Repeating a line that most people seemed to miss during the Philadelphia debate, Hillary Clinton promised to nuke Iran if it threatened Israel. And when asked if that's what she really meant to say, she took it up a notch and said the US could obliterate them:
"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'm president, we will attack Iran" to retaliate against an Iranian nuclear hit on Israel.
She added: "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."
Wow! Whappened to diplomacy?
Obama took a more restrained view in the Guardian's report.
Obama, responding to Clinton's interview, said: "One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate'. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in sabre-rattling."
So now I'm wondering, what in the world would cause her to say something so hawkish that she is even appearing to be to the right of McCain? Is this her attempt to triangulate his message? Am I the only one who finds this just a little bit disconcerting? You'd think promising to nuke a Middle Eastern country would be the lead story, but it still seems to be buried. What gives?
