Boston Globe lambastes Hillary Clinton over Iran

Another day, another editorial in a major newspaper that sternly takes Hillary Clinton to task.

Last Wednesday, while she reveled in her impressive Pennsylvania primary win, the New York Times (her hometown paper) put the blame mainly on her for what it deemed the unduly harsh and hollow tenor of debate in the Democratic presidential race (read that piece here).

The Boston Globe, in an editorial headlined "Hillary Strangelove," this morning calls her out for her recent comment that, as president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if that country attacked Israel.

The paper noted that what it termed "this foolish and dangerous threat," uttered on ABC's "Good Morning America" the day of the Pennsylvania vote, received little attention in the U.S. But, the Globe added, "it reverberated in headlines around the world."

Those upset by Clinton's comment included the Arab News, which made a comparison that nowadays represents the cruelest critique many in other nations direct at a U.S. politician. Clinton's warning to Iran, the Saudi-based paper wrote, "demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished (President Bush's) foreign relations."

The Globe sums up thusly: "A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran -- and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran -- should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night."

Which, looking ahead, makes us wonder: If Clinton ends up the Democratic nominee, will the leading journalistic voice in one of the nation's most liberal states endorse Republican John McCain?

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[John B Sheffield]

The Boston Globe are just telling the Truth, the UK Foreign Minister expressed concerns about Hillary's Iran comments and the UK and European Media are seeing Hillary as a Joke, her lies the bullets and snipers at Bosnia on her and Chelsea, the sad story of the berheaved woman and her unborn baby just to help her health care plans.

It is time that Voters wake up and see the Real Hillary, she is trying to Fool us, do we want more of "The Dynasty" - Hillary is a Loose Cannon which will lead the US to disaster.

[EZ Tempo]

She's dangerously glib about mass murder. As the Globe says, "A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night."

[Lynn]

Obama cannot help it if Pastor Wright says controversial things, but here is Hillary herself saying something so controversial that it will ignite the Islamic extremists in disparate groups against her. I guess, just like Bush, Hillary is a uniter, just of the wrong people. If Hillary were to become President, I think the extremist war against us would go into overdrive. She has just ruined her chances of making any progress in Iraq and getting anything resolved in the Middle East on any front.

[toby]

Didn't McCain sing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of Barbara ann by the Beach boys?

Now let me clear something up, now Iran is the country that keeps on saying that they will wipe Israel off the map? Right?

The leader of Iran is vocally pro-genocide towards Jews...and has many times publicly supported the total destruction of Israel and it's society.

That Iran right?

Yeah, damn anyone who gets tough with that country...they sound....pleasant.

[latinovoter1]

This is the type of OLD WASHINGTON politics we need to get away from. Her Remarks were HORRIBLE.

[hector J. vega]

the slant in this article reaffirms my feelings tha Fredrick, like Malcom, is a Clinton Hater. The latest polls show that the majority of us are not. She beats the other remaining candidates beyond all margins of error. I think at this stage of Iran's level of beligerences, the unequivical statement saying - Hands off Isreal-or else. is warrented.

[Skyler]

I would hope that if a hostile country launched a nuclear attack against us or our allies, that any president would wipe that country off the face of the earth.

That's what deterance is about, nitwits!

[Core Democrat]

One more time......
Obama supporters,
Do you recall the Pakistan comment? Obama said he was going to drop a nuclear bomb on Pakistan! And you are blogging this regarding Hillary Clinton!

Desperate because she is winning and he is losing.

[Brian]

If I'm not mistaken, Israel is one of our strongest allies.
If Iran attacked them, should we not retaliate? What is the point of the controversy?

[Sam]

The OBLITERATE PROMISE from the LIPS of Senator Clinton SHOCKED me to the CORE. Please do not FIGHT FOR ME Ms. Clinton.....and stop taunting Obama to debate with you. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Promising to OBLITERATE any country to attract votes has made me decide to VOTE NO ON HILLARY.....PERIOD. If HIllary WINS...we need a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

[cat]

I've been wondering when the media would call Billary on this thoughtful and articulate example of her foreign relations wisdom...sigh. And the "nitwits" who think this is an example of "deterance" are just as clueless as this...misstatement.

[Isaac]

Sure, you are all right and Hillary is wrong, let's have coffee with Ahmadinejad and everything is going to be fine...you are all a joke and a bunch of appeasers just like Chamberlain with Hitler..good luck with Obama!

[Mark]

The view of ex-pats here in the UK is Hillary needs a reality check!

www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com

We know what the world thinks of us and it isn't pretty!

[Concerned citizen]

That very reckless comment should disqualify her from presidency. That statement is condoning genocide.

Regardless, last time I checked it is Israel who has hundreds of nukes not Iran. So question would be what to do if Israel attacks Iran?!

[Jeff Cronin]

All of you apologists for HRC (say anything, do anything...), Israel is already the world's fifth largest nuclear power, and it has nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran. They don't need our nuclear protection. Iran has over 70 million people. Don't you people have better instincts than to support reckless statements by a has been?

[James]

Hillary should just shut-up about Iran. Let Israel, who has been directly threatened with total annihilation by the leaders within virtually every Iranian Government
and Religious appartus many times handle the threat.

I have never once heard any elected leader of Israel call for the total annihilation of any other country, not
even Iran. It's always about deterrence, and to ensure that Iran or other anti-semitic countries, or groups can
never attadc Israel with weapons of mass destruction.

This juistg isn't our job. The Israelis have everything they'll ever need to protect themselves, and make no
mistake they will do so.

[JackJ]

Actually, if Clinton was being sincere, then I'd be forced to agree with her comment. If Iran attacked Israel, given Ahmedinejad's comments about wiping Israel off the map, that action would justify the USA, Israel's close ally, retaliating very harshly indeed! However, as so often with Clinton, she was dissembling and probably lying. I don't think she has the faintest idea what should be done in this situation! I think she went for a macho reply in order to impress certain audiences about her "toughness and readiness for such a crisis." She also wanted to demonstrate "support" for Israel. The truth is its all bluff, smoke and mirrors. She has never been a great supporter of Israel and couldn't be relied on to act appropriately. Israel knows this, and wouldn't look to her for anything, let alone decisive action.

[Jorge]

I agree with the Boston Globe and her stance on another war with Iran costed her the vote of my family and me. We can't nuke every nation that the Jewish lobby doesn't approve of. Iraq is a clear and good example of Murphy's law and we don't need another propganda how easy the victory will be. If the most powerful nation in the world can't handle the militia in Iraq and considering that Russia or China has not meddled into the war, what can makes us believe that Iran will be a piece of cake and not another worse debacle than Iraq. We need another war with Iran like we need the plague.

[ali kafi,MD]

What is troubling is first she assumes Iran is going to attack Israel with atomic bomb that they don,t have. She may use the same reasoning for pre-emptive attack as we did in Iraq.
This is Bush doctrine and a lot of innocent people will die.
What has happened to us,are we a paranoid nation with
military power and Atomic bomb that don't care about other nations?

[jennifer potenciano]

with all due respect to the great american press, this student of political science has an altogether different take (that disputes the boston globe’s stand & that of other equally nervous foreign press) on hillary’s recent “iran” pronouncement, flush as she was with her days’ old obama rout at the pennsylvania primary.

on the surface, it looks like there’s no excusing hillary for such a spur-of-the-moment, “erroneous” (for boston globe) pronouncement. but there’s a mitigating factor to this. you do have to see it from a prexy nominee’s viewpoint. as a perceptive american journalist saw it a day or two after hillary made her “iran” remark, this journalist opined that hillary was just trying to endear herself to the macho americanos & the powerful jewish americans by assuring israel that iran will definitely rue the day if ahmadinehad ever tries to “nuke” israel. hillary tried to strike a macho pose herself, & more importantly, tried to win the confidence of the very influential jewish sector of the american population--& in the private business sector as well. to this end, you have to grant that hillary’s remark made sense.

but seen at its face value, hillary could have been basically correct in her seemingly knee-jerk reaction to the reporter’s question on iran. discounting the hyperbolic extrapolation of the certified anti-hillary boston globe (“obliterating all the sons, daughters, grandparents, et. al in iran,” or words to that effect), such hillary warning could have sent the necessary shivers down the spines of the seemingly war freak faction of iran’s present ruling regime.

remember that iran’s extremist religious fundamentalist ruling regime is hell-bent on having their own nuclear expertise, even at the cost of sacrificing their people’s welfare. unlike one of its neighbors, saudi arabia, which takes care of its people so well (to the point of engendering a welfare state), iran leaves much to be desired. yet, realizing to the fullest its nuclear capability--& in the process, building its own arsenal of powerful nuclear missiles—against its perceived enemies (where israel tops the list) remains the abiding goal of this hegemony-obsessed ruling clique, as typified by its president, mr, ahmadinejad. (to be fair, some middle east experts in america believe there are still a great number of sober-minded iranian leaders who aren’t sold to the idea of iran “obliterating” israel first, but are even more open to peaceful coexistence than to a “quick, short war” via nuclear extinction.)

hillary’s “obliterating” pronouncement hopefully served just enough warning that as commander-in-chief, hillary will have no compunction employing everything necessary to make the iranian hawks toe the line: “ you, ahmadinejad & the rest of you boys, better behave, or i’ll sock it to you. this is the american commander-in-chief, hillary rodham clinton speaking.”

in any case, did boston globe hear what obama said of the nobel laureate jimmy carter’s meeting with the hamas top guns? obama disapproved of the former american president’s latest diplomatic move, a peace overture to israel itself. seen from hindsight, mr. carter’s latest middle east trip did much to avert even greater loss of lives in the further escalation of the war of nerves between the hamas & israel. did we hear a peep or read an obama chiding from boston globe? nada. but why the bias for obama?

having said all these things, this is precisely the reason why i am persuading obama to engage hillary in a one-on-one lincoln-douglas type of debate before the indiana primary, so that their respective stands on these monumental foreign issues will be clarified & made known to the world audiences—but more so their original constituency, the great american people.

if only to calm the jittery nerves of the old fogeys at the boston globe, such a no-nonsense, one-on-one debate between hillary & obama is well worth it. stop being a sissy, barrack, & show you’ve got balls, figuratively speaking. debate Hillary.****

[Isaac]

To answer Concerned Citizen's question about what to do if Israel attacks Iran?!
Here is the answer: just say "Good Riddance!!!!"

[Tom J]

Yes, it's an important story that says a lot about her judgment (or lack thereof). If you want to keep it in the public eye, I suggest you Digg it, Reddit, or whatever else you can think of:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Clinton_Wants_to_Totally_Obliterate_Iran_

[Truthseeker]

First of all let's get something clear:

1. The President of Iran never said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". His statement was totally mis-translated and manipulated to read as such to further demonize Iran and Ahmadinejad.

He said the Zionist regime (he didn't mention Israel, he never mentioned map, and never said wipe out ) like the Pahlavi regime, like the Soviet union will fall apart by its own self destruction. Not that Iran would destroy it If Iran wanted to destroy Jews, it has its own Jewish Population and could start with its own!!

2. Israel has 200 to 500 nuclear weapons; and not a signatory to the NPT, and refuses to have any IAEA inspection.

3. Israel has the 4th largest and most sophisticated military arsenal at its disposal, thanks to our tax dollars; Iran doesn't.

4. Iran has asked for a nuclear free zone Middle East; Israel has refused.

5. Iran has not attacked or invaded any country for the past 300 years, while Israel has.

6. Iran is not suicidal, if it ever had any nuclear weapons which it does not; and if it attacked it might as well shoot
itself.

After all it has been Israel who has been threatening to wipe Iran off the map and not Iran for many, many years:

• Israel has as early as 1992 prepared public opinion in Israel for the prospect of a war with Iran. In this respect it has also continuously used propaganda to provoke the U.S. and the West to take action against Iran. (Open Secret: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policy by Israel Shahak – February 24, 1993)

• Guardian Unlimited – Straw rejects Israeli call for attack on Iran – Tuesday November 5, 2002

“The Foreign secretary, Jack Straw, today dismissed an Israeli call to attack Iran immediately following a strike on Iraq, and called a war on Iran the “gravest possible error.”

“In an interview in today’s Times, the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon identified Iran as a “centre of world terror”. Mr. Sharon advocated military strike against the country as soon s the U.S. and Britain had completed their proposed attack on Iraq.”

• In early 2002, a senior Israeli delegation arrived in Washington D.C. which included both Ariel Sharon and his defense minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer. Ben-Eliezer met with VP Cheney on February 8, and emphasized that Israel’s number one concern was Iran, not Iraq; and Ariel Sharon met with President Bush and indicated that Iran is the greater threat and upon attacking Iraq he should finish the job by invading Iran. (Scott Ritter - Target Iran)

• … In late April 2003, [the Israeli daily] Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’ The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran … As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran.

Is War With Iran Imminent?
This time, it's more than a rumor…
by Justin Raimondo

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12755

"In an interview with the Times of London, Ariel Sharon declared that Washington had better start threatening to march on Tehran "the day after" Baghdad was secured. By late April 2003, the Israeli ambassador to Washington was complaining that the demise of Saddam's regime was "not enough." Those indolent Americans must be made to "follow through" by taking action against "great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran."

Shimon Peres rallied the faithful with an op-ed in the War Street Journal titled "We Must Unite to Prevent an Ayatollah Nuke." The neoconservatives convened a special all-day conference devoted to inciting war hysteria aimed at Tehran, with all the usual suspects – Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Reuel Marc Gerecht – in attendance. The cry went up: "Regime change!" The only question was which exile faction we were going to support: the royalists, or the cult-like neo-Marxist Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) and its numerous well-connected front groups in the U.S. and Europe.

The leaders of the latter have energetically vied for the role of the Iranian Chalabi, coming up with reams of "intelligence" detailing Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Their "revelations," however, have been definitively debunked by the latest national intelligence estimate, which says Tehran abandoned its nuclear program some time ago. All those diagrams and documents coming from MEK by the truckload were evidence of a nuclear program that no longer existed.

If any of this sounds familiar, then it should."

[JackJ]

To "truthseeker". Either you're naive, or your name is utterly inapt! The NIE that proclaimed that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was written by disaffected elements who used to be in State, and moved to Intelligence. They are known pacifists. Their report was effectively repudiated by the administration shortly thereafter. Apparently, either the program was never stopped, or it was recommenced later. There is no doubt whatsoever that Iran is energetically pursuing atomic weapons. As is Syria, if you keep up to date. I assure you Israel is treating Iran as a country on the verge of not only having n-weapons, but also the missile technology to deliver them. And Syria is not that far behind. AQ Khan (remember him?) provided most of N Korea's nuclear technology and NK has provided fast breeder nuclear reactor technology to Syria. This type of reactor produces plutonium relatively quickly, thus avoiding the tedium of enriching uranium. Incidentally, most of Israel's n-weapons use plutonium not uranium, for this very reason. Now Israel has bombed the Syrian reactor, but that might not be the end of the matter. Iran still pursues the enrichment of U238 to U235, but recent Mossad intelligence indicates that Iran also has access to plutonium. The threat of a nuclear armed Iran and Syria is very real, even imminent! Unfortunately, there are many naive Americans who prefer not to know these things, but reality will soon overtake them. By the way, the administration is fully cognizant of all these matters.

[Gaias Child]

Somebody has got to hold this woman responsible for the reckless pandering promises pouring out of her for the votes she wants.

We are being as hurt by some of her careless smug comments as we are already being hurt by some of the policies of the current administation. One example is C. Rice reprimanding Jimmy Carter recently and being responded to by Carter that she, Rice, is not being truthful. Well, anybody who watched the run-up to the Iraq pre-emptive "liberation" (occupation) knows that we have not been told the truth by the current administration. We are already not being told the truth by Senator Clinton and we need some kind of values for integrity in government.

These people who hold such power need to be accountable, responsible, thoughtful, sane.

[JackJ]

For "truthseeker". One final point. Israel indeed has nuclear weapons, including fusion weapons. Whether it has 500 or 100 or 5000 is a matter of speculation. However, not once in the 40 odd years that Israel has had these weapons has it ever used them! You need to ponder that deeply. Not even in 1973, when things got pretty desperate. Israel is a responsible state that will never use such weapons unless absolutely unavoidable. One cannot, unfortunately, say the same for some other states, including some in the ME.

[N.E. BodybutHillary]

She is totally bonkers. She suffers from delusions about coming under fire in Bosnia and now is threatening a preemptive strike on Iran. Sending our young men and women to Iraq didn't quite give her that adrenaline rush she is looking for.
Hey Hill, why stop at Iran. I am certain that your little psychotic brain can invent even more countries to invade.

[goldust]

Poor Hillary, she had to go to this length to appease her bosses in AIPAC. After all, AIPAC is the real boss of Mc Cain, Congress, media etc. As a Hillary supporter, I am disappointed in her, but not surprised. This is the name of the game in Washington, pretending loyalty to Israel is more important than the US! What a sad commetary about our country! After all, If it was not for Israel we wouldn't have gone to all these wars in the middle east including this one! America has a friend that will not be there if we need her! We are so used by Israel! Israel costs us billions a year, ruined our economy, killed our brave young men, millions of homelss iraqis,,, and now iran! Leave us alone!

[HonestAbe]

I hope Iran gets rid of it's trouble-making

president by the next election and America

elects someone less pro-war to the office

of the president, that way with 2 new faces

in office, both willing to talk and make compromises,

it will be possible to achieve some sort of

modus-vivendi.

[DLord]

Killing 70 million innocent men, women, and children based on "any action of few moron extremist leaders" would be simply unjustifiable and outrageous. How would it strike you if a strong ally of Iraq would per say nuke US and kill all the population after George Bush decided to attack Iraq without any international justification or endorsement? Shouldn’t a presidential candidate avoid sounding like Adolf Hitler?!

[Historian1956]

One of the greatest problems in this country today is the parochialism of the American people. They do not leave these shores in great enough numbers to see firsthand how the rest of the world looks at us and how the rest of the world works. They also do not read the newspapers or websites of other nations enough or at all to understand that the US is not the center of the world. Americans oftentimes act as little children who think the world revolves around them and do not and cannot see the big picture.

First, President Ahmadinejad of Iran will be out of office in August of 2009, since he faces the same term limits as does the presidents of the USA and Russia, only two four year terms each. Next, while he is the mouthpiece seen around the world, he is not the ruling power of Iran, the true power rests in the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the clerical Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad also faces the same problems as the presidents of America, Germany and France, as well as the Prime Minister of Great Britain and other democratic republics, i.e. the state of their unions, economies, etc.

Now to Senator Clinton's reckless and completely disturbing remarks concerning her intervention by "obliteration of Iran", should Iran ever attack Israel. She has learned nothing from her "mistaken" vote to go to war with Iraq and is showing her true colors that she would be no better than George W. Bush if she were President.

This statement by her was buried in the media and needs to be examined closely by her supporters, the voters yet to vote in the upcoming primaries and especially the Superdelegates who will eventually decide who will be the nominee. It is despicable that she can get away with such a comment, while her opponent is blasted for calling people in small town Pennsylvania bitter over 25 years of lost jobs with no replacements. Her comment should have led all the nightly news programs and made headlines instead of being buried in commentary pages and blogs. I cannot believe she can get away with saying this and no one is holding her accountable and demanding an explanation. This is much more serious than either the comments made by Senator Obama at a fundraiser or what his pastor has been shown to have said in sound bites taken out of context on You Tube! America Wake UP!

[Paul]

She's scarily ignorant when it comes to Iran. I doubt she knows it's history or the history of our countries relations.

Every president since Carter has gotten a bloody nose vis-a-vis Iran and Hillary is proving to be completely out-of-touch. She would undoubtedly bring upon yet another, bigger US upset. What a fool.

[punditius]

Obliterate Iran? Totally, not just partially? Where's her sense of proportion?

Hmm...looks like a Clinton/Obama ticket will wipe out Iran & Pakistan. But retreat from Iraq.

Somehow, this does not seem like a coherent foreign policy.

[Mutant Pacifist]

Ironic the Boston Globe should use the "strangelove" reference from the Cold War. Who, in the end, turned out to be right? Those who claimed that MAD was mad, and would lead to total global destruction? Or those who claimed that only by being willing to threaten the USSR with "total obliteration" could we keep the Cold War from going hot?

MAD worked. Crazy, but it worked. Hilary is applying the same logic to Iran. By making it perfectly clear what she's willing to do, she ensures she won't actually have to do it.

[Sam]

For all your readers who falsely equate Hillary Clinton's genocidal threat as a measured response to the alleged remarks of Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad, I say: Ahmadinejad has NEVER said that Iran would or should "wipe Israel off the map". This is a lie, a deliberate mistranslation and a myth that is being perpetuated, without anyone checking its veracity. I am Iranian and know what he said and it is not this. Ahmadinejad - like many others - is opposed to a Zionist and ethnicity-based state, especially at the expense of the native inhabitants, who are the Palestinians. What he wants is, in effect, a 'regime change', which he later explained was of the type that happened in the USSR, which disappeared from the map, without war. His interviews are on YouTube. Before you believe these lies that your media are telling you think: Iran is against Israel because of Palesitinians. Any Iranian hypothetical Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, would also "wipe out" the Palestinians, who are living cheek by jowl with the Israelis, off the map, plus Islam's second holiest place, Jerusalem. Think, people and look at a map before believing everything that Fox tells you!

[Jay]

Uhh...BEFORE you al lget your knickers in a twist---it seems like the Boston Globe and LA Times are going to have some 'plaining to do"

THEY MISQUOTED HER.
What she actually said in the article and on the broadcast was "COULD"
Did you hear that--"COULD"
"The US COULD obliterate Iran...."
Read the original article by David Morgan...
and then APOLOGIZE LA TIMES!!!

[John_Lai]

A civilian being thrown into the harsh world of reality, Obama may discover his great oratory to countries like IRAN results with nuke weapons.

Hillary at least make IRAN honest.

[chris isner]

When asked what his response would be to an Iranian attack on Israel, Obama replied that he would act appropriately. If Iran attacked Israel, there would be nothing left of Iran for America to massivle retaliate against because Israel would obliterate Iran thirty minutes later. So, not only are Clinton's comments diplomatically inept, they stupidly have no bearing on reality. An appropriate response would be to provide aid to survivors.

[Asghar Shekari]

I am sorry mis Clinton you lost 60% of the Iranian Voters because your comment about My country IranI do not know what is different between you and Ahmadinejad.......

[Mich Indie]

This from the woman who finally brought PEACE to Ireland? What an imbecilic comment to make.

[Wing]

Hillary would annihilate Iran. Barak would instead bomb Pakistan. Which country is the greater enemy? Is one of these candidates an idiot?

[D Lawler]

Public, unsolicited threat to any major world oil producer has only fuels oil speclation and drives up the price of gas. Could it be that she knows that we, the uneducated white people, aren't aren't smart enough to make that connection. She is probably right. We did vote in Bush, twice, and Hilary is begining to sound alot like George to me.

[Jim Hannon]

Clinton NEVER said that as president she would totally obliterate Iran. She said that Iran should realize that the U.S. "would be able to totally obliterate Iran." Not a statement of intent but a statement of fact. If reporters ca't be bothered with accurate reporting and can't avoid dragging quotes out of context, what hope is there for reasoned debate online?