, it is surreal to have Democrats discussing whether it is appropriate for the US to "totally obliterate" another country."
And I don't think its done squat for the overseas interest of America. Right now it seems as if whoever is the next president, war, occupation,and overseas destruction are still the political agenda of mainstream USA.
The world is watching and we are shocked at what we see.
Rgrds,
Me
Christiane :
That such illegitimate questions can be taken seriously by presidential candidates in the USA is saddening for the rest of the world.
More than saddening, life threatening. I have to give that succinct formulation my vote for the last word on this subject.
Thank you for the forceful commentary, Professor Cole. On the only occasion that I posted something critical here on your invaluable blog, it was in regard to your professed "great respect" for Hillary Clinton.
With your indulgence, this is what I posted in March 2007:
'Although I greatly respect your expertise and analysis, why you would “greatly respect” Senator Clinton is a mystery to me. I think she absolutely typifies the abysmal cowardice, narcissism, and greed that dominates and paralyzes the Democratic Party.
Her endless political calculation and feats of gymnastic triangulation while thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis see their lives destroyed is an obscenity; her fealty to AIPAC and the overall U.S. military-industrial complex is boundless.
On July 17, during the Israeli war on Lebanon, she appeared in New York with Israel’s UN ambassador Dan Gillerman, who announced, “To those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You’re damn right we are!” Clinton added: “We will support [Israel’s] efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians… We will take whatever steps are necessary.”
Please explain to me what you find admirable in that policy commitment? Do you have any doubt that she will cheer on the Cheney Administration’s (and/or Israel’s) attack on Iran when it is unleashed?
She looks palatable only when lined up against this ghastly junta of right-wing ideologues currently occupying the White House. One could argue, I suppose, that she is a lesser evil of some sort; however, she is a careerist obsessed by power and her own monumental ego. Of course she is not alone in that, but the U.S. will not escape our current morass of debt, militarism, and empire with her in charge.'
It appears to me that her most recent threat to obliterate an entire nation of human beings to ‘defend’ Israel is perfectly in keeping with her character.
Annon at 5:51 said:
What if Israel attacks Iran ? Would we then obliterate Israel ?
endquote
Yes that was my first question and reaction. Moral principles like reversibility, universalizability, the Golden Rule, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, practice what you preach, evenhandedness, and so on, all imply that approval/disapproval must show a certain kind of equality of treatment and sameness of moral judgements.
Thus Hilary's talk of 'obliteration' of Iran if it were to attack Isreal, means she must accept and approve the obliteration of Isreal, if it were to attack Iran. (And the obliteration of Canada if it attacked Japan, the obliteration of China if it attacked Russia, and on and on.)
But surely Hilary doesn't accept the universalization of her judgement. Surely she accepts the moral inconsistency, and she means, 'we will protect our friends and allies, and obliterate anyone who attacks them.' I'm sure she is not willing to accept a universal principle, like, 'any nation who attacks any other should be obliterated, and maybe by us.'
So yes, Hilary is an Old Testament, eye for an eye, protect our friends and obliterate our enemies (and their enemies) type person. This primitive and tribal stance still gains a lot of votes, doesn't it? And what alternative is Obama offering, except holding similar views but keeping quiet about it?
Dude,
Think before you all go jumping on HRC.
The policy is called "mutual assured destruction" and the threat of it is what prevented either side from overrunning the other during the cold war.
Don't just put your own neurosis on what people say- look to history and politics for cues as to what it means.
Leon
Post a Comment
<< Home