Bush: "Well, you know, I hope it doesn't happen. But, you know, you're asking me to answer a hypothetical. My answer is, and they've got to understand, that we will support Israel if Iran attacks them." CNN Dec. 23, 2007
Clinton sounds tougher than Bush.
McCain commented on the Iran - Israel relationship in what was termed "tough talk" in New York City:
"We have a long way to go diplomatically before we need to contemplate other measures," McCain said. "But it is a simple observation of reality that there is only one thing worse than a military solution, and that, my friends, is a nuclear-armed Iran. New York Post Dec. 11, 2006
In terms of talking tough, Clinton outdoes both Bush and McCain in a walk.
Clinton hypothesized a genocidal attack on Israel by Iran. Her solution is a genocidal attack on Iran by the United States (i.e., "we will totally obliterate them"). Clinton failed to note that Iran lacks nuclear weapons. She also failed to mention that to launch an attack, the future Iranian leaders must be willing die and issue a death sentence to all of their citizens, given Israel's ability to respond (another point she didn't mention).
Clinton failed to consider that the Iranians would be destroying the very people they seek to protect, the Palestinians, who live both within and next door to Israel. And even if the Iranians could avoid retaliation from Israel and the United States (impossible to conceive); they would risk death, disease and hardship as a result of radioactive fallout.
Clinton's statement makes no sense whatsoever in terms of the situation discussed or the public dialog on the use nuclear weapons.
Intended and Unintended Consequences
If Clinton's goal was to appear "tough enough" to be president, then there might be some logic in making such a statement. I'll see your 'protect an ally' and raise you one 'obliteration.'
Why does she need to be tough? Just before Clinton responded to the question about Iran, "Good Morning America" reporter Brian Cuomo asked, "Is winning enough for you." Clinton responded, "I have to win, I believe that's my task and I'm going to do everything I can to win." It's clear that fulfilling her "task" means that there are no limits on what she will say and do to get elected.
In the short term, Clinton may have given President Bush some cover for the long anticipated preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
An imminent attack on Iran has been covered by a variety of sources. It came into clear focus during Zbigniew Brzezinski's Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in February 2007. Recently, the concern has heightened with the resignation of Admiral William Fallon, head of the joint chief, who opposed an Iranian adventure
There's no implication of collusion intended between Clinton and Bush on this matter. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are quite capable of moving forward with their plans without any consideration of the action, the outcomes, and the opinions of citizens. But through her excessive rhetoric in the pursuit of votes and the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton provided some political cover for this plan.
What type of campaign is this when a leading candidate threatens to "obliterate" an entire nation by conjuring up a ridiculous scenario that's years out … just to show that she's tough enough to be president?
What kind of political culture is it that allows such an incredibly disingenuous and reckless statement to be made and then simply vanish without in depth consideration?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
