Flickr photo by sskennel
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate who, while on the campaign trail, said if Iran attacked Israel America would be able to “totally obliterate them,” has renewed talk of such an action.
The Times Online from the UK reports,
“Hillary Clinton refused yesterday to rule out a pre-emptive Israeli military strike on Iran. It was the first time that a senior member of the Obama Administration had openly discussed such a possibility.
The US Secretary Of State, speaking a few days before elections in Iran that will determine the fate of President Ahmadinejad, also warned that the country would face retaliation if it launched a nuclear attack on Israel.”
I don’t condone or support the building or construction of nuclear weapons nor do I support the use of nuclear weapons by any country at all, but I must ask---If America is aiming to enter talks with Iran without preconditions (like Obama has said on the world’s stage), why is Hillary Clinton creating this precondition? What good will come from talks if the entire time Iranian leaders fear we are just going to let Israel attack anyway?
Hillary Clinton spoke about “obliterating Iran” before 2008 Democratic Primary Election was complete.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."- Advertisement -
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
This comment came weeks after pledging “massive retaliation” if Israel was attacked.
Her words may sound like just a warning, but that warning depends on whether you believe there’s a reason to warn Iran or not.
Since Obama has begun to talk about allowing Iran to have a civilian nuclear energy program, it seems like, perhaps, America was saber-rattling and now Hillary continues what the Bush Administration started.
As Robert Scheer, writer for Truthdig.com, wrote, these utterances are not to be taken lightly:
“…Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale…
…What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear “deterrent” than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?”