IRAN: Considering Hillary Clinton's 'obliterate' remarks

A supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has sent a note in a response to an earlier post suggesting that the presidential candidate's statement vowing to "totally obliterate" Iran if it were to launch an attack on Israel was taken out of context.

Actually, what she said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America" was that she would "totally obliterate them" even if they merely "consider" launching an attack on Israel.

Here's a clip from the interview with ABC's Chris Cuomo:

Below a transcript of the entire exchange:

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.

— Borzou Daragahi in Beirut

P.S. The Los Angeles Times issues a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East, the war in Iraq and the frictions between the West and Islam. You can subscribe by registering at the website here, logging in here and clicking on the World: Mideast newsletter box here.

Comments

[Junie]

Why is she so much like Bush now?

In order to avoid further wars, which sends the state into deficit, or even nuclear war which Hilary mentions here, it seems like Obama is the only option.

[erik benson]

plan for war, keep it firm in ya mind,
and that is what you create
WARMONGERS BACKOUT

[Siamak M]

I wonder what would happen if she were the American president in the second world war. Would she consider obliterating Germany, Italy and Japan for attacking the allies of the United States?
One other question: after the American nuclear attack on Hiroshima, if one of the Axis countries possessed a nuclear bomb, would it be ok if they obliterated the United States in retaliation for the US nuclear attack on their ally?

[Hernan Tasies]

Carter in no way was responsible for Iran's Islamic revolution. It was tricky Dick and old Kissing Doll who found it convenient to remove Mossedeq due to his audacious intention of nationalizing Iran's oil reserves. Carter simply had to deal with the blow back.

[Lisa Linton]

Again we are witness to either pure abject ignorance of our politicians, or their their abject carelessness of the average human being. By this remark I mean to say that the people running the government in Iran whom i must add were put in that position during the the democratic presidency of one Jimmy Carter, do not give a rats ass about what happens to the general population in Iran; they have enough funds outside the country and obliterating the country would only harm the innocent people.
The other side of the coin is that our wonderful politicians are aware of all this and really do not give a rats ass which makes them no better than the Mullahs running Iran.

[wes]

No matter how you look at it, this was just a very irresponsible answer by Hillary.

[CJ]

So who wants to demonstrate their lack of stupidity or insidious yet amateurish jump to re-frame out of context what Hillary has said next? Really, fellas - this is not newsworthy and the rest of the world is reberbrating with laughter upon witnessing, once again, the froth of substance-less idiocy which we consider news.

Please, report these things in context. You make yellow journalism look black and white.

And personally, from a non-committed as of yet (and thorougly worried about where choice is going in this country) why does Obama not take up Hillary's offer of a campaign free from moderation by relative idiots more obsessed with the decades old goings on with Bill and whether or not Obama's pasteur's words have anything to do with him wearing a flag pin in PA.

CJ in NY

[G. Bart]

Upon reading the above quote it appears that Clinton said that the US "would be able to totally obliterate them" not that the US would obliterate them.

Also, just reading the quote, it is not clear to me that Clinton was not saying that the US would be able to totally obliterate "their nuclear weapons program" if used rather than saying that the US would obliterate Iran.

[Sharon]

Firstly, how interesting that Mr Carter takes the time to track down verifiable information about Hillary Clinton yet continues to spread lies and rumors about Barack Obama.

We Americans will get what we vote for in November so if you want to keep it in the Republican party, be my guest.

As to Clinton's comments, it's the dying remarks of a failed campaign and I really don't think at this point that she cares what she says, or about whom.

[frank carter]

we need a person of good will and peace, not telling the news media if you don't behave we will obliterate you, saying and hoping it will act as a deter...why show your hand, the Arabs ain't stupid remember 9-11

It shows you what she will do at 3am in the morning...that's why I;m sitting this election out...then the question of Mr. O Bama whether he is an American or a brother or kin to the Arabs..damn if you do, and damn if you don't