Reply #28: Tom, I enjoy your posts but I have to point something out.

[americanstranger]

Does it really matter that she was asked that question? The whole scenario is so far off the scale as to be absolutely absurd.

You have to assume a whole lot of things for that scenario to even make the remotest bit of sense, like:

1. Iran does develop nukes in the next 4-8 years.
2. That there would be absolutely no one in Iran who would object to sending this hypothetical nuke into another country in the immediate region, which would risk killing even a few Iranians, if the wind was blowing the right way.
3. That they would be so careless as to risk retaliation by Israel, who really does have nukes and would use them.

I guess if you consider the goofy aspect of the question, then Hillary's equally goofy answer makes a dumb kind of sense.

But to escalate the rhetoric to the point where the term 'obliteration' is used in relation to another sovereign country is way over the top in my book. I mean, wasn't the term 'massive retaliation' that she used in the debate sufficent any more?

And the swipe about Obama calling for a resolution at the UN is unacceptable. It reminds me a little too much of Bush's statement that Kerry would 'file suit' against Al Qaeda.

- as