|
|
Tags for This Article:
Military (2599) Iran (2258) Iran War (580) War Nuclear (270) Hillary Clinton (257) Nuclear Weapons (245) Insanity (30)
|
Add to My Group
By Dave Lindorff Tough guy Hillary Clinton, on the morning of a critical primary vote in Pennsylvania, uttered a monstrous threat, saying on ABC's "Good Morning America program today that if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel while she was president, "we would be able to totally obliterate them." Think about that a moment! A country that we view as a theocracy, run dictatorially by a bunch of self-appointed religious fanatics, whose rule is enforced by an army of equally fanatic quasi-military thugs and enforcers, launches an attack on America's ally Israel, and Clinton says her response would be to incinerate the people of that country--people who are as powerless to stop such an attack as would be the people of Israel or the United States. Is this the way we want the world the work? Is this the way we want our government to act? Granted that if Iran's leaders were, for some crazy reason, to decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel, it would require some kind of response by the US and other nations, but is the appropriate response the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent Iranian citizens? Of course not. The destruction of Iran's government might be a logical response. Certainly the incineration of the Religious Council might be appropriate, or the leveling of the country's military headquarters and its command and control system. But killing the country's people, who are civilians and have no say over such things, is pathological. Clinton, hoping to prove her testerone levels are high, and to win votes and much-needed campaign swill from backers of Israel, is channeling her inner McCain. What makes this particular threat so disgusting is that Clinton knows better. Unlike McCain, who appears to relish the thought of death and mayhem, whether in Iraq or Iran, and who presents his history of bombing dikes and hospitals in North Vietnam as heroic exploits, she opposed that war in Indochina once upon a time. I assume that among other things she opposed the Indochina War because she thought it was wrong for the US to be slaughtering millions of innocent peasants. Now she's talking about slaughtering not millions of innocent Vietnamese, but tens of millions of innocent Iranians. What a fine display of leadership potential we have here! As far as I'm concerned Clinton has just disqualified herself for the job of commander in chief of the world's most awesome military power. We've had our experience with a power-crazed, jingoistic leader, and we're living with the ugly results--five years of pointless bloody war. At least so far, though, George Bush has kept his finger off the nuclear button (unless reports prove true that small nuclear bunker busters were employed secretly in Iraq and Afghanistan). Now Clinton is saying she's ready to push that button. Folks, if you haven't already got reason enough to reject this woman--her lies about her support for NAFTA, her red-baiting of Barack Obama, her lies about her visit "under fire" to Bosnia, her corrupt financial history, etc., etc.--this latest statement about her readiness to incinerate a nation of 70 million people for the actions of their leaders ought to do the trick. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic answer to John McCain.
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
