And another thing...
Would rather have this Clinton Policy than Obama and his radical pastor and his muslim background.
The post is a little unfair. Clinton doesn't "talk lightly" about obliterating Iran but merely points out the potential effects of taking the nuclear genie out of the bottle. While massive retaliation may be an inappropriate response to an Iranian attack on Israel, it also seems unwise to unilaterally take such a response off the table.
Clinton is more subject to criticism for voting for Lieberman/Kyl, not so much for its own language, but because the administration simply can't be trusted with any possible authorization and she should know that.
Vance, I've criticized Clinton previously for voting for Lieberman/Kyl.
However, I think it is completely reasonable to expect presidential candidates to speak less hawkishly about security policies. Remember my praise of Joe Biden concerning the "Iran threat"? Some policies should be off the table.
Obliterating a society is reprehensible, even if done in retaliation for a first-strike.
Ike's massive retaliation was basically abandoned in the 1960s because it was not credible. In the 1980s, the morality of mutual destruction was likewise seriously challenged.
Don't forget, Clinton has been reckless through this campaign. She criticized Obama last August for saying he wouldn't use nuclear weapons against terrorist bases in Afghanistan or Pakistan! Here's what she said at the time, "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."
Saying "we will attack Iran" is a blanket statement, though the nuclear part is more ambiguous.
Still, the threat is not credible and it is immoral.
Toby: Is this meant to be a joke?
If not...well, to start, his "crazy" pastor isn't a Muslim. He led a United Church of Christ.
I got the impression that Senator Clinton just restated, without the usual nuance etc., the standard US Government position on use of Nuclear Weapons.
That policy was formulated with late Soviet Union in mind. Is Iran and it’s neighbors in the same category as the Soviets and Cold War NATO members?
What worries more is that she has proven to be a very determined person when she doesn’t get what she wants and a large land war would wreck her administration. It is possible that she could see a situation where the nuclear option is the only way out of a political box, though everyone would back off.
I don't know why Israel's nuclear force isn't sufficient to deter Iran's. Estimates suggest that it has 100s of deliverable weapons, some in the form of accurate cruise missiles on relatively invulnerable submarines.
Senator Clinton's statement about extended deterrence is only "normal" if one ignores criticism.
Commenting by HaloScan
