I don’t like her, and if she wins the primary, I won’t be able to vote. Having said that, here is the text from her interview with Chris Cuomo:
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.
___________
It is true “obliterate” is a nasty word–which she has since admitted–but that doesn’t make her response a threat of genocide. It’s a threat and a DETERRANT to Iran not to attack Israel, which whould be “recklesss, foolish, and tragic.” It’s a display of muscle and it’s also a statement of an elementary fact: the U.S.”WOULD be able to [i.e. has the capability to] totally obliterate” Iran. And for that matter, so does Israel. But it really isn’t a threat of genocide. And she said it by the way right after giving a one-year plan to withdraw troops from Iraq.
So for me the compelling issue isn’t that Hillary “threatened””genocide” against Iran, as so many people here are saying. The compelling issues are:
– why is she spreading the belief that Iran plans to attack Israel? It’s a highly improbable and rather prepostrous scenario.
–why is she spreading the belief that Iran will develop and use nuclear weapons? It’s not proven.
–why is she further demonizing Iran? Iran’s already demonized enough.
Aside from the obvious answer, which is to please the Zionist lobby, here are some guesses, bearing in mind that I’m no political analyst:
–she wants to differentiate herself from Obama with tough talk because they’re running too neck in neck.
—she wants to be seen as a viable competitor to McCain with tough talk to attract a certain Republican swing vote.
–she wants to make sure she doesn’t lose a segment of her own power base, which are the most uneducated people who generally respond to jingoism and fear tactics (tough talk). (Obama’s consituency include the most highly educated).
See the thread under the article “Cowboys and Iranians” for a few analyses far better than my own, if you haven’t already and you can wade through the long thread. As I said, I’m no political analyst and I don’t blog about politics, but in this case I couldn’t stop myself. I think it’s very dangerous to think in soundbytes that are taken out of context. You have to be BETTER than your opponent. Stick scrupulously to the text. My two cents, for whatever it’s worth.
