Hillary: If Iran nukes Israel, I’ll obliterate them

posted at 7:30 pm on April 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

Sure you will.

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

I find myself in the very curious position here of being to the left of Hillary Clinton on Iran. Rather than have another debate on whether the U.S. needs to add to Israel’s already impressive deterrent capabilities, let me ask you this: At whom is this very heavy-handed pander directed? Pretty obviously it’s aimed at Israel’s lefty supporters, but are there so many undecideds among them that the net gain from this will offset the net loss among less ardent Israel supporters who’ll be predictably freaked out by it? That is to say, what’s the point of this latest push — starting with the “get out of the kitchen” ad this morning — to frame her as tougher than Obama? The left isn’t exactly crying out for a more muscular foreign policy. All I can guess is that they think Obama’s whining about the debate has legs insofar as it taps into a greater overall wimpiness on his part, which is a fine strategy for the general but sort of … stupid for a Democratic primary. What good does this do her?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What good does this do her?

She’s beginning the transition to the “center” for the general election. She must be feeling mighty confident!!

SouthernGent on April 21, 2008 at 7:33 PM

Hell Yes! contrast with:

But the Iranians’ interest is also driven by a sense among many Iranians that the candidacy of Barack Obama offers real hope for repairing the U.S.-Iranian relationship. Commenting on the Iranian preference for a Democrat in the White House, Sergei Barseghian, a columnist for the reformist Etemad Meli newspaper noted that in Farsi, the words Oo ba ma would translate as “He’s with us.”
the sympathy his candidacy has aroused among many Iranians stems from a variety of factors, including his African heritage, his partly Muslim family ties, and a belief that Obama would move to end Washington’s 30-year Cold War with Tehran — or at least reduce the prospect of a U.S. military attack on the Islamic Republic. “I think people want him to win,” Shi’ite cleric Mehdi Karroubi, the reformist former parliament speaker defeated by Ahmadinejad in Iran’s 2005 presidential contest, told TIME.

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 7:33 PM

There’s a lot of democrats in North Carolina who support Israel. She’s trying to get their votes.

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Pretty obviously it’s aimed at Israel’s lefty supporters

Does this include all the lefty Dinner Jacket admirers who insist that they’re just using those centrifuges for energy?

MadisonConservative on April 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM

I guess Iran’s bundle got lost in the mail.

RushBaby on April 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM

What good does it do her?

It’s been her strategy lately to show the Democrats that Obama won’t be able to stand up to McCain in the general.

Free Constitution on April 21, 2008 at 7:37 PM

She is probably trying to rattle Iran’s cage a bit to get them to make more frequent and more widely publicized comments supporting Obama’s candidacy.

HawaiiLwyr on April 21, 2008 at 7:37 PM

I suppose it forces Obama to make some sort of response. There’s still a lot of Democrats that aren’t complete pacifists like Obama.

lowandslow on April 21, 2008 at 7:38 PM

I believe her.

Barry’s even running scared.

profitsbeard on April 21, 2008 at 7:39 PM

What good does this do her?

Best guess is it appeals to the blue dogs, like myself, who really want a strong Democratic leader yet aren’t…well-read enough to know what she’s really about.

SouthernDem on April 21, 2008 at 7:39 PM

She wants 2008, but if not she wants to position herself as the “I told you so candidate” of 2012 regarding Obama’s leftism in a general election. Trying to make him look like an unrealistic lightfoot on this stuff. (See: Obamaniac reaction to her use of Osama bin Laden in an ad. Gasp!)

Vizzini on April 21, 2008 at 7:39 PM

What good does this do her?

It makes her feel manly.

Entelechy on April 21, 2008 at 7:40 PM

She must have internal polling data saying that a tough foreign policy stance will help her in the future primaries. Combine this statement with Obama’s running like a scared toddler from the NC debate, …. I’ve said for a while that it was hard to believe the polls that showed Obama winning big in NC. We’ll all see if I’m wrong :) wouldn’t be the first time, of course.

I can’t wait for the RonPaul/PatBuchannan/CalypsoLouie commercials that will try to paint Hillary as a tool of the Jooozzz.

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 7:40 PM

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 7:33 PM

Bingo! There are many conservative Democrats in NC.

SouthernDem on April 21, 2008 at 7:41 PM

I dunno if I agree with Allah here. I don’t think this response was a calculation one way or another.

I think she just let her inner cutthroat out for a second.

Nessuno on April 21, 2008 at 7:41 PM

I don’t think overcompesating/overreacting were she in office is farfetched at all. If things get ugly you don’t think this woman would pile up the bodies?

exception on April 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM

Hillary makes me laugh.

Truth be told, however, I’d feel safer with her in the White House than Obama. Hillary feels it necessary to respond to public opinion, as is evidenced by the “obliterate” quote. Obama cares much less about what anybody thinks, as is evidenced by his dismissive non-apology apologies for a growing number of gaffes and scandals. He really did drink the communist koolaid; Hillary only pretends she did, when the polls indicate it would be useful.

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 7:46 PM

I expect she wouldn’t have to, as I doubt that Iran could kill enough of the isreali nukes to prevent an in kind response.

conservativecaveman on April 21, 2008 at 7:47 PM

…we would be able to totally obliterate them.

Although, that’s some pretty weak phrasing.

exception on April 21, 2008 at 7:47 PM

What good does this do her?

Vizzini makes a lot of sense, but Hill may also be looking at a NY Gov run…and this was her wink at the “Money People”.

Kid from Brooklyn on April 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the Obamanation that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. “

pedestrian on April 21, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Sure you will.

Bill never had any problem launching aggressive military actions. Its only when the Republicans launch extraterritorial wars that the Dems are agin’ it. The D’s aren’t pacifists.

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Historically there have been a few cut-throat woman rulers. I’ve often wondered if she’d be more likely to engage Iran because she may feel like she has something to prove.

Yeah, I know that sounds sexist.

NTWR on April 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM

but Hill may also be looking at a NY Gov run…

Kid from Brooklyn on April 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM

There’s no way she’d do it. The Dems just want to unload Hillary on someone else, and Spitzer’s fall was just a convenient alternative. They’d have said “VP” if that was a legitimate possibility.

No, Hillary wants the big prize, not a pity parade back to Albany. Don’t blame her, either.

Vizzini on April 21, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Historically there have been a few cut-throat woman rulers. I’ve often wondered if she’d be more likely to engage Iran because she may feel like she has something to prove.

I doubt it.

Yeah, I know that sounds sexist.

Not at all. Its a reasonable thought.

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 7:57 PM

If McCain doesn’t get in, we better hope for her. As much as she lies, I actually believe her on this. If for no other reason than public opinion at the time would demand an overwhelming retaliation.

amerpundit on April 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Pretty obviously it’s aimed at Israel’s lefty supporters, but are there so many undecideds among them that the net gain from this will offset the net loss among less ardent Israel supporters who’ll be predictably freaked out by it?

It only has to play with the superdelegates. I’d bet that there are a number of New York Money Men in the pool of undecided SD’s. Seriously, though, she’ll argue to the SD’s that Obama is weakened in the general election because he is conflicted when it comes to Israel.

rw on April 21, 2008 at 7:59 PM

Allahpundits comments on this are curious. Should Hillary have said that she would take forceful action in retaliation for an attack on Israel? Of course, she could have given the standard ambiguous answer, but for what it is, I like this. Why does Allahpundit think that we should be a less reliable allie to Israel than to England or France or the Netherlands or Serbia or Saudi Arabia or the UAE, all of which the US has expressly said it would protect.

I would have rather have Hillary say she would take the action necessary so that Iran does not get a nuke and does not have the opportunity to nuke any country, but, she is a Dem after all.

Again, I wish Allahpundit would somehow clarify his opinion that evidently Israel is on its own when it comes to protecting itself from destruction (another Holocaust) or retaliating post attack.

georgealbert on April 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM

What good?

Middle of the Monongahela. The left bank won’t let her land,
and the right bank is full of non-believers.

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 8:03 PM

I don’t think this will hurt her in PA. The more socially conservative Democrats are in favor of killing terrorists, and a big portion of “the left” has left her already. Same is likely true in Indiana and NC and WV.

forest on April 21, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Dude! Now we’re talking.

saved on April 21, 2008 at 8:03 PM

So Hillary thinks shes the answer to Israel’s survival,
well hells bells,Missile Shield,Ageus Destroyer systems
and 747 Flying Laser Weapon system’s please stand done!

Super Hillary to the rescue!

canopfor on April 21, 2008 at 8:05 PM

ooops,thats Stand down,and not stand done,good lord!

canopfor on April 21, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Bill never had any problem launching aggressive military actions.

The only problem is when he did, or she would. Seems more likely that she’d do it to boost her polls rather than when it might make sense.

MamaAJ on April 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM

Vince Foster was unavailable for comment

Wade on April 21, 2008 at 8:12 PM

‘we would be able to obliterate them’ is a hell of a lot different then ‘we would obliterate them’.

Is is.

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 8:13 PM

Rather than have another debate on whether the U.S. needs to add to Israel’s already impressive deterrent capabilities

WTF? You STILL don’t get it. Israel’s deterrence capabilities only mean something IF THE OTHER SIDE WANTS TO LIVE. Geez, get a clue.

Andy in Agoura Hills on April 21, 2008 at 8:14 PM

I’m drooling.

Capitana on April 21, 2008 at 8:14 PM

note to self…read others comments before jumping in.

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Aspirin factories everywhere are installing bomb shelters.

- The Cat

MirCat on April 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Of course you don’t get it AP, your an atheist. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it puts you out of touch with what is going on with Christians (real ones not the ‘Wright’ ones).

I am surprised Clinton has a clue about this. During the debate she used the phrase “massive retaliation”, which was a surprise. The Left’s “confusion” about Israel is the most troubling thing for Christians. All other issues are chalked up to idiocy about economics, etc.

Agrippa2k on April 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Again, I wish Allahpundit would somehow clarify his opinion that evidently Israel is on its own when it comes to protecting itself from destruction (another Holocaust) or retaliating post attack.

georgealbert on April 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM

He’s expressed his opinion on the subject many times. Basically, nuking/obliterating Iran (i.e., killing innocents) won’t solve anything, and we’ll be condemned internationally, so why do it?

And I agree. If we can’t stop Iran from developing usable nukes (that’s a big if), the protocol should be this:
1) Type up a list of senior Iranian gov’t officials, say about 100.
2) Tell the Iranians that if an attack on Israel is launched, then assuming anyone in Iran survives the retaliatory strike from Israel, the US will establish control of the air in Iran, by wiping out all anti-aircraft defenses. Then we’ll establish a 24/7 blanket of Predators/Global Hawks above all mid- to-large cities in Iran. All 100 officials will be on the target list.

Whadya think?

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Wait a minute,Hillary can’t co-ordinate a Strike Operation
from the Kitchen while baking cookies against Iran!

I’m stunned,what about all this multi-tasking ability that
Hillary is rumoured to possess,running the country,keeping
an eye on Billy,taking care of Iran!

And with so much on Hillarys plate,saving Israel,how and
the world will she keep track of the alusive Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy that keeps ruining poor Hillary’s Day,oh
the horrors of it all!

canopfor on April 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM

If Iran nukes Israel, I insist that we obliterate them.

Blake on April 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Of course, since when does anything a Clinton says they’ll do, actually translate into what they do….?

JetBoy on April 21, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Whadya think?

Your plan falls short. I agree any action could be less gung-ho than nuclear war but killing an approved list of 100 troublemakers is not punitive enough. Its basically handing Iran a victory.

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 8:27 PM

Liberals on Parade,Hillary calls Putin Souless!
Now she wants to take Iran out for some extra votes!

If Hillary was POTUSOA,in reality the World would Burn!

canopfor on April 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Splashman,

Gaining complete air supremacy is good I agree but what to do with it? Decimate every military target in the country at the very least.

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM

“Center” of what? If Hillary thinks Americans want to start WWW III to avenge an attack on another country, she’s been downing too many adult beverages lately,.

corona on April 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM

I think that HRC’s comment is also for the purpose of putting Obama into a tough position. How does Obama respond, match it, counter it, etc., one way or another, without losing something?

ForNow on April 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM

Call me a monster. A melted Israel hardly calls for taking out the leadership, or their military. It calls for taking out the country.

Heartless? Maybe. Necessary? Yes. If not what is going to stop the next guy? Please don’t try to tell me their wouldn’t be a next guy.

The people are responsible for their own government. All this ‘we have nothing against people X, just government X’ is the whole problem.

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM

For the “obliterate Iran if they launch nukes at Israel” crowd, I have a couple of questions:

1) Are you comfortable obliterating innocents?
and
2) If so, do you condemn AQ for 9/11?

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM

…if I’m the president we will attack Iran

That would be a great comfort to all of the dead Israelis. If she is elected president, could we change the Secret Service rules of engagement to read “You can kill an attacker only after they shoot the president.”

29Victor on April 21, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Anything short of destroying Iran would be useless. Sorry, there are some things worth fighting for, and for me Israel is worth fighting for. Do yourself a favor and research the the advances Israel has given the world over the past 60 years. It will amaze you. The U.S. alone owes Israel a great debt of gratitude, just in Medical procedures alone. What has Iran given us? The great civilization that gave us Algebra (Persia) hasn’t existed, oh I don’t know, since that Mohammed guy showed up. The only thing Iran has given us is a monkey on our back (oil).

gator70 on April 21, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM

Yep, totally.

gator70 on April 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM

1) Are you comfortable obliterating innocents?
and
2) If so, do you condemn AQ for 9/11?

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM

1> Aren’t you discounting the innocents who would die if you didn’t act?

2> er….yes

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM

For the “obliterate Iran if they launch nukes at Israel” crowd, I have a couple of questions:

I am not necessarily part of this crowd (I could join it at some future point) but would like to answer your questions anyway.

1) Are you comfortable obliterating innocents?

Yes, if I deem it unavoidable in a war effort to preserve the existence of the Western (and non-Muslim) world.

and
2) If so, do you condemn AQ for 9/11?

Yes.

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Splashman, I’d rather nuke Tehran than send in my husband or all of our friends to fight Iran. Iran has a decent military and better stuff than Saddam.

Sorry if that makes me a monster in your eyes.

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Gaining complete air supremacy is good I agree but what to do with it? Decimate every military target in the country at the very least.

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM

I’m fine with that, but what will it accomplish?

Despite all the “72 virgins” rhetoric, not many Iranian gov’t officials are ready to become martyrs. A personal threat will motivate them, and given the success of Israel and the US in transforming miscellaneous terrorists into grease stains via Mr. Predator, every one of the 100 on the list who has access to YouTube will have little doubt that the US can and will carry out the threat. And it may preempt other would-be Dinner Jackets from getting ideas.

Other than causing inconvenience to an oil-rich country in a world of sky-high oil prices, what will strikes against military bases accomplish?

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 8:48 PM

And which Al Q stronhold did we nuke before the 9/11 retaliation again?

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 8:49 PM

First rule in a surprise attack….your own leadership and command and control is scattered and bunkered down. Sound familiar?

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Israel will do that for her.

Little Boomer on April 21, 2008 at 8:50 PM

What’s this about “the next ten years”?

km on April 21, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Israel will do that for her.

Little Boomer on April 21, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Praying she never has too.

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 8:52 PM

“Center” of what? If Hillary thinks Americans want to start WWW III to avenge an attack on another country, she’s been downing too many adult beverages lately,.

You are failing to fathom the interconnectedness of the world. Do you think that if/when Israel is nuked and Europe is conquered by Muslims on the nightly news that you can just switch the channel to Anna Nicole Smith reruns? Oh well. We’ll always have Anbar Province. :/

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Hillary: If Iran nukes Israel, I’ll obliterate them

posted at 7:30 pm on April 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

You Go Girl !!

That’s what I’m talking about.

Hit them hard with your sharp high heals baby.

I want a cat fight.

Indy Conservative on April 21, 2008 at 8:55 PM

If Hillary thinks Americans want to start WWW III to avenge an attack on another country,

Well that takes care of all the NATO and SEATO agreements.

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Obama took heat for threatening to attack the remote regions of Pakistan to get Al Qaeda. Hillary wants to obliterate one of the world’s major oil exporters as Americans count down to $4.00 a gallon gas.

And we’re suppose to conclude, she’s the smart, tough one we
want in the White House?

sanguine4 on April 21, 2008 at 8:56 PM

I’m fine with that, but what will it accomplish?

It will defeat Iran militarily. I’m not saying it would work as deterrence. But then I don’t think that anything will work as deterrence against Iran.

Despite all the “72 virgins” rhetoric, not many Iranian gov’t officials are ready to become martyrs. A personal threat will motivate them

I don’t believe that it is rhetoric. I think most if not all are ready to become martyrs and that they aren’t motivated by personal threats in the slightest. You’ll notice they don’t refer to themselves as radical Islamists or moderate jihadists or whatever the current phrase is.

They take their religion very seriously even if the post-Enlightenment West has trouble comprehending this.

aengus on April 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Sergei Barseghian, a columnist for the reformist Etemad Meli newspaper noted that in Farsi, the words Oo ba ma would translate as “He’s with us.”

and

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the Obamanation that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. “

pedestrian on April 21, 2008 at

Scares the beejesus out of me. Silly? maybe, but still.

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Hey, Hill, post it on You Tube, will ya?

Gosh, I love You Tube, it’s my favorite site after

http://www.snail.racing.com

Indy Conservative on April 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

I have total confidence that KBR-Halliburton will be able to get the oil from under that sheet of glass.

/what? what?

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 9:00 PM

I believe her.

Barry’s even running scared.

profitsbeard on April 21, 2008 at 7:39 PM

I don’t believe a word she says…. EVER. I think we should have all learned that by now profitsbeard.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM

I’ve never felt so friendly toward Hillary.

misterpeasea on April 21, 2008 at 9:05 PM

Splashman, I’d rather nuke Tehran than send in my husband or all of our friends to fight Iran. Iran has a decent military and better stuff than Saddam.

Sorry if that makes me a monster in your eyes.

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 8:48 PM

I’m not going the route of claiming anyone’s a monster. We’re just discussing.

Our military already makes choices, every day, to expose themselves to risk rather than subject innocents to unnecessary risk. And that is appropriate, IMHO. I don’t advocate an extreme position on the subject; I’m merely pointing out that our military already operates under the assumption that non-combatant casualties shall be avoided when possible.

Yes, if we carry out the plan I detailed above, some of our pilots will be put at risk. I don’t like that, but if by sacrificing some of our pilots we could avoid destroying millions of innocents, I couldn’t advocate nuking.

And I should point out that DinnerJacket and his cronies will be a thousand miles away from Tehran when they pull the trigger on Israel. So the nukes won’t accomplish much besides killing innocents and likely making the US an international pariah. Yes, it may deter other dictators with their own uranium-enrichment plans, for a while. Or it may not, if DinnerJacket survives and puts his triumphant ramblings on YouTube.

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 9:07 PM

If Hillary told me the sun comes up in the morning…. my first thought would be that the sun had probably changed its schedule.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 9:08 PM

I’m no pollster, but I would think Hillary’s comments would play very well to any Jews who happen to be voting tomorrow, as well as any older Pennsylvanians who might still be a little miffed about that whole attacking-our embassy-and-taking-hostages thing. We bitter types really know how to hold a grudge.

Infidoll on April 21, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Splashman, know much about Iran’s AA defenses? You would be sending lots of our people on suicide missions out of concern for another country’s “civilians.”

Many of whom would have cheered the decision to nuke the “Zionist Entity.”

no sale

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM

Snort. Making the US an international pariah? Who the fick cares?

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM

translation, If Iran ever attacked Israel, I would have the secretary disavow any knowledge of this country…

jojostan on April 21, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Didn’t Bill also promise that if Israel is attacked he’d go over and fight in the trenches with them?

ToddonCapeCod on April 21, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Didn’t Bill also promise that if Israel is attacked he’d go over and fight in the trenches with them?

ToddonCapeCod on April 21, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Well from whatever date he said it Israel has been attacked daily. I haven’t seen any mud, let alone blood, on Bill’s boots. You’ll never find any on Hillary’s either.

Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Maybe Coulter was right about Clinton. Let Ahmedinajad suck on that one.

Pax americana on April 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM

Ummmmmmm……….. why don’t we start with a little test for Hillary first, to see if she really has the stones to back up her rhetoric.

Let’s have her take on the Environmental Extremists in our country and open up our oil fields for drilling? That way, we could become more energy independent, and the oil revenues for Iran would diminish, possibly causing change from within by Iran’s own populace……

Go ahead, Hillary, fire away……..

Seven Percent Solution on April 21, 2008 at 9:26 PM

“civilians.”

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM

Ah, the quotation marks come out.

No sale.

Snort. Making the US an international pariah? Who the fick cares?

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM

If you can’t be reasonable, end of discussion.

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 9:28 PM

What good does this do her?

I assume that Hillary has ruled out the time travel option. So she knows full well she doesn’t have a shot at winning the Democrat nomination in a conventional fashion. Therefore, her only shot now is to try to portray herself as “more electible” than that goofy hippy peacenik Obama.

As for how electible this new stance makes her appear, I don’t really get that part. Her response is simultaneously empty and psychotic. She’s not offering any suggestions on what she would do SHORT OF the Armageddon option.

There is no middle position here. Of course it’s idiotic to imagine that any American – all else being equal – WANTS war. No one does. It’s just that some of us demand peace on our terms, and some are willing to get it on the enemy’s terms.

Frankly, I don’t think Hillary understands any of that. She’s trying to ACT the way that she thinks a rampaging, knuckle-dragging, war-mongering conservative should act. But her febrile tirade is just making her look like an idiot to BOTH sides.

logis on April 21, 2008 at 9:28 PM

He’s expressed his opinion on the subject many times. Basically, nuking/obliterating Iran (i.e., killing innocents) won’t solve anything, and we’ll be condemned internationally, so why do it?

And I agree. If we can’t stop Iran from developing usable nukes (that’s a big if), the protocol should be this:
1) Type up a list of senior Iranian gov’t officials, say about 100.
2) Tell the Iranians that if an attack on Israel is launched, then assuming anyone in Iran survives the retaliatory strike from Israel, the US will establish control of the air in Iran, by wiping out all anti-aircraft defenses. Then we’ll establish a 24/7 blanket of Predators/Global Hawks above all mid- to-large cities in Iran. All 100 officials will be on the target list.

Whadya think?

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM

=============================================

I get what you are saying but it does not work for me. First, we will maybe find 30 of the 100 and that takes more work and time than they are worth, unless it is done over a period many years in which case it is justice but it will not prevent a million dead Jews in Israel.

Second, the Iranian people empower their government so the idea that people in a country that just nuked another county purely out of a death lust are not innocent. If they allow their country to start a war, they are collectively responsible. It has been that way since the beginning of nation-states and functionally it works no other way, otherwise any nations government can do anything it wants and its people never bear the cost. In business we call that agency cost and it leads to a quick demise of the franchise, in this case the franchise is humanity.

No, I think Allahpundit just believes that the Jews must always be on their own and I wonder why that is when we do not consider other countries that are supposedly close allies in that manner. And finally if the world will once again sit back and wait and allow another Holocaust of the Jews, then I think the world has no human future and the Islamist have won and their death creed will rule the world completely.

georgealbert on April 21, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Hillary is a vindictive woman and if she ever got into the oval office…. heaven forbid, she would be far too busy playing “getting even” to ever notice Iran had nuked Israel.

And the Dems are no friends of the Jews, even though the Jews don’t seem to understand that yet.

Maxx on April 21, 2008 at 9:43 PM

I think this line by Hillary is anything but hawkish or indeed substantive. I’m certainly not one of those whose position on Israel is basically determined by their wicked belief in the imaginary friend according to which Jews are to be destroyed later than Ahmadinejad would want them.

That being said, a few simple things are just true no matter how you slice them. People are well within their rights (including moral) to engage in philosophical, historic and other debates about Holocaust, creation of Israel and other topics. Iranian leadership isn’t a bunch of non-PC historians. They don’t ask questions. They have answers, and some of those including “let’s drive the Jews to the sea” are unacceptable and actually are a declaration of war.

That doesn’t mean the US should go at real war with Iran. But it’s not “hawkish” to note that Israel is the only civilized country in the Middle East, and we’d support it as such. The trick is to contain Iran without waging stupid and costly wars. When Iran has nukes, it’ll be too late. What a true leader should do is propose a method by which we could ensure that Iran never gets to that point, while never repeating the mistakes of the idiot currently occupying the White House.

A “when nuclear war begins, we might use nuclear weapons” line isn’t enough.

freevillage on April 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM

……. while never repeating the mistakes of the idiot currently occupying the White House.

freevillage on April 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Freevillage = “A village idiot is a person widely known in their community for their stupidity and ignorant behavior. …”

Fixed it for ya……… Dude!

Seven Percent Solution on April 21, 2008 at 9:57 PM

If Iran destroyed Israel, Hillary would go after them with the full force of her negotiation and diplomacy resources.

whitetop on April 21, 2008 at 10:06 PM

IF THE OTHER SIDE WANTS TO LIVE.

Don’t mistake the Iranian people for the malignant dwarf conducting the visible elements of their foreign policy. Ahmadinezhad is less popular than you might think, far less representative, and far more vulnerable. We need to starve his cadre of domestic political support.

I think it’s safe to assume the Israelis have given some tactical consideration to how to retain a credible retaliatory capacity, since their nation occupies only a few blast radii of space. Which is not to say we wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) support Israel in such an exchange.

DrSteve on April 21, 2008 at 10:08 PM

Not an expert at all, AP, but mightn’t it be a greater deterrent to know that not only Israel, but the 800 lb gorilla United States is threatening retaliation?

mikeyboss on April 21, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Hey, freevillage, that’s some mighty strong cognitive dissonance you’re serving up there. Need to stop Iran … mustn’t … use … force. Good luck with resolving that.

What a true leader should do is propose a method by which we could ensure that Iran never gets to that point, while never repeating the mistakes of the idiot currently occupying the White House.

Yeah, a true leader like Jor-El or Kal-El, or maybe Green Lantern. I notice you yourself are waiting for this putative pie-in-the-sky leader to propose this magical mystery method — whatever it might be — of resolving the problem of religious fanatics acquiring nukes. Well, back here in the real world, we do in fact have “…a method by which we could ensure that Iran never gets to that point…” Yes, such a method already exists. It is known in the vernacular as War.

shazbat on April 21, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Gaining complete air supremacy is good I agree but what to do with it? Decimate every military target in the country at the very least.

“Decimate” — from “deci-” = one-tenth, and “mate” = kill (as students of Spanish know from “matar” = to kill, and the word matador…).

In Roman legions that turned against their commanders, the usual punishment was to punish any identifiable ringleaders and plotters, then turn to the rank-and-file and count them off, slaying each 10th man. Decimation was meant as an response to the “rogue element” or “plausible deniability” defenses within a unit — everyone was at least a tenth-part culpable, and every tenth man would pay the ultimate price.

That said, a more straightforward response to Iran would be the annihilation of every military target, rather than their decimation. I would think that every tank, aircraft, ship, submarine, barracks, armory, unit in the field, base, airstrip, depot, or recruiting station would be a suitable target. That’s just first-year Retaliation 101.

For the additional aspect of being genocidal totalitarians, I’d personally be inclined to extend this to all Iranian governmental elements — legislatures, councils, governors, courts, bureaus, police….down to librarians, meter maids, tax collectors, and dogcatchers. Not because parking attendants and dogcatchers are evil in themselves, but because that forces that there be the cleanest break from the old regime, with their crimes against humanity. It’s not that there’s anything personal to it, it’s only business.

As the picture goes:
CICCI: Sal — Tom — the Boss says he’ll come in a separate car. He says for you two to go on ahead…
TESSIO: Hell, he can’t do that — it screws up all my arrangements!
CICCI: Well, that’s what he said.
TOM (as another buttonman steps up): I can’t go either, Sal.
TESSIO (as he sees a third buttonman step up): Tell Mike it was only business. I always liked him.
TOM: He understands that.

cthulhu on April 21, 2008 at 11:43 PM

But if Bush did it she would want to try him as war criminal.

ronsfi on April 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Hey, freevillage, that’s some mighty strong cognitive dissonance you’re serving up there. Need to stop Iran … mustn’t … use … force.

Right. Like the USSR was contained and it ultimately dissolved only after the US invasion.

Wait…

freevillage on April 21, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Splashman,

Your deterrent theory hasn’t really worked in Iraq, where Al Qaeda had no problem finding a successor to Zarqawi. If killing terrorists were a deterrent to the recruitment of new terrorists, why are we always killing “Al Qaeda’s number 3 man in Iraq”? If you take Islam seriously, and obviously these people do, you will not mind dying in what you consider a jihad, for all of the reasons that it would seem that you know, but you just don’t want to acquiesce to the thought that someone could take that BS seriously enough. Muslim society and religion are very fatalistic. They figure, somewhat correctly, that everyone dies some time, so you might as well die in a way that leads to some higher reward. My hypothesis is that even if you killed the top 100, another 100 would jump up to take their place. Obviously, there must be a lot of cynical manipulators in the Iranian leadership, but you’re essentially postulating that they are all that way and I don’t think they would have been able to rise to the ranks they have without a sincere belief in Islam, including the role of martyrdom in jihad.

For a small scale example of how crazy Islam makes people, look at that guy who tried to bomb the Glasgow airport. Apparently, the guy who stopped him kicked him square in the balls full force and the guy just kept yelling Allah Ackbar, after being on fire and kicked in the balls. Clearly, these people who take Islam seriously are impervious to some of the things that make us say “Whoa”. If you completely discount that fact, as you apparently do, OF COURSE the reasonable thing is to worry about stuff like killing innocents, blah, blah, blah. I’m sorry, but I studied history for many, many years, intensively, and I can find no examples of scenarios like the one we find ourselves in that ended diplomatically. They all ended in mass killing. Period. I’ve actually given up on all the alternatives and I’m just waiting for a critical mass to be reached in the West for what I know is going to eventually happen. And, you know what? When it happens, it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

venividivici on April 21, 2008 at 11:57 PM

If you can’t be reasonable, end of discussion.

Splashman on April 21, 2008 at 9:28 PM

According to Wikipedia (I know, but this sounds about right), global GDP is about $46.66 trillion. Of this, the US is about $13.84 trillion, or a smidge less than a third.

Two things inevitably fall out of those statistics: First, everyone else in the world is going to resent the US as the biggest dog on the porch. Second, anyone actually treating the US as an international pariah will be cutting off 1/3 of their total worldwide potential trading partners, and will thereby fail to prosper.

Second-tier ramifications would be that there will be much anti-US sound and fury — that will, in the end, signify nothing — no matter what happens anywhere in the world.

Accordingly, I’d suspect that

Snort. Making the US an international pariah? Who the fick cares?

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM

is a fairly reasonable assessment.

cthulhu on April 21, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2