Obama leaves all options on the table as well.

[SIMPLYB1980]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=860406&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
Dennis Kucinich attacked Obama for saying that "all options are on the table? Its important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you're setting the stage for another war." And Obama attacked back: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously."

[Diamond Dog]

1. Right. But he doesn't lie and say no other nation in the ME would have nuclear weapons.

[rodeodance]

3. You claim Hillary is lying?---about what? what evidence do you have?

[Diamond Dog]

7. This.

"... the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power."

Which is a lie. A blatant, baldfaced lie.

[rodeodance]

15. What ARE Obama's quotes on this issue?? You only included Hillary's.

[rodeodance]

30. 4 hours later--and no response.

[rodeodance]

31. "A blatant, baldfaced lie:---this applies to you--as it is 4 hours later and NO response

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. The Democratic Party is not going to nominate a candidate who is weak on this issue

How many delegates did Kucinich win?

[rodeodance]

5. no they will not--Wise dems recognize our world is unsafe and we must

be strong.

[dkf]

4. Yes, but he's talking about Iran as a threat to us, not to everyone in the middle east

and our proposed newfound obligations to obliterate any country who does God knows what.

[olkaz]

6. You cannot compare these two statements.

Hillary's "HOLY GOD I'M GONNA BLOW THE EVER-LOVING CRAP OUT OF IRAN" is not in the same ballpark.

[Hugabear]

8. Big difference between that and talking about "obliterating" Iran

n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. "All Options on the table"="Obliterating"

[Diamond Dog]

11. That's a pretty big leap, since 'all options' includes conventional measures.

By the way, please respond to my point about Clinton's lie that Iran would be the only nation in the region with nukes.

[jackson_dem]

25. No, that is diplomatic code for keeping the use of nukes on the table

[Hugabear]

17. That also tells me that Hillary has no tact whatsoever - is she fit to be president?

I'd much rather have a president tactfully say "all options are on the table" than a president who says "we'll nuke the bastards" - which is basically a paraphrase of what Hillary did.

[SIMPLYB1980]

18. Obama said he will Bomb Pakistan. Without their permission. They actually have nukes.

Now that's what you call stupid.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Just ignore the qualifiers in there, and the specificity of the statement,

and the fact that he did NOT say he would NUKE Pakistan.

He was talking about a special ops mission into Pakistan to grab or eliminate Bin Laden IF there was actionable intelligence and IF Musharraf could not or would not act on it.

And that is already the standing policy of the US.

Are you stupid, or do you just think WE are?

[SIMPLYB1980]

24. Where in my statement did I say he would nuke pakistan.

I said he would drop bombs not a nuke the country. If we know O.B.L. is hidden somewhere the most likely scenario for us to kill him is to have a warplane in the area drop a bunker busting bomb on O.B.L.'s location. However if we do this as Obama says "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," that is a very dangerous thing to say to a nation that has NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I agree that the best way to do this would to be sending in a special ops mission, the problem with that is that O.B.L. moves around a lot and is very secluded, by the time a mission like that could be put together O.B.L. would be miles away, it's how he has evaded us thus far, not to mention us wasting out resources in Iraq.

Your a pee pee caca head, and your stupid.
Insult for Insult is fun ain't it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. That answers my question. You think WE are stupid.

The original discussion was on Hillary's "obliterating" Iran - which is meaning a nuclear retaliation for a nuclear attack. You throw up the strawman of Obama's taking the war to the terrorists, that he would 'bomb' them. You talk about bombs, in a discussion about nuclear attacks, to try to conflate the two situations.

Pakistan is NOT going to send ICBMs at the US for us attacking terrorists in their borders. You know that, but you think you can conflate the two.

BTW, the word is "you're" not "your". Learn to speak your own fucking language.

[SIMPLYB1980]

27. No I think YOU are stupid.

If you think Pakistan and Iran don't have ways of reaching us without ICBMs you are a idiot. You know a NUKE can fit into something as small as a briefcase don't you?

Hey look a language Nazi I so love when I run into one of those.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Briefcase nukes are science fiction. The smallest possible nuke

might fit a very large suitcase. And that is only possible with the technical sophistication of the US, Russia, and maybe France or Britain. Maybe Israel. Pakistan, China, N Korea, no way. And Iran won't have ANY nukes for at least 5 years, if then, and I promise, their first nuke will not be a briefcase nuke.

Shakespeare was a little off - it is not conscience, but fear that doth make cowards of us all.

[SIMPLYB1980]

29. Lets see.

July 16, 1945 "Trinity"- March 1961 "Davy Crockett" that's 16 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/davyc.aspx

"March 11, 1983 when PAEC carried out Pakistan's first successful cold test of a nuclear device."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Today is April 22, 2008 that is 25 years. I believe that the Pakistanis may have the ability to produce such a device.

[QC]

10. Yes, but he's a guy.

Clinton, on the other hand, is supposed to be sugar and spice and everything nice.

[cali]

12. it's her war mongering rhetoric that's so troublesome.

like using the word obliterate and spewing out direct threats.

[Orsino]

13. That's the way--talk moderately tough without pandering to the nuke-'em-alls.

I'm still disappointed that he's talking up a nonexistent "threat" at all.

[Diamond Dog]

14. The issue isn't her rhetoric. It's her *lies*.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSh5KORghU

"... if Iran does achieve what appears to be it's continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times, we used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world, and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power."

The bolded section is a lie.

[ericgtr]

16. Thank you.. that is a well thought out statement by Obama

and not just a blasted threat like Hillary is making to pander to the right on election day. What a sad excuse of a candidate she's become. Hillary, ready to say anything on day one.

[malik flavors]

19. I think making statements like "We will obliterate" other countries is a little irresponsible.

I understand she's playing politics, but that just a tad much, if you ask me.

[msongs]

21. sorry to inconvenience your slime but she did not actually say that nt

[msongs]

20. u r wasting yer time talking to obama's hypocrite blind faithful worshippers nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

22. I know.

:banghead:

[Bonobo]

32. A far different thing than throwing around a word like "OBLITERATE".

[krkaufman]

33. But he's not talking about obliterating another country

Stark difference in language, and stark difference in the diplomatic doors left open and closed.