Video: Hillary tells Olbermann why she might have to nuke Iran
posted at 10:03 pm on April 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Here’s the whole interview from tonight’s “Countdown,” five of the six questions for which evidently came from dKos after Olby spent the past week flogging Stephanopoulos for stooping so low as to lift material from a partisan source like Sean Hannity. Aside from that bit of Olbypocrisy, he didn’t do too bad of a job. Granted, he let her drone on and on, and naturally he equated the Osama reference in her new ad to fearmongering, but he did at least manage to resist what must have been a terrible urge to turn this into a faux-outrage grandstanding session for his nutroots fans. That’s progress, I guess.
The Iran question’s at 5:35. Her answer is fine — deterrence, deterrence, deterrence — but I don’t see how it gels with what she has to say about fears of a regional arms race if Iran gets the bomb. That’s a perfectly reasonable fear, but does she mean to suggest she’d extend our nuclear umbrella from Israel to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the rest of the Sunni states in order to obviate the need for them to develop their own nukes? Being drawn into a nuclear war to defend Tel Aviv is something Americans might tolerate; being drawn into one to defend Riyadh is something else. If that’s not what she means, then … what? How does her threat of “massive retaliation” do anything to dissuade an arms race?
If you can’t spare time for the whole clip, at least skip ahead to 16:35 and watch her laugh nervously as Olby lets his, ahem, objectivity drop for a moment and asks her how she could do something as unforgivable as accept Richard Mellon Scaife’s endorsement.
Update: Ben Smith has a partial transcript. She is indeed seriously suggesting an American/NATO nuclear umbrella for the Kingdom: “In order to forestall [an arms race], creating some kind of a security agreement where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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:
malan89 on April 21, 2008 at 10:08 PM
So i turned on Olby tonight, and my wife, a former NYC liberal, threw up a little in her mouth.
When NYC Democrats start choking on their own bile, you know a commentator is crap.
Vincenzo on April 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Her specialty is nuking the truth.
whitetop on April 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Keith, you ignorant slut!
km on April 21, 2008 at 10:20 PM
I don’t get it.
malan89 on April 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM
This has been some of the libs’ underlying thought all along — none of this kinder gentler war stuff — instead, wait till the bad guys are begging for it, then blast ‘em off the face of the earth. The point of Bush Administration policy was to head ‘em off at the pass and avoid the scenario of collateral mass horror involved in ultimate confrontations resulting from WMD proliferation. At least that was the point until the recentest NIE and Condi went native at the State Dept.
ForNow on April 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Hillary’s bluster about destroying Iran is the kind of easy, lazy, empty saber-rattling that can only come from someone who is completely convinced they will never have to make good on the threat. Hillary doesn’t believe in an active, aggressive Islamofascist enemy, any more than she thinks she might have to defend the United States from an alien invasion. She would have outlined her plans to avenge the dead of L.A. and Washington against the critters from “Independence Day” in exactly the same tone of voice, treating the whole thing as an empty joke. This is one of the reasons no Democrat can be trusted anywhere near the White House for a generation. I remember how slack-jawed the first WTC bombing, and the U.S.S. Cole attack, left them. They really do think we’re shadow-boxing against a phantom enemy, who was pretty much wiped out in Afghanistan if he ever existed at all. I believe the message of weakness we would send by electing Hillary, or even more so Obama, would be dangerously provocative to a very real enemy that would see no potential gain, and much possible cost, to provoking Bush (or McCain). Against someone as obviously fake as Hillary, or an Obama that doesn’t even rattle a phony saber convincingly, they could well calculate that the time has come to make their move against Israel, or conduct more operations in the U.S. accompanied by further demands. Imagine Obama leading a bloated Democrat majority in Congress, and ask yourself if you wouldn’t fancy your chances against them…
Doctor Zero on April 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM
CAN’T.WATCH.IT.
Thanks for the synopsis.
I predict Hillary by 13% tomorrow in Pennsylvania.
SouthernGent on April 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM
You fight the little wars, so the big war doesn’t happen. It’s a concept lost on the left.
lorien1973 on April 21, 2008 at 10:30 PM
I think, if it’s not 20% or more, she’s done.
lorien1973 on April 21, 2008 at 10:30 PM
malan89
It’s a fantastic Dan Aykroyd joke from SNL. News anchors go back and forth in a slowly intensifying manner until Dan says “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
A classic SNL moment.
Dr. Manhattan on April 21, 2008 at 10:30 PM
At the rate things are going Hillarys fantasy will be
realized!
Meanwhile back at Team Hillary’s Ranch:
Overhead Stratagist talking to Hillary,Hillary the only
obstacle between you and the White House is a Iranian
glass table,after which Hillary says,Great it’ll go good
with my Afghan,and Persian rug collection!
canopfor on April 21, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Speaking of energy, Frau Clinton, how did you vote on ANWR?
john1schn on April 21, 2008 at 10:31 PM
From wikipedia:
“In a parody of the “Point-Counterpoint” segment of the news program 60 Minutes, Curtin portrayed a controlled “liberal”, Politically Correct viewpoint (referencing Shana Alexander) vs. Dan Aykroyd, who (referencing James J. Kilpatrick) prototyped the right-wing view, albeit with an over the top “attack” journalist slant. Curtin would present the liberal “Point” portion first, then Aykroyd would present the “Counterpoint” portion, sometimes beginning with the statement, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
Dr. Manhattan on April 21, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Hillary……… what about letting us drill for our own oil bubbling up under our own feet?
Seven Percent Solution on April 21, 2008 at 10:34 PM
In the “Jane you ignorant slut” skit, if I recall aright, there was a subtext of the pair’s having had an affair that ended inharmoniously.
ForNow on April 21, 2008 at 10:36 PM
So why the strong stance? Why is she lacking the trepid response to questions on Iran that Obama has. He is constantly trying to show the difference between Iran and Hamas, to communicate the idea that his administration will take a more conciliatory tone with Iran. Not so with Clinton; for her it’s, “I’ll see your ‘wipe-Israel-off-the-map’ and raze you to oblivion.” Why does Clinton think that this will help her with the same base that Obama thinks will be put off if he were to take a similar hard line? Is she lying? Is she sending a message to the super-delegates (think general election)? Thoughts?
Weight of Glory on April 21, 2008 at 10:37 PM
No doubt. So who is her prime audience for statements like this? We on the right don’t believe her. Those on the left will hate her for statements like this.
Weight of Glory on April 21, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Sorry, KM. I see what you were doing now.
malan89 on April 21, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Clinton does NOT think, if she has any brains at all, that this will help her with the SAME base that Obama thinks will be put off if he were to take a similar hard line. Part of the point seems to be to make Obama CHOOSE whom to please and whom to displease, as he must if he takes a stand at all.
ForNow on April 21, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Five reasons why Hillary might have to nuke Iran:
1 – Hillary Clinton might nuke Iran because she wants to prove that women can drop the Bomb too.
2 – Hillary Clinton might nuke Iran because it’s easier said than done.
3 – Hillary Clinton might nuke Iran because it’s her stress reliever after the long campaign.
4 – Hillary Clinton might nuke Iran because life is boring in the White House after doing laundry and folding clothes.
5 – Hillary Clinton might nuke Iran because she believes 3 A.M. dreams come true.
Indy Conservative on April 21, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Hillary sounds like she’s throwing in the kitchen sink,
and the whole Kitchen,and by the way the Kitchen is HOT!
canopfor on April 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I think that it would be in America’s interest to join the fray in any Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia.
Whatever the Iranians hit Saudi Arabia with we could just hit Saudi Arabia with more of the same thing and blame it all on the Iranians.
MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 11:04 PM
It would be more fun to hit the Iranians and blame it all on Saudi Arabia.
john1schn on April 21, 2008 at 11:08 PM
OK, but we would have to leave the Iranians with enough left over to hit Saudi Arabia back pretty good.
MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 11:13 PM
So I guess we’ve completely given up on the idea of stopping Iran from GETTING nukes in the first place.
Just wait ’till they use them (against Israel or maybe sorta possibly anyone else too) and then “obliterate” the whole country? Yeah, that’s a Hell of a plan, there.
logis on April 21, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Great. She thinks they need to test if Iran has the martyr mindset. Wow……that surely had to make Israel, Egypt and the Saudis feel better about the whole situation.
Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Madame Hillary! keeps repeating that old canard about “windfall profits” of the oil industry when congressional investigation after investigation has proven the charge false. Her proposal to punish the oil industry with a windfall profits tax is equally stupid in that such a tax is passed on to the consumer, who will obviously pay even more at the pump.
Doctor Zero, you have absolutely nailed the Clinton bluster. The Democrats have no clue about national security.
onlineanalyst on April 21, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Not to go all tin-foil on everyone but they(?) have one hell of a war plan here.
9/11 = AQ. Nobody to hit so we went after their sanctuary Afghanistan. Still can’t wrap that up after 7 years.
Iran passes a bomb off and Israel melts WITH a claim of responsibility from some AQ outfit. Our morals keep us from lashing out and melting anyone.
To hope your enemy isn’t crazy is…well…crazy. There is no way that Iran can first strike Israel into a non-response situation. Their cruise missle capability from their subs means Iran melts too. Yet they continue on their course to getting the bomb. This isn’t a martyr complex?
I need another beer and a shot.
Limerick on April 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Diabolically brilliant!
Cicero43 on April 21, 2008 at 11:31 PM
This tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve meme is the exact same crap Gore used in 2000. Only difference is now all the candidates want to do it, McCain included.
“The strategic reserve is an insurance policy meant for a sudden disruption of our energy supply, or for war. The strategic reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short- term political gain at the cost of long-term national security.” GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH, 2000
lowandslow on April 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I’m sorry, AP… I love you, but I hate Olbermann so much, I cannot bear to watch him for one measly second… I’ll take your word on the outcome of the interview.
D2Boston on April 21, 2008 at 11:35 PM
The stunning passivity of:
not preventing the Iranian maniacs from getting weaponry of the Apocalypse in the first place
is the really disturbing part of this entire “I’d nuke ‘em” conceit.
An ounce of fry their frikkin’ centrifuges is worth a pound of flying neutron bombs
profitsbeard on April 21, 2008 at 11:35 PM
I’ve long had a nagging fear that much of the growing alliance between the Left and the Islamofascists has been a careful laying of the groundwork to prepare the world for the coming nuclear attack on Israel. The fauxtography scandals from the battle against Hamas, the incessant Palestinian victimhood pornography, agitprop like “I Am Rachel Corrie”… I’m sure the Left plays along with a lot of this because it agrees with their fetishes, Israel being a proxy for the hated U.S. and Palestinians seen as oppressed peoples of color, but the Islamist side of these manipulations seems more deliberate and sinister. I don’t have a hard time imagining the Islamists making speeches at the U.N. while fallout is still raining down on Tel Aviv, saying how it’s all so very terrible, but really the Israelis brought it on themselves, and we must remember that an Arab people have also died in this nuclear blaze (that would be the Palestinians, whom no Arab country would mourn as collateral damage, or would welcome as refugees). The Islamists might say that no matter how outraged the world is feeling, the damage is done, one cannot unscramble eggs, and does the world *really* want to compound this tragedy with a war of vengeance, especially after the horrors of the Bushitlerburton years…? And one can easily imagine the likes of Jack Murtha, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and their legion of nutroots followers nodding their heads and muttering, “No, of course not, let us move on…” If we don’t choose our leaders wisely now, we may one day remember the 90s as the years of laying the groundwork for the second Holocaust, when the world got comfortable with the idea of Israel’s death as an unsolved homicide.
Doctor Zero on April 21, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Reads like a Clancy, or even better, Drury novel. So did 9/11. God help us all.
Limerick on April 22, 2008 at 12:07 AM
If you’ve seen Olbermann’s eviscerating special comment on Hillary over Geraldine Ferraro’s comments about Obama, then it’s amazing how ‘cuddly’ he turns when the object of his ire is face-to-face with him. I wonder if Bill O’Reilly came on Countdown, after years of Olby’s taunts, would Keith just breakdown and start blubbing?
schiehallion on April 22, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Obama has only responded to attacks by Clinton?
I remember watching him to a standup comedy routine like Chris Rock, mocking her about shooting duckings with a six shooter
Chakra Hammer on April 22, 2008 at 12:48 AM
remember watching him do* a standup comedy
Chakra Hammer on April 22, 2008 at 12:49 AM
OK. Can we please stop trying so hard to bastardize words? The elusive vanity of coining a new term is clearly addictive to the point of becoming pathological.
Or maybe I’m guilty of cynicatwatification?
LimeyGeek on April 22, 2008 at 3:52 AM
How about Nuke Olby?
pilamaye on April 22, 2008 at 6:07 AM
OK, I sat through the whole thing. Clinton seemed very credible (to/for a Democrat voter) and should have faced down Olby sooner considering his remarks.
If she positions herself as the “female McCain” she could be a problem. Democrats vote democrat, period. Ideas don’t mean squat to them.
Republicans need to continue to be critical of McCain all the way to the election and THEN “hold their noses”. If we start giving him slack now, we could be out of breath (holding our noses) by the time of the election.
Agrippa2k on April 22, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Only an idiot allows his enemy to attacks first. If you see the attack coming, take him out. The harridans strategy is reckless and stupid.
dogsoldier on April 22, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Ignoring the simple fact that Keith Olberman is nothing but a vain, unintelligent piece of TV fluff (he makes Perky Katie look good), his questions and their follow-ups really sucked.
Neither Olberman nor Herself! mentioned the fact that Iran possesses a sizable amount of oil. Said oil is purchased by other countries which, unfortunately, would be seriously P.O.’d if she nuked the Mad Mullahs and their seriously deranged dwarf. How would a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz be perceived by the people of this country as retaliation to such a act? For that matter, is this country ready for oil rationing, the sky rocketing food costs (hey, it takes FUEL to farm) and inflation that would make Zimbabwe look like its economy was on fire.
Granted, Comrade Clinton was playing to the people of Pennsylvania, but one must give pause to consider the consequences and the mental stability of the person that makes such statements. No where in her history has she shown anything but outright arrogance and disdain for the military. Now we’re to accept she would cook off nukes in the Middle East?
What is she thinking??!!! Or is she?
SeniorD on April 22, 2008 at 9:52 AM
So when will our so called energy policy include DRILLING for oil. Biofuels don’t work very well and are driving up the prices of our food, especially the groceries of our poor. Corn is very expensive now that we use it for fuel.
When are we going to get back to drilling and building refineries?
scottjenn on April 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Uh oh. She just lost the mullah vote.
Olberdouche? He really should change his last name to Olberbama.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 22, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Comment pages: