Clinton: Nuke, nuke Iran

I shuddered when I heard John McCain singing, 'bomb, bomb, Iran,' but I never thought he would be outdone by a Democrat.

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?

Payoff to be an ally in the war on terror, $10 billion. Thumbing your nose at your benefactor, so you can stay in power. Priceless.

You'd think that for $10 billion you could get a guy to listen to you. Apparently not if it is the United States' $10 billion and not if that guy is Pakistan President Musharraf.

In the midst of the chaos that resulted from Pres. Musharraf declaring martial law and suspending the constitution, the media is reporting that the United States has paid the country more than $10 billion to help fight the war on terror.

As the situation developed, Pres. Bush refused to speculate about whether he would send more money to Pakistan. That's right, he's not sure if he will send more money to the dictator who he can't influence.

It gets better. The Washington Post reported today that "Even as Bush said Musharraf's actions 'would undermine democracy," he also emphasized that the Pakistani president "has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals."

Let me get this right. He has suspended the constitution, instituted martial law, jailed the politicians and lawyers who disagrees with him, and declared himself the defacto dictator and we think his actions might undermine democracy. And of course, we are depending on him to help us fight extremists and radicals.

Why such careful treatment you might ask yourself? The Bush administration believes that Musharraf is a key ally in helping the United States combat terrorism:

I now interrupt this blog post to present to you the dictionary.com definitions of Terrorism.
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. A terroristic method of governing.

Ok, back to the post about the ally in the war against terrorism who suspended the rule of law, jailed dissenters and used violence to enforce his authority.

Of course Pres. Musharraf was happy to stick his hands into our pockets and promised to play along in the terrorism game. Now comes time for him to give up power as he promised us he would, and he changes his mind.

Wait, a dictator who doesn't willingly want to give up power??!! Who could have seen that coming? And of course with the $10 billion military buildup and a benefactor who can't get his attention, he doesn't have to….