Hillary Clinton must think she’s auditioning for the role of Curtis LeMay in a Hollywood film. That’s the only reason (other than a looming PA. primary in which she’s desperate to sound tough as nails) I can figure she’s sounding more like a Gen. Buck Turgidsen in Dr. Stangelove than a presidential candidate. ABC News reports that on this morning’s Good Morning America she will threaten to obliterate Iran if they attack Israel:
…In an interview airing on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Is this truly how Hillary thinks she’s going to salvage her primary campaign and eke out a win over Obama?? This is precisely the Hillary that so many Democrats have been turned off by–the candidate who thinks she has to out-gun and out-man every other candidate to show she’s tough on defense. The Party doesn’t need another Henry Jackson, Hillary. We need a candidate more like your husband was in 1992–more like…Barack Obama. A candidate appealing to the “better angels of our nature” rather than the warrior within us.
Very simply, she’s an über whore seeking political Jewish gold. At least it helps us, Jew and non-Jew alike, see her for what she is, a competitor in insanity to John McCain. Hers is a nightmare nostalgia wallowing in the slime of pre-World War I’s entangling alliances. But then maybe she isn’t pandering after all, but truly and sincerely believes in mass death and destruction instead of anti-macho diplomacy. But whatever, she really is disgusting. My hope is that when she loses, as she will, she will lose big time, this ultimate Iron Maiden who sadly does not realize that testicles the size of basketballs are freakish.
She reminds me more and more of Maggie Thatcher, hailed as the first ever female British PM, and what a truckload of good she did for gender equality (not). The bag lady also felt compelled to show ’em, so she got herself a war (the Malvinas).
Why does she think people would vote for the pale imitation when they can have the original war party, with the prospect of McCain’s “100 years”?
As for her husband appealing to the better angels, we know how that turned out. Let’s hope Obama, if successful, will keep more of what his campaign promised, but honestly, I’m not holding my breath.
Classic cold war era deterrence. That’s all it is. I know Norm that nuking israel isn’t that big a deal to you but if the Iranians knew that they were going to go know matter how Israel’s second strike capability made out then guess what. They won’t do it. Your boy Obama is the second coming of Neville Chamberlain
She needs to be stopped. Lest we forget the Clintons were also responsbile for some terrible wars. Northern Iraq anyone? Somalia? Thats without going into the whole mess of the Balkans …
Not to mention the fact that they failed to intervene in the Rwanda genocide or do ANYTHING about it…
Its not just republicans that are into war …
Looks like the Black Jesus fell a little short in PA
@froggy: “Responsible?” At best, you can say that Clinton was terribly remiss in not intervening in Rwanda or Bosnia. But saying he was “responsible” for those or the other wars seems unfair.
@Bill Pearlman: You’re right on the edge, Bill. Cut out the offensive snark or I’ll yank yr chain.
I’m not altogether sure, Mr. Pearlman, why I’m bothering to respond again to you, a person whose only talent seems to be in misinterpreting what others say or adding stupidly or deliberately your own paranoia to someone else’s commentary, to say nothing of the apparent fact that you don’t seem to have the mental capacity or will to distinguish between “know” (meaning to be aware of) and “no” (meaning the opposite of what is). However, you do provide a sort of service as I suppose a part of the entertainment industry, in that you consistently invite justified ad hominem attacks on you because of your obtuse effusions. Gives one a kind of sick pleasure and a sense of ethical superiority. As to that “Black Jesus” reference of yours, are we now to assume that you’ve honestly suggested that in addition to your fascistic lockstep on behalf of Israel you are also a bigot? By God, I suspect that if a Likudnik peed into your matzos-ball soup you’d praise him for his moral goodness. With devotees like you, does Israel really need other enemies?
Nice to see that the Comments sections have revved up some for quite a while now, Richard, getting more traffic… keep up the great work.
Yeah, HRC really seems like a benzadrine-pop-adder-wind-up-doll in these moments of warmongering bluster. Some kind of strange combination of Dr. Strangelove (your reference) and the Stepford Wives. I picture her driving through the Midwest in her caravan of black SUV’s with the Ride of the Valkyries blaring in the background, her lips pursed and frowning. It’s unfortunate, because in a lot of ways I think she has a good progressive heart and has been de-railed by her own ambition; her strategic instincts tell her she needs to stake out the neoliberal/con warhawk vote and she’s driven by the sense of needing to seem tough and warrior-like. This is dangerous and tragic stuff. And notice that the nature of the hypothetical Iranian attack isn’t specified. Are we talking a hezbollah-type rocket, or what? And then I guess Iran becomes a nuclear wasteland. Real friendly. She is evidently clueless about American security, to talk in this reckless way.
Yes, I have some innate sympathy for her as well. But it’s been “obliterated” by her tough-gal personna.
Norm, Norm, Norm, First, I’m going to break it to you gently. The Rosenbergs were guilty, so was Alger Hiss., and Stalin was a bad guy. Moving on.
I’m part of the group that doesn’t want Israel destroyed, your part of the group that evidently does. But let me ask you this, seriously. If Iran drops an atomic bomb on Tel Aviv or Jerusalem what would you want our reaction to be, what should we do. Looking forward to your reply.
Know what, Bill, Bill, Bill, I was off and running with a response to your crap, crap, crap, when I hit a wrong key and sent it all to hell, hell, hell. I won’t attempt to remember vanished wisdom in deference to my own self-respect, knowing whatever I might say to you is probably not within your scope of comprehension, and so, knowing I won’t be dialoguing with an evolved creature capable of non-ideological understanding and in possession of a degree of coping with logic and simple truths, I’ll save the time of this 80 years plus person for more useful pursuits. By the way, do you wear a flag pin in your lapel?
Bill, Bill, Bill. Your mama never taught you to play well with others. That little comment above violates my comment rules & you’re going to the principal for that, Bill. Too bad, and you had the potential to be a really nice boy. But somewhere along the line you turned out all bad. When you’ve served yr detention you can come back & join the rest of us slightly more evolved human beings.
Bill, check out the last part of Warren’s comment above. Israel has hundreds of nukes and could turn Iran into a glowing patch of radioactive sand if it so chose. It would be suicidal for Iran to attack Israel – ain’t gonna happen (unless Israel attacks first); Ahmadinejad might be a loose cannon, but I have no doubt that the mullahs in charge are coldly rational people.
Mr. Silverstein,
Today, I stumbled upon this site for the first time, and I have been reading the articles and commentary with great interest, as I remain determinedly hopeful for more peace and less bloodshed throughout the world.
That said, I am disappointed with your treatment of Bill Pearlman. Although Bill has expressed contrary viewpoints with a seemingly discourteous tone, he did not appear to threaten anyone’s safety, nor did he employ profanity in contributing his thoughts. I have also noticed that many of the other posters have been equally discourteous to Bill, and it seems rather Orwellian to silence Bill’s opposition to your opinions simply because you do not agree with what he says and you dislike the manner in which he says it.
Glen: I’m pleased that you find the blog of interest to you & I’m sure Bill will appreciate yr coming to his defense. But you should know that after doing this for over five yrs. I’ve developed some comment rules linked in my sidebar. They exist to ensure the discussion doesn’t go really bad places. If you read the rules over you’ll see that they clearly state that a commenter may not accuse another of wishing to eradicate either Palestine or Israel. Bill knows the rules. He just thinks he’s so clever that he has to get his zingers in. I’ve banned him numerous times before. He always manages to find another IP address & return as he will once more.
It doesn’t require much to comment here even if you disagree w. me or others. But there are some basic standards & rules that I’ve found necessary because of some deeply offensive rhetoric that certain commenters have used before.
I was appalled at Clinton’s obliteration remarks and concluded I could no longer support her. People should be aware this is not the first time a leader or potential leader has uttered these remarks. Hitler promised “Die Vernichtung der Juden” or the obliteration of the Jews. This is not that distant from Clinton promising the obliteration of the Iranian people. This is not diplomacy. It is simply fear mongering