Iran: Hillary Statement Too "Provocative"

[sabra]

Source: CBS News/AP

Ambassador To U.N. Condemns Clinton For Threat To "Totally Obliterate" Country If It Uses Nukes

(AP) Iran strongly condemned presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton for threatening to attack and "totally obliterate" the country if it uses nuclear weapons.

Late Wednesday, Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, called an April 22 statement on ABC television by the New York senator, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, "provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible" and "a flagrant violation" of the U.N. Charter.

Clinton was asked by ABC News' Chris Cuomo in an interview that aired on "Good Morning America" what she would do if she wins the White House and Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, according to the ABC News Web site.

"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'm president, we will attack Iran" to retaliate against an Iranian nuclear hit on Israel, Clinton said.

...

Danesh-Yazdi's letter used a partial quote that did not mention an attack on Israel. It said Clinton "unwarrantedly and under erroneous and false pretexts threatened to use force against the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/01/world/main4061011.shtml?source=mostpop_story

[leftofcool]

1. But Edwards implied the same thing, so have other Dems.

Is this because Hillary is a woman? Besides, her full quote should have been used, not half of it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Others have only implied it because it is known. Anyone with a

three digit IQ HAS to know what would happen.

Diplomacy is as much what is NOT said as what IS said.

What Hillary doesn't seem to recognize is that by openly saying this, she is giving cover to Bush for whatever HE plans to do. If shit is trumped up with Iran, Bush will claim bi-partisan support for nuking them. Never mind that what happens doesn't match the criteria that she specified (which is a fantasy in any case); he will point to her words as saying the Democrats support him.

Re: the fantasy -- we would never get the chance to nuke Iran - before we got our weapons on line, Isreal's retaliation would have already glassified the entire fucking country. So WHY did she have to say that?

EDIT: In answer to your question "Is it because she's a woman?" the answer is no. It's because she has no political instincts whatsoever. She does not play well with others.

[krkaufman]

9. "implied"

Hillary's statement was not one of implication; there's a difference. We don't need this sort of undiplomatic rhetoric in the White House.

[Chulanowa]

14. Edwards isn't a leading contender for the presidency ofhte United States

Hillary Clinton is

[The River]

15. She Was

She's no longer a "leading" contender.
The only time she was "leading" was before the voting started.

[displacedtexan]

3. Iran blinks. n/t

[L0oniX]

4. Oh I get it now. If you are against Hillary then you are for Iran.

:nuke: :grr:

[hokies4ever]

5. BBC: Iran submits protest letter to UN Security Council

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7376741.stm

Hillary is an idiot. If she's President, she will not be able to repair our world image. Dubya foreign policy term #3. Except nuking Iran is much more likely.

[Baby Snooks]

6. Reality

The reality that no one wants to look at is that Iran is a terrorist state. Made more so by the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Many people foolishly believe that al Queda has nothing to do with Iran because Osama bin Laden is a Sunni and Khomeini was a Shi'ite and yet the reality is that Osama bin Laden looked upon Khomeini as his mentor.

We have a very dangerous world of conflicting ideologies within ideologies. A very dangerous world created by the Bushes and the Clintons and their duplicity.

I do not believe Jimmy Carter has ever discussed it but the reality is that the "protests" against the Shah were orchestrated by our CIA and the CIA, not the Iranian people, wanted the Shah deposed. And the best evidence of that is to be found in Iran-Contra which Bill Clinton decided did not warrant further hearings or investigation.

And of course Halliburton has continued doing business all these years with Iran. Through a "foreign" subsidiary. Which Bill Clinton of course knew and said nothing about. Trading with the enemy as it was once called is not something new. Prescott Bush did it with the Nazis.

Khomeini returned to Tehran and planted a garden of evil. One of the roots extended into Afghanistan and grew into al Queda.

And al Queda has served the Bushes well. And apparently has served the Clintons well. And will continue to serve them well.

The roots of Khomeini's garden never were able to reach into Iraq - Saddam Hussein always cut the roots before the spread and produced new gardens. And we hanged him for it.

People in this country need to finally wake up to reality.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

7. It was terrorist country -Carter

Ford and Nixon too.If you want to know the truth. Just what do you think brought Carter down by a landslide?

It seems rather odd, Obama supporters seem to love to use particles rather than the whole of truth. They seem to cherry pick the aspects of a issue and than convert the issue into a attack on anyone who knows that inexperience leads to disaster.

Look folks Kerry cannot talk to people ,he always fumbles around with words trying to kick down with statements that he thinks people can understand. He just doesn't know people.Obama is just like him! It,s not all bad,it just isn't good.

The swift boating took it's toll, but Kerry,s detachment from people ,his inability to talk to every day,day dream believers is why he lost.
Those that know about Kerry know that his intentions are good ,but the fact is no matter how hard he tries ,he just doesn't know the language of the people.

At least Kerry realizes that,as for Obama,he will come come to know the way the truth and the light when he loses the race.And from that experience he just may gain something by it.He just may realize something about himself he just doesn't get. He just doesn't get it.You need a myth?Read a book.

Obama doesn't get it
Hillary does
Get it right
Hillary for president!

[ronnie624]

10. Nonsense.

If you do not consider the United States to be a "terrorist state", then the term has no meaning at all.

Do yourself a favor and objectively examine the history of U.S. foreign policy for the eighty years or so preceding the Clinton Administration.

[jpak]

8. That statement proves that Clinton has "testicular fortitude" and ain't no "pansy"

:evilgrin:

[plasticsundance]

11. Now all she as to do is witness an execution

In a Rickey Ray Rector manner

[bernynhel]

12. Never mind that the collective Arab nations have promised to push every Israeli into the sea

since the beginning of Israel as a nation.

Never mind that the above declaration has been the official policy of the majority of Israel's neighbors at one time or another.

Never mind that similar language against Arab countries, Egypt or the Palestinians has never come, un-provoked or otherwise, from Israel, the US, et al.

Never mind that Israel has always been pressured into returning captured lands that were justifiably taken in defense of armed aggression against them.

Never mind that the British left almost all of their military munitions and hardware in the hands of Arabs in retaliation to Zionist efforts to oust British rule when those efforts (terrorism? fine. so what?! how the US gained its independance!)finally succeeded. Equipment immediately put to use against Israel upon British departure.

Never mind the outcry from the entire world against Israel when they took out Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981 only to be applauded years later when such praise became politically correct.

Never mind that the only reason for the Bush administration being the friendliest to Israel, ever, is entirely due to George Bush's personal, religious belief that conditions in Israel must be "just so" for the Second Coming to happen which would, if that anti-semitic tract known as the New Testament is to be taken literally, would annihilate all Jews in one fell swoop. OK, so Israel will take what it can get. Even from a lunatic.

Yes, Israel will NOT require any help from the US or anyone else in vaporizing any of its neighbors stupid enough to instigate anything even approaching the folly of a nuclear attack. The ONLY reason one hasn't occurred already. Why should Israel depend on any nation saving her based on history?

Hillary said what she said. So what? If anyone thinks that such a statement is a finite indication of how she will behave as the President must obviously conclude that the effects of a brutally long and arduous campaign for the presidency mirrors exactly the effects of actually being in office has on one's bedside manner!

Such a conclusion is moronic. Anyone who would actually claim to believe such BS MUST be a liar or a fool or both. Or a Republican.

My point: Hillary or Barack? Both! Hillary NOW, Obama in eight years as he is far more likely to run again if not elected in November. No one can possibly know who would be better now but I do know that either would be infinitely better than the catastrophe of the Bush administration and that a chance at sixteen years of GOP absence in the White House has to be twice as appealing as eight.

And I can't think of a better strategy.

And thank-you, sabra, for this thread!

[Indenturedebtor]

13. I'm with you up until this part

"Hillary said what she said. So what? If anyone thinks that such a statement is a finite indication of how she will behave as the President must obviously conclude that the effects of a brutally long and arduous campaign for the presidency mirrors exactly the effects of actually being in office has on one's bedside manner!

Such a conclusion is moronic. Anyone who would actually claim to believe such BS MUST be a liar or a fool or both. Or a Republican.

My point: Hillary or Barack? Both! Hillary NOW, Obama in eight years as he is far more likely to run again if not elected in November. No one can possibly know who would be better now but I do know that either would be infinitely better than the catastrophe of the Bush administration and that a chance at sixteen years of GOP absence in the White House has to be twice as appealing as eight.

And I can't think of a better strategy."

Hillary's posturing on Iran is blatant political machinating that harms our foreign policy efforts in the world. Far too often self described experts of "real politique" overlook the true mechanisms of diplomacy. As has been mentioned upthread the statement was completely unneccessary AND places Iranian and other extremist governments and groups in a position to rally support against American belligerence.

Furthermore if any situation should arise (spaghetti monster forbid) where we should actually "need" to attack Iran, this sabre rattling will undermine our efforts to rally allies to the cause. Frankly she made us all look like a bunch of crazies. Here's the day to day analogy:

*** There's a sales contest at work. The contest states that the person with the most sales at the end of the month will get 1,000 bucks. I have consistently been the top salesman for the last few months. Everyone knows that failing some disaster I will win the contest, and that I will have more help from management to do so. when the contest is announced I stand up on the table and scream "Hey everyone, I'm better than you are. You are all stupid. Management gives me more help than the rest of you every month because I am the greatest, and even they know that you are stupid worthless salespeople. Thank you." I then take a nother shot of whisky, rip my underwear off and fling it at the secretary. ******

That's what her statement said to the world. Ready to be a terrible disaster on day one of her campaign.

[bernynhel]

16. Well, I thought we were commenting on the same thread...

the point of which was that Clinton was misquoted to begin with, and that she was replying to the specific question which the sabra has provided, but now I'm not so sure... that you read the beginning of the thread. lol If what is believed by many, based on mis-information - that Clinton's statement were true, I'd agree with you. But that is not the case. My position is based on what was actually said which doesn't come close to the intensity of your analogy. Funny analogy though! Like it a lot just don't think it applies. And that, again, even statements considered over the top made in this campaign by both candidates, in my opinion, compared to what, let's say I might make if under the same pressure, are quite restrained. I know that if some of the repulsive things I've read about and heard from audiences which were hurled at Mrs. Clinton were ever said to my mother, in my presence, that I have no doubt that, at the very least, I would be serving time for aggravated assault. Another thing. Iran's agenda is one of the creepiest in the world. That one would state that Iran should expect to be dealt with if they should strike anywhere with nuclear arms, in my opinion, shouldn't even raise an eyebrow.