But What Did Hillary Actually Say?


Rosie T.
by Rosie T.

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.


Recently by Rosie T.CommentsDate
guess who
Aug 19, 2008
what is the color of love
Aug 17, 2008
Our Generation (for nazy kaviani)
Aug 15, 2008
more from Rosie T.

It was Iraq I meant.


Thank you Rosie.  That was an error which I could not then edit!  I meant the invasion of Iraq and what went on subsequently.  You must already know that sanctions and daily depleted uranium bombardment alone killed about a million silently over 12 years, before that of course there was over 200,000 killed in the 1991 attack on Iraq, and the estimate for this current invasion is well over a million - a million and a half is quoted.  Before the invasion of Iraq, many were not aware of the effects of sanctions or turned their heads away; very few lost sleep over Iraqis slaughtered in the first war on Iraq.  And in relation to the 2003 invasion, many did not believe that it would either happen or that it would become a genocide.  


My best wishes to you.  You have been most graceful - Mehrnaz 

Rosie T.

Dear Mehrnaz,

by Rosie T. on

Thank you  for your kind comments.  The more I read these comments  the more I understand why the use of this language provokes so much fright in Iranians.  For myself, as an American, the whole thing just sounds like ridiculous electioneering grandstanding.  Hillary is NOT going to obliterate Iran.   Having said that, it is also true that dehumanization paves the way for potential military action.  I have been thinking about this dehumanization from the point of view of my own education.  Do you know for example that, we studied eveyy major ancient and medieval civilization EXCEPT Persia and the Arabic caliphates?  It can be no coincidence that those are the oil-producing countries and I think it was intentional to dehumainze the great accomplishments of those cultures in order to justify their exploitation for energy, which runs the western world.  In essence, the histories of these countries were "obliterated" from our cnsciousness.  I have been thinking about it a lot. Eurasia had Europe, India, China and Japan, and a big gaping hole in between.  Whatever information we gleaned about these cultures was from films and newspapers, and I have to say we gleaned much more information about Arabic culture thanabout Persian, which remained a very nebulous blur without any dlear picture at all of its hstory, language, habits--in short of its culture.  Which is strange because Persia was unqualifiedly one of the  greatest civilization for a thousand years, and at the time of my education also a staunch ally of the U.S. under the Shah. Even when te Shah had the event at Perseplis, which was featured on the cover of Life Magazine, it was never mentioned in school.  I honestly don't think the word "Persia" was mentioned once from kindergarten to high school.  If I knew about it at all it was because in my religious education it was mentioned in regard to Purim and the freeing of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity.  But still a clear picture was never provided.

But why do you say that what has happened in Iran thusfar is genocide?  Please clarify.




I can't edit my last posting!  So: "As for "Genocide", do you believe what has happened in Iraq is genocide?  I believe it is.


Textual analysis


Dear Rosie, It is good and brave of you to start this discussion, and it is a good quality to be fair-minded when the tendency is to portray the world in black and white with fatal consequences.  However, no textual analysis is meaningfully possible, if it is not done in the context of a situational analysis; words don't have meanings in abstract but in where they are situated in the real world. As well as that, dehumanisation is carried out for a purpose, it makes aggression possible and easy.  Iran does not need to use nuclear weapons on Israel (!) to be attacked; we don't need to look too far; Iran is in danger of being attacked currently, and dehumanisation makes that threat more possible.  As for "genocide".  Do you believe what has happened in Iran is genocide?  I believe it is.


2 Letters-one 2 Hillary & one 2 Occupation regime in Tehran

by samsam1111 on

MS Hillary Clinton:

 HillyBilly you Madam are a phony just like the rest of Democtrats & lefties like Obama.Stop terrorizing poor Iranians who are already under daily terror and will hate you for  this comment .Your Wussy clan master Jimmy Carter screwed our Nation once .your type started this Jehadist terror mafia in Iran.The Alien Regime will never attack Israel directly when it has  Nasrollah army & Hamas to do it,s job for it. Don,t give fuel to this occupation Regime to make itself look like a martyre by your baseless rethoric & BS and don,t try to act like you can beat senator Mccain on national security issues.Do Iranians a favour and leave military decisions to be made for you & not by you.

To Alien Regime Clan masters & Goons:

You worthless pieces of !!!!! for the sake of the poor nation whom you been milkin like a cow to fund your jehadi ommat al arabi terrorists, stop getting agents to kill israelis or lebenese..stop blowing up american bases ..you mother of !!!!stop training Iraqi pupets to kill American and Iraqis..stop your muderous crap in middle east ..stop logistics to ansaroleslam wahabi retards from kurdistan to move freely at border .stop instigating Jew,American,sunni,british.etc killing on the internet and by your agents and Imams.according to God of hazrat muhammad(peace be upon him) that is sending  you all to hell "God created man and women of different races to live in harmony":


يا ايها الناس انا خلقناکم من ذکرن و انسی و جعلناکم شعوبان و قباعل لتعارفو وان اکرمکم و عنداله اتقياکم و انا لله عليم ال خبير.


You wussy alien Satanic malakhs STOP using Iranians as a shield & stop instigating hate for other nationalities.


Rosie T.

Threaten / Javad

by Rosie T. on

Okay.  If a lousy mother tells her kid, if you don't stop crying I'm going to hit you, that's a serious threat because maybe the kid can't stop crying.  If she says the same thing with if you don't clean your room that's still a threat but with a probable happy outcome because the kid can always clean the room.  If she says the same thing with if you lift a two ton weight and you better not do it because it would be tragic, that is a threat according to the dictionary definition but it isn't according to reality.  What Hillary said is somewhare in between two and three, but closer to three.  Iran is NOT going to attack Israel and the kid can't lift a two ton weight.

So what is the real problem?  I don't even think it's the hawkish tone, I think that was to be expected, after all everyone knows her AIPAC ties and ANY politician with such ties (which is almost everyone) is going to say if Iran attacks Israel we will retaliate.  It's a ridiculous scenario but they WILL say it.  I think the real problem is the dehumanizing aspect of the language she used--obliterate.  I think the focus should not be you threatened genocide, which is so far-fetched. It should be you're dehumanizing, you're degrading, you'r don't respect us as a people, you are insensitive and indifferent to us as a people and culture and you don't deserve to be president because such sensitiviy is required in that office. But threatening genocide???  with words like terrible, tragic., etc,

Javad, thanks.  I don't think I have to apologize for my opinions but I do think I have to qualify that  I'm no political expert, as some people here are.  What I AM expert at is textual analysis.  Actually, I know very well that people are "touchy" and "emotional" these days and that is why I wrote this blog, knowing I would get a LOT of flak, because I think some of those emotions are misplaced.  Hopefully one or two people get something out of what I've written.

K Nassery

Obama and the rabbis...

by K Nassery on

As an Illinois resident, I would like to reassure everyone that Obama's discussions with rabbis is a "new thing."  I don't believe that he is pro Israel in the way that some politicians are pro Israel.  I think he sees both sides of the issue. 

 There is a battle being waged in the Democratic Party.  They are fighting tooth and nail for every single vote.  Believe me, all of the candidates will forget their promises to various factions on day one of the new Presidential term.  Just look at the Democratic Congress's promise to get out of Iraq.  Poof....it disappeared like magic, didn't it?




Take action by supporting Obama

by Shahram (not verified) on

What Hillary said has made me more determined to support Obama. He is the only remaining candidate who sounds rationally and has not threatened my homeland with stupid comments (whether jokingly, hypothetically, or otherwise).

If you are sick and tired of Bush's disastrous policies, vote Obama. John McCain is an old dysfunctional jerk who would continue the Bush-Cheney policies. Hillary is an opportunist who would sell herself to the highest bidder.

If you want change and the rule of law and decency back to the US and the world, support Obama. I plan to donate all or part of my Bush's economic stimulus check to Obama's campaign. That's the best way to not only stimulate the economy but bring back the reputation and good old name of the US of A to the world scene.


I just heard from your

by Understand Politics - it is evolving (not verified) on

I just heard from your democratic tv, Jam Jam.
Obama talked to Jewish rabbis in Pensilvanya and assured them help in the same way. In fact Clinton went on the news after she heard about Obama's meeting with them!

I am so disappointed on both of them....We should all start sending complain letters to their campaign headquarters.


Rosie, You don't have to

by Javad D. (not verified) on


You don't have to apologize for expressing your views. However, please remember that this is a very touchy subject, and emotions are very high among Iranians these days.

The likelihood of a dangerous conflict between the US and Iran is growing everyday. Considering the long history of the US meddling in the region (particularly in Iran), the perception of the US as the only member of the international community that has used nuclear bombs once to wipe out life in another country, and the recent events in the middle east, it is understandable that Iranians would take every word and action of the American leaders seriously.

For the same reason (sensitive emotions), your explanation of whatever Hillary might have meant is viewed as your defending and justifying her stupid comments. I know that you've repeatedly tried to clarify yourself, but, unfortunately, once a careless expression is out, it will become very difficult to undo its effect. What Hillary has said is a perfect example.


Good analysis Rosie and a

by Anonymous* (not verified) on

Good analysis Rosie and a good discussion by all. Here's my 2 gheroon. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and only later we saw what his brand of "compassionate" meant. McCain joked about "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," yet as Rosie points out he has high ethical and moral values (not shady political or religious ones like Hillary and Bush). In the immediate aftermath of 911 and the hysteria for revenge and warmongering, McCain's was one of the FEW calmer, saner voices who actually dared to speak up. Now he's saying we might have to stay in Iran for a 100 years and the democracts are all over him. What i'm saying is that a lot is and will be said during the campaign. The real challenge is to stay informed and vigilant once ANY of them becomes president and not let them make a case for attack for political reasons.

Rosie T.


by Rosie T. on

Okay,, I apologize for my use of the word "nasty." Let me restate.  "Obliterate" is more than a nasty word.  It is horrible, heinous, attrocious, dehumanizing and debasing.  But I still cannot accept that the use of the word in context was a threat of genocide.

 I am thinking about what you say and working on refining--and changing--some of my thoughts on the issue as well as trying to explain myself better.  But the one thing I doubt will change for me is whether this comment in context was an actual threat of genocide. With its ridiculously improbable scenario, its insistence on deterrance, and its use of the words "terrible" and "tragic."  Bombastic, grandstanding, aggressive, callous, thoughtless, mean and STUPID, yes, but threatening genocide??? 


How does obliteration look like!

by anti-war (not verified) on


Boston Globe article on Hillary madness!

by Disenchanted on

iraj khan

Take action! just a reminder

by iraj khan on

What she has said is outrageous with the "IF" or without the "IF". Even Bush the cowboy has not dared to say it. Take action if you disagree with Clinton's remark. Send your protest letter or remarks to her at the link below in case you have not:  

Contact her campaign headquarters today!

Write to editorial pages of your local news papers, talk to your co-workers, neighbors, friends and family members. Support her opponent. Be creative come up with new suggesstions. Staying quite is not an option.


Corruption in the election process, and we have a Hillary

by . (not verified) on

"It is true "obliterate" is a nasty word--which she has since admitted--but that doesn't make her response a threat of genocide".

Just a "nasty" word?

But what it does clearly say is that she is willing to make such an amazing comment, and so very casually, for the sake of the interests of the highest payer for her finiancial well-being, and getting her to become a senator, and maybe a president. And also by making such an amazing comment, it also implies her complete disregard that the lives of Iranians has any value when compared to the lives of other humanbeings.

Hillary Clinton is an example of the American political and elections process spiralling downwards for the worst, as every 4 years goes by.

I wonder how this statement is viewed around the world, do you think they will consider it just a "nasty" comment, or do you think they will have harsher words for such a comment?


panic and despair?


Dear Rosie, this is the case of neither "despair" or "panic".  It is the case of taking a real threat against Iran seriously and realise that such comments (which is by the way, in accordance with the US National Security Strategy - both the defense of Israel and the use of nuclear weapons) betray an incapacity to act ethically or even rationally.  Clinton has shown not just  absence of  insensitivity and great capacity for violence, but of opportunism and feeblemindedness.  As her other 'gaffs' and lies during this campaign have amply demonstrated.  This is no Panic.  It is however, an opportunity to expose her massive deficiencies - as a leader of a country which can blow the earth many times over - when there is still time to intervene in the next short period of electioneering.  So rather than Despair, this is a call for action.  

As for tragic, is Iraq tragic enough for you? One of your respondents has pointed aptly that the mention of "tragic" points to the type of action that harms civilian lives, and not, as you construe mistakenly, any indication of sorrow on her part!  Neither such threat have to be through using nuclear weapons.  What it does mean is a serious preparedness to attack Iran, if Israel is perceived to be under threat, or more likely, WHEN Israel is MADE OUT to be under threat.  It is now being said (Observer today) that Hezbollah in Lebanon is sending hundreds if not thousands of men to Iran to train for the next round of attacking Israel (meaning that the last round too was started by Hezbollah!).  This is not only media preparation for an attack on Iran as part of which it is necessary to "obliterate" Hezbollah in Lebanon, but is a pretext for attacking Iran itself.  Also put this next to the recent accusations of Iranian "malign" activity and influence in Iraq by Gen Petreus and Michael Mullen, the head of the Joint Chief of Staff.  So, No, this is not panic, this is being aware of the dangers and reach out to anyone, Iranian or non-Iranian, with an ounce of decency to try and avoid another catastrophe like Iraq.  THE REASON I EMPHASISE ON THE LANGUAGE OF "TOTALLY OBLITERATE" IS TO DEMONSTRATE THE DEGREE OF DEHUMANISATION, Yes, this language is not used against Holland, as you say, neither did Ahamdi-Nedjad, talk of obliterating the Israelis, as someone, I note makes an analogy.  The concerns for human rights and democracy in Iran are nobel and right, but are separate matters totally irrelevant to this threat.  As for those who are launching vicious attacks and slanders on those who are concerned about innocent people's lives, and are so blind with hatred and self interest that cannot possibly appreciate any other emotions and principles, I can only feel deeply sorry for their states of mind.

Rosie T.

Dear Mehran (Is the Threat of Genocide a Soundbyte?)

by Rosie T. on

If it has been threatened it's not a soundbyte.  If it hasn't, it is a soundbyte.  People who are threatening genocide do not usually say only if you do this highly improbable thing first and they certainly don't call it TRAGIC.

I understand the use of the word "obliterate" is very disturbing and I can't imagine it being used against say Holland.  This brings out  very legitimate feelings of despair at being held in contempt as a people, dehumanized.

But it shouldn't bring out PANIC. She isn't planning on wiping Iran off the map of the pages of time...

Rosie T.

Dear Mehran (Is the Threat of Genocide a Soundbyte?_

by Rosie T. on



K Nassery

Article from the Telegraph on this issue.

by K Nassery on


 This article is right on point.  The West has to deter Iran because nutcases in Iran might give nukes to terrorists.  You have to admit that some in Iran would do this in order to get that 12th Imam to come back.


to Zion

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Zion, you very well know that we have some nut cases such as Ahmadinejad in Iran's side that live for rhetoric and some loose canons in the Israeli side such as Olmert and Netanyahu who shoot first and then think. I don't think having similar people in the US would be good for anybody, including Iranians, Israelis, and Americans.

Jahanshah Rashidian

Mr. Cyrus Saify

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

I agree with each word of your letter!

Cyrus Saify

A letter in response to Senator Hillary Clinton's statement

by Cyrus Saify on

Senator Hillary Rodham ClintonUnited States Senate476 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510Tel: (202) 224- 4451  I am writing to express my deep disappointment and condemnation regarding your alarming statement warning Iran that you would "totally obliterate" it if it were to attack Israel. Opposing the Islamic Republic’s abysmal human rights record, the oppression of its people and its support for terrorist organizations is a noble act. However, by implying that you may use your executive powers should you become the President of the United States to possibly cause the total destruction of a nation and commit genocide is an affront to humanity to say the least. A U.S. Senator aspiring to become President of the United States of America and hence the de facto leader of the world is expected to have a much deeper understanding of world politics than you have demonstrated during your campaign. Moreover, it is expected from a presidential candidate to have good and rational judgment, and to take bold and positive initiatives towards world peace and security. So far, what you are promising seems to give us a continuation of the failed policies of the Bush administration. Furthermore, your irresponsible words mimic the irrational aggressive and reprehensible remarks of the Islamic Republic’s President Ahmadinejad. This type of rhetoric is harmful to America's interests and to its standing as a global leader. Senator, your campaign rhetoric matters. As a leader you must not put short-term political gains ahead of long-term national security interests. Putting your personal interests ahead of U.S. national interests is nothing short of treason. I sincerely hope you will withdraw your statement, even though in this negatively charged, short-sighted and selfish electoral political culture of ours, asking you for an apology would be like asking you to once again hug Suha Arafat.  Sincerely,   __________Cyrus Saify  

K Nassery

If.... is an important word here...

by K Nassery on

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton either.... but she would nuke Iran after Iran nuked Israel.  So, if Iran doesn't nuke Israel, Iran won't be destroyed.

I think that she wanted to appear strong and as a woman, she felt that she had to be macho.  Iran is an easy target these days because of the actions and rhetoric of the Iranian government.  Just as the IRI uses the anti US feelings to consolidate its strangle hold over the Iranian population,  politicians in the US use the anti Iranian feelings to get votes. 

The anti Iranian feelings of the US population is at an all time high.  The administration, the military, and the media have convinced us that the weekly "Death to America" chants are real threats.  Iranian weapons dated two months ago are shown on tv just last week.  Iranian swift boats zoom in on US naval vessels in provacative ways.  Iran took our Embassy personel hostage for a year.  Iran supports and gives financial aid to almost every anti American country on the planet.  Why would the American people be pro Iranian?  So....it's a sure bet for Hillary to obliterate a "true enemy" of America.  This statement will win votes in the US.

 I think Iranians should be concerned about American rhetoric just as American have become concerned by the daily threats from Ahmadinejad and clerics who want a caliphate on Planet Earth.

There doesn't seem to be a way to have effective diplomacy with Iran.  Talk, talk, talk...and then they want to start negotiations... I think Iran needs the time to build the bomb just as North Korea did in the last two decades.

 As I said in the earlier discussion, the West warned the USSR about mutual anniliation.  So the West (Hillary) is warning Iran that they will be anniliated if they nuke Israel as Iran seems to be preparing to do.  France was concerned that the US might not use nukes on the USSR and that's why they created nukes.  Maybe, this Hillary statement was made to reassure Iran's Sunni neighbors that we will try to stop the Shiites from taking over the planet.  Who knows?

There will be fallout from Hillary's statement and many people will be agast.  Many people are horrified by the actions of the Iranian regime too.  They look at the threat to the West as real  Tit for tat rhetoric...that's what I think the statement by Hillary was meant to be.  Unlike my Iranian husband, I think rhetoric is very dangerous. I hope Iran and the US don't go to war, but I think is is a possibility.


Is the threat of genocide a "soundbyte"?!


I wrote on Clinton threatening genocide and that is clearly what she did.  Whether she said it for electioneering and opportunistic purposes to appeal to the zionist lobby and look tough or she said it because she really meant it, does not make any difference.  In fact, in the former case, it shows someone who can has no ethical principles and can make opportunistic expedient moves under pressure or for gain.  However, what she has said at this time must be viewed in the context of war drums sounding louder every day.  Do you follow the news at all?  Have you heard the threats in the past few days of Pentagon preparing to attack Iran?  And for those, who are using even this occasion to attack the "Mullahs" in Iran and blame them for what Clinton has said, I advise you to read a bit of history.  Have you heard of Mossadegh at all and the coup? And have you heard of the 2003 offer of 'olive branch' from Khatami's government which was refused?  Whatever your views on the Iranian government or state, democracy is certainly not the US objective in Iran!  As a matter of fact, a truly democratic Iran would be viewed with much more alarm.  

 And yes, there is no evidence or rationale that Iran would hit Israel.  So instead of trying to under-estimate the threat, you might care putting the question to Clinton when there is still time of what she would do if Israel attacked Iran?  

The question has been posed to Clinton, because there is every likelihood that the US might attack Iran, Iran in such eventuality might attack Israel as the main instigator, therefore "What would you do if Israel was attacked?".  And the use of nuclear weapons against adversaries, has not been ruled out, according to the US National Security Strategy.  But it does not even have to be a nuclear strike, but the US and Israel are capable of obliterating Iran without them.  It is time for us to be alert to this danger that is threatening the innocent population of Iran.



by Zion on

Yes, the US would say ""We should Obliterate Guatemala if they ever attack Mexico!" or "We will obliterate Norway of they ever attack Canada!"

If Mexico or Canada were under constant attack by fascistic terrorists and enemiy states that have strived for their distruction since their independence (and assuming Mexico is considered a US ally in the same strategic sense as Canada, Western Europe, Israel, Australia ....)

This is not just some hypothetical situation. There is precedence to this in recent history. Should I remind you of the situation of tiny West Berlin before the fall of communism?

Rosie T.

A couple of replies: Anyone who thinks I'm defending her...

by Rosie T. on

didn't read what I said any more carefully than you read what she said.

 JR: I do agree it was a blunder.  If she had said it AFTER the primary it would not have been a blunder.  But to say it now was a blunder.  Most dems are not seeking reassurance that she can be a mini-McCain.

Pedram:  no, I cannot imagine her saying it about Norway attacking Canada or Guatemala Mexico.  But I can imagine her saying it about Guatemala attacking Canada. 


Obliterate This!

by PedramMoallemian on

Dear Rosie;

I suppose your argument is that Hillary was warning against obliterating the supposed nuclear facilities in the supposed "nuclear weapons program" Iran may or may not be having and not its people or country.

Well, that may have been true had she also not also called such action to be "terrible" and "tragic" in your own quote. Surely loss of some weapons, factories or military bases is never explained as "tragic", but major environmental devastation, incomprehensive negligence, action leading to mass suffering, and of course loss of any life, particularly innocent life, surely is.

Hillary also forgot one more fact, by the U.S. constitution, the President does not have the authority to proclaim war against another country, regardless of whether they had just attacked an ally or not. So at best, she could say in the event of such action, I'd ask the congress to authorize obliterating them!

Lastly, can you imagine ANY politician using such language to describe such action about any of other allies? Can you imagine any of these lines, for example:

"We should Obliterate Guatemala if they ever attack Mexico!" or "We will obliterate Norway of they ever attack Canada!"

Granted Iran is now a bigger "enemy" than either Guatemala or Mexico, but I guess Israel is also a much more important friend than Mexico or Canada.

Jahanshah Rashidian

Her Blunder

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Clinton in her interview with the ABC News and her political statement "totally obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel" seems mediocre and immature , even if it is to make nice to her Jewish voters. I am sure this statement or political blunder will end up with negative results for her race.

It also contradicts previous Clinton's statements wanting more tolerance toward the IRI. Did she control her thoughts spewing such a statement or she sank into her typical hectic, as we notice in her attacks on Obama?

I personally would vote for Obama if I were American. He represents a new era in which intellect and awareness would prevail over conservatism, neuliberalism, and for us Iranians, over darkness and Islamism.


Wake Up!

by Zion on

Hi Rosie,
You are right and people here should stop such childish nagging and face the reality. I posted this in the other thread, but given the importance of this I am posting it here again:

Hillary hasn`t transformed to anything. She is stating a known fact of nuclear stand off. This has been the policy of every single American president since Truman and it will remain so. Hello? Were have you been all these years? Any nuclear attack on US soil or that of US allies, triggers automatically a nuclear counterattack on the initiator. This is what cold war was all about and why it remained cold.
This is the arena your mad mullahs are taking you in. This is the price you will pay if you let your mad regime follow its lust for power as it is doing now. You have a beef with what she has said, you should take it to your leaders. This is the way this game has been played since 1945. Your only insurance is to stop and not enter it. That is why sanctions are there, That is why your entire future depends on a change to a rational modern and open regime in Iran that will put a stop to this madness.
Wake up people.