But What Did Hillary Actually Say?

Share/Save/Bookmark

Rosie T.
by Rosie T.
26-Apr-2008
 

I don't like her, and if she wins the primary, I won't be able to vote. Having said that, here is the text from her interview with Chris Cuomo:

CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be 'massive retaliation." Scary words. Does 'massive retaliation" mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. 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.

___________

It is true "obliterate" is a nasty word--which she has since admitted--but that doesn't make her response a threat of genocide. It's a threat and a DETERRANT to Iran not to attack Israel, which whould be "recklesss, foolish, and tragic." It's a display of muscle and it's also a statement of an elementary fact: the U.S."WOULD be able to [i.e. has the capability to] totally obliterate" Iran. And for that matter, so does Israel. But it really isn't a threat of genocide. And she said it by the way right after giving a one-year plan to withdraw troops from Iraq.

So for me the compelling issue isn't that Hillary "threatened""genocide" against Iran, as so many people here are saying. The compelling issues are:

- why is she spreading the belief that Iran plans to attack Israel? It's a highly improbable and rather prepostrous scenario.

--why is she spreading the belief that Iran will develop and use nuclear weapons? It's not proven.

--why is she further demonizing Iran? Iran's already demonized enough.

Aside from the obvious answer, which is to please the Zionist lobby, here are some guesses, bearing in mind that I'm no political analyst:

--she wants to differentiate herself from Obama with tough talk because they're running too neck in neck.

---she wants to be seen as a viable competitor to McCain with tough talk to attract a certain Republican swing vote.

--she wants to make sure she doesn't lose a segment of her own power base, which are the most uneducated people who generally respond to jingoism and fear tactics (tough talk). (Obama's consituency include the most highly educated).

See the thread under the article "Cowboys and Iranians" for a few analyses far better than my own, if you haven't already and you can wade through the long thread. As I said, I'm no political analyst and I don't blog about politics, but in this case I couldn't stop myself. I think it's very dangerous to think in soundbytes that are taken out of context. You have to be BETTER than your opponent. Stick scrupulously to the text. My two cents, for whatever it's worth.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Rosie T.CommentsDate
guess who
8
Aug 19, 2008
what is the color of love
10
Aug 17, 2008
Our Generation (for nazy kaviani)
3
Aug 15, 2008
more from Rosie T.
 
almo5000

Don't try to defend the words of a "bitch"

by almo5000 on

This Hilary bitch may be stooping to the lowest of low to appease the zionists, but noone should try to defend what she had said. We all should try to defeat her and John MCBush in the elections.


default

Nothing can justify what she has said

by Karim (not verified) on

First of all, why should the united states retaliate if Iran attacks Israel. Isn't Israel in a position to defend itself? What if Israel attacks Iran (which by the way is more probable)? Does the US switch sides and retaliate against Israel? Secondly, Who gives Mrs. Clinton the right to obliterate an entire nation (including women, children, young and old all together)? If this isn't genocide, then what is? Even the threat of destroying an entire nation by someone who wants to become the leader of the most powerful country in the world is reckless, scary, and should be taken seriously.

If Mrs. Clinton talks like a bully, acts like a political prostitute to please the Zionist lobby, and shows her dishonesty even now, how can I be certain that she is just bluffing, politicking, and she will not actually use the red phone at 3am to pulverize Iran when she gets the chance. Remember, George W was also sold to us as a compassionate conservative.

Clinton has definitely lost my vote.


default

What do you mean USA Loves Iran?

by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on

If by USA you mean the American people; we are not sure about this; but we are sure the Iranian people like the American people. Regardless people loving each other means nothing.

US Gov. planning to attack Iran is definitely not because of their love for the Iranian people. I can assure you of this.


default

She needs her brain examined!

by Anonymo (not verified) on

,,,and she wants to answer th ephone at 3 AM? Thanks but no thanks keep sleeping!!

That very answer says why Obama is a better choice.


Dariushagha

Who cares what she said.

by Dariushagha on

من اول ایرانی هستم.

IT IS NOT IMPORTAN WHAT SHE SAYS, IT IS IMPORTANT WHAT THE POEPLE OF IRAN (NOT THE AKHOUNDS) WILL DO ABOUT IT? ARE THEY GOING SIT AND WATCH THOSE IDIOT AKHOUNDS DO SUCH A STUPID AND COWARD ACT?, UNFORTUNATELY, THE POEPLE HAVE ALREADY LOSS THEIR WILL, UNLESS THEY WAKE UP AND REPLACE THIS AKHOUDIST REGIM WITH A BETTER SYSYTEM SUCH AS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC REGIM. THEY WILL LEAVE NO CHOICE FOR OTHERS TO ACT ON THEIR BEST INTERESTS.

OTHER THING.. REMEMBER.. USA LOVES IRAN. AND ALSO IRAN LOVES USA.

 

 


Rosie T.

Dear Ari,

by Rosie T. on

I absolutely agree with you.  She's dishonest, manipulative, and entirely lacks a moral compass.  That is why if she wins the primary I won't be able to vote.  I despise everything about McCain's foreign policy but I think he has much more integrity than Hillary, that is to say he believes in what he believes in and he (usually) stands by it.  She's a political whore.  So I can't in good conscience vote for her, and this kills me because like I said I despise McCain's foreign policy.  But I could not cast a vote for her.

I am just trying to dispel the PANIC that is going on on this website about purported "threats" of "genocide".  They do not exist.  And to warn people about the dangers of accepting "soundbytes" as the whole truth.  This is a technolgocial age.  Information is easily manipulated.  Photos no longer document reality, they are constantly manipulated.  The same is true of soundbytes.  They do not document the reality of what was said. and they spread like wildfire on the Internet and create what are known as "urban legends."  In the political arena this is extremely dangerous.  I am trying to say that soundbytes must be approached with extreme caution and the context must always be investigated.  I don't LIKE what she said but to say she threatened genocide is really far-fetched.

 That;s all I'm trying to say.


samsam1111

she invited ahmadinejad to go to washington

by samsam1111 on

to negotation table so she can drain the filthy mucus from his tazi brain...


default

who cares what she says

by shirazie (not verified) on

we will survived the Mongolians. We will survive Hilary and her Israeli Goons


default

Dear Rosie:

by Ari (not verified) on

In response to this question she should have said, I will not respond to such a hypothetical question. She has said she doesn't like hypothetical questions and has refused to respond to them. However, here she jumps in without a hesitation and gives this bull shit offensive remark.

If her audience are the ignorant then she shouldn't take advantage of their ignorance, but rather try to educate them. She could have responded in a number of different ways, but did not. If this her tactic then she could always take advantage of the American public, just like George Bush.