Clinton Would ‘Obliterate’ Iran
By Agence France Presse
Democratic presidential Hillary Clinton has threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it launches a nuclear attack against Israel as she fights for her own political survival.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Senator Clinton told ABC News, asked what she would do as president were Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.”In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
The tough talk came just prior to today’s Pennsylvania primary, a key milestone in the marathon Democratic nominations race pitting Senator Clinton against her rival Barack Obama.
Senator Clinton must win the Pennsylvania primary, but she needs to do more than simply scrape past Senator Obama to rescue her trailing White House bid, pundits say.
Senator Obama’s camp yesterday accused Senator Clinton of trying to scare voters, as she rocked their White House race with a dark campaign ad featuring images of al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden.
The ad uses pictures of Pearl Harbour, bin Laden and the devastating 2005 hurricane that swamped New Orleans, mirroring the “3am phone call” spot credited with helping Senator Clinton to win in Texas and Ohio last month.
“You need to be ready for anything - especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis,” the male narrator intones.
“Who do you think has what it takes?”
Both Democrats have vowed to defend Israel against any Iranian attack, but they differ on how to engage the Islamic republic over its nuclear ambitions.
Both call for diplomacy, but Senator Obama has gone further, renewing a promise of “direct talks” at a leaders’ level with Tehran and others the United States regards as foes, at a candidate debate here last week.
Iran should be presented with “carrots and sticks,” the Illinois senator said, while stressing “they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons.”
At the debate, he said: “An (Iranian) attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one whose security we consider paramount.”
“That would be an act of aggression that I would consider unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.”
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
- Spotlight this page
www.VelvetRevolution.us
Kissing Israel's Ass again ?
Why must we endure these moronic excuses for issues. Iran has no nuclear weapons but Israel does and will not allow any international monitoring, furthermore Israel is our "strongest " ally in the region mainly because we give them billions of dollars and tons of bombs each year, when was the last time Israel did anything for OUR benefit? Our relationship is decidedly one sided and Israel has started many conflicts just to get us involved. Now we have presidental candidates claiming they are willing to kill millions of innocent civilians for the fictional acts of their government ( sounds very much like Iraq). The govt. of Iran will get no free passes from me but they never said they wanted to " wipe Israel off the map" that is another made up quote from our elitist media. Israel might get more support if they stopped their horrendous policies toward the Palistinians, a situation very much like our treatment of the native americans.
mp
I agree with you. Keep posting. We are in the same vein.
thanks
EW
She's just as bad as Bush
And I've always felt that way about her. Vote for Hillary or McCain for President and you get more of the same that we've had for the past eight years (or more). This is EXACTLY why I will not vote in the Presidential election if Hillary is the nominee.
I'm not suprised in the least by this comment.
I really wish the elections weren't rigged...
That way Obama would win, and all these Obamaites would eventually come to the conclusion that he really isn't what they THINK he is.
They'll all eventuall say "What? Why didn't someone SAY something"?.
Obama's position on Iran is exactly the SAME as Clinton's. The ONLY difference is he includes the term "carrots and sticks" when he says 'all options are on the table including the nuclear option to defend OUR INTERESTS IN THE REGION.".
It's like the Columbia Free Trade Agreement. They BOth say it is fine, except for the little "murdering activists and labor organizers" thing. Get that cleared up (ie. patsy fall guy) and then BOTH Clinton as well as Obama, will claim a victory for human rights, and sign off on the new Free-Trade agreement as fast as they can (bringing slave and starvation wages to Columbia and huge profits for the usual suspect global corporations.).
At some point you would think that people would remember that the DLC and the DnC with the help of the MSM, removed the truely progressive candidates that threatened to really bring about serious change in the system. Those candidates that didn't just pay lip service to a bunch of desperately hopeful young people.
Perhaps these people think that Obama was just too powerful and that is why he is still in the running. I guess they forgot that Kerry was thinking of getting in the race, and he was brushed aside, and that Gore could still announce tomorrow and probably win the election... but for some reason, he stayed out (you think he doesn't want to be president?)
Not to mention they supposedly wiped the floor with Edwards... Having already been cheated out of office once, his popular message of progressive action was abit further left than Obama's is even now.... and yet, he's gone by the wayside to.
And Obama's too powerful to be stopped? Give me a break. He is just as corrupt as Clinton, just younger, with less he has to lie about.
But give him time.
I don't think she meant it the way it came across
I'm not for Clinton, but, in fairness, I think it was her way of saying Iran isn't a threat and not to worry about it. She did say in ten years and so it was speculative about some attack in the distant future.
I agree , Lochinvar, she didn't
I also fear possible paid propagandists , as youngharry said.
We need to be united against MCCAIN and his third Bush term, if we really want to end the ERA of the NEOCONS.
History shows us that this ilk uses "divide and conquer" tactics, so why wouldn't we want to do the peaceful tactic that has historically worked for we the people, and UNITE instead?
The unfortunate historical alternative would be the implosion of empires, such as Roman Empire and the Third Reich .
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
I wish you were right,
I wish you were right, Lochinvar.
http://goodgirlroxie.blogspot.com/2008/04/sen-clintons-policy-of-total.h...