Forgive this stupid question, but....

[AngryOldDem]

...I just caught HRC on CNN being interviewed by John Roberts. What, exactly, does she mean when she says that if Iran attacks Israel, there will be "massive retaliation?" Is she still on the nukes kick without coming out and saying so? And why did she (at least to my mind) become more circumspect when asked what she would do if an attack on Iraq by Iran killed U.S. soldiers?

To me, the questions seemed to fluster her a little.

[HereSince1628]

1. Seems like the same story but a softer delivery...

And it's the same story that's been told by politicians since the US recognized Israel's existance.

The difference between Obama and Clinton on this issue is mostly that Clinton over-played her rhetoric with "obliterate."

[Breeze54]

2. Obama said the same thing.... something to the effect of...

"bombing Iran is not off the table"...

[beezlebum]

3. no he did not.- GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT

he said all options were on the table, until pressed with the nuclear question- at which point he made it clear that nukes are absolutely without question OFF the table, that under no circumstance is using nuclear weapons on civilian populations acceptable.

[Breeze54]

6. First off, I DID NOT quote directly

so chill out and second... he did say missile strikes into Pakistan were an option

Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush's Next War

http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521

snip-->

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "(T)he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to
these pressures (to stop its nuclear program), including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they
do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"

He added, "(L)aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war
in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went
on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

-------------------------------------------

and 'Clinton, Obama tackle Iran issue in debate'

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/17/clinton_obama_tackle_iran_issue_in_debate/

snip-->

Obama said keeping Iran free of nuclear weapons would be one of his top priorities in the White House.

"I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons
or obtaining nuclear weapons," he said. "And that would include any threats directed at Israel,
or any of our allies."

HRC's use of the word 'obliterate' is over the top and he didn't say that but he did say the above.

[beezlebum]

8. i will get my drores in a wad if i want to!

the topic here is "Nukes," if i'm not mistaken, so your post seemed to imply the same lie/disinformation i've seen spread repeatedly here on DU- at least you responded. you're probably the first to respond- most of the time when i confront on the quote, i get no response, no argument, nothing.

it's exhausting trying to get it across that obama made it clear that using nuclear weapons is out of the question in the same breath as saying no options off the table. you're leaving out the end of that quote.

and he said launching missile strikes is not optima- where is the thr4eat there? yes, he goes on with regards to the "radical muslim theocracy/hands on nukes," but still did not make any threats or promises.

and he said military strikes into pakistan- that still does not imply nuclear holocaust.

he may not be the pacifist i would prefer, but he damned sure beats someone who promises to obliterate.

[Breeze54]

10. I don't care.... ALL of them will bomb

if they think it's necessary and that's the part you seem to be missing!

"and he said military strikes into pakistan- that still does not imply nuclear holocaust."

:wtf:

------------

Rachel Maddow: Bush says 'World War III is worth starting' over Iran

Published: Thursday October 18, 2007

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Rachel_Maddow_Bush_says_World_War_1018.html

snip-->

"Right now probably the most anti-American country on earth is Pakistan," Maddow continued. "Pakistan not only has a nuclear weapon but has demonstrated that they will proliferate that technology on the black market. The idea that Iran would be cause for World War III but Pakistan's no big worry to us is psychotic."

[beezlebum]

11. wtf yourself! edited

WHERE do you see that obama promises nuclear strikes??????

ALL of them might be willing to go to war, but i do not believe, nor has there been any indication that, obama would use nuclear weapons. once a-fucking-gain:

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance...involving civilians...Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

this whole discussion started where you posted a (edit for the DUers who, ahem, call out other DUers-->) an untrue/factually incorrect fals-i-toode that obama said nukes weren't off the table. now you're using rachael maddow quotes on a bush sabre to tell me that OBAMA would use nukes?? he said military action w\could not be ruled out in the HYPOTHETICAL event that pakistan would attack...NOTHING ABOUT USING NUKES.

again- where is the quote? you said he said he would- that's the whole argument. this isn't about reading their minds or looking into your crystal ball to see what would happen if...- this is about what they've said.

[Breeze54]

13. I did NOT LIE and you are breaking the rules....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie.
You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

--------------------------------------------

And Pakistan DOES have nuclear weapons!

So, in your mind, only 'nuclear weapons' would start a war?

ANY missile strikes could very well start a frigging war!!

Get real! :crazy:

[beezlebum]

14. well allow me to EDIT my post:

excuse me sir or madam but that is untrue and factually incorrect- obama DID NOT say that.

pakistan has nuclear weapons BUT YET AGAIN this argument is NOT about what "might" happen- it is about what these candidates HAVE SAID.
hillary: obliterate
obama: under no circumstances. GET IT?

[DemVet]

7. I will NEVER vote for a candidate who says Nukes are off the table.

Besides, he didn't say what you said he said.

[beezlebum]

9. i'm not surprised

that one of my favorite hillary supporters here on du would refuse to vote for a candidate who rules this out:





and here is obama's direct quote:

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance...involving civilians...Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

i'm sure you're capable of googling before you go and spread disinformation.

[hokies4ever]

4. Hillary garnering sympathy for Iran in the UN

Obama said it best on Meet the Press Sunday. Hillary's language is sending the wrong message to the world and Iran is able to go to the UN Security Council and garner sympathy. Iran submitted a protest letter to the UN Security Council last week over Hillary's 'obliterate' statement. Thanks Hillary. Now Russia and China are more sympathetic to Iran. Just what we need, more Bush-style diplomacy.

[AngryOldDem]

5. I was just struck by the way her demeanor changed.

Roberts was trying to get her to be more specific and she was trying to be anything but. I was also put off by her seeming prioritization of what would justify any attack on Iran. If Israel gets hit, no questions asked, we act. If our own soldiers get killed, well, let's just stop and think about that for a minute. (Which is, when you think about it, one more talking point for McCain to use to solidify his military family base of support.)

Just one more example of words coming back to bite in the ass.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Notice she did not repeat the word "obliterate"--which implies the use of nukes! Sounds like Bush!