Home > IRAN: CLINTON’s Monstrous Threat

IRAN: CLINTON’s Monstrous Threat

by Open-Publishing - Sunday 27 April 2008
3 comments

Wars and conflicts USA US election 2008

The Politics of Obliteration


By DAVE LINDORFF

Tough guy Hillary Clinton, on the morning of a critical primary vote in Pennsylvania, uttered a monstrous threat, saying on ABC’s "Good Morning America program today that if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel while she was president, "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Think about that a moment!

A country that we view as a theocracy, run dictatorially by a bunch of self-appointed religious fanatics, whose rule is enforced by an army of equally fanatic quasi-military thugs and enforcers, launches an attack on America’s ally Israel, and Clinton says her response would be to incinerate the people of that country—people who are as powerless to stop such an attack as would be the people of Israel or the United States.

Is this the way we want the world the work? Is this the way we want our government to act?

Granted that if Iran’s leaders were, for some crazy reason, to decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel, it would require some kind of response by the US and other nations, but is the appropriate response the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent Iranian citizens?

Of course not.

The destruction of Iran’s government might be a logical response. Certainly the incineration of the Religious Council might be appropriate, or the leveling of the country’s military headquarters and its command and control system. But killing the country’s people, who are civilians and have no say over such things, is pathological.

Clinton, hoping to prove her testerone levels are high, and to win votes and much-needed campaign swill from backers of Israel, is channeling her inner McCain.

What makes this particular threat so disgusting is that Clinton knows better. Unlike McCain, who appears to relish the thought of death and mayhem, whether in Iraq or Iran, and who presents his history of bombing dikes and hospitals in North Vietnam as heroic exploits, she opposed that war in Indochina once upon a time. I assume that among other things she opposed the Indochina War because she thought it was wrong for the US to be slaughtering millions of innocent peasants.

Now she’s talking about slaughtering not millions of innocent Vietnamese, but tens of millions of innocent Iranians.

What a fine display of leadership potential we have here!

As far as I’m concerned Clinton has just disqualified herself for the job of commander in chief of the world’s most awesome military power.

We’ve had our experience with a power-crazed, jingoistic leader, and we’re living with the ugly results—five years of pointless bloody war. At least so far, though, George Bush has kept his finger off the nuclear button (unless reports prove true that small nuclear bunker busters were employed secretly in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Now Clinton is saying she’s ready to push that button.

Folks, if you haven’t already got reason enough to reject this woman—her lies about her support for NAFTA, her red-baiting of Barack Obama, her lies about her visit "under fire" to Bosnia, her corrupt financial history, etc., etc.—this latest statement about her readiness to incinerate a nation of 70 million people for the actions of their leaders ought to do the trick.

Hillary Clinton is the Democratic answer to John McCain.

They both belong where they are, in the Senate, where they can do no harm.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin’s Press, 2006, and now available in paperback edition).
His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Forum posts

  • Yes dear, we’re WELL aware of your Israel-first position. In fact, you wouldn’t be in the limelight if it were not for your Israel-first position. It certainly isn’t because of your ’statesmanship’!

  • From the beginning Clinton was the most dangerous candidate running, from either side of the aisle. She’s never flinched from sabre rattling and would be the first to pull the trigger. The point that women have made during this campaign - that men have screwed up the world and only women can straighten it out - has been laughable considering the fact they’re relying on the biggest hawk running - Hillary Clinton. In fact, she’d be worse than W.

    Her husband followed a chickenhawk course when he capitulated to the Neocons (See: http://www.newamericancentury.org/i... which provoked him into bombing Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...) Those actions could’ve ignited a full blown out war against Hussein. Instead, they proved to be the provocation that "proved" Hussein would strike the U.S. in retaliation and thus couldn’t be trusted.

    The Clinton’s Third Way - a rightward tilt into the hands of the Neocons - has been a disaster. It left the Democrats without a sound foreign policy, though somehow Hillary hasn’t suffered from the fact that she would basically continue "the War on Terror" promising all the while that she’d pull the troops out of Iraq. If she were to win, there is no way she would pull all the troops out and abandon the embassy there. Just look at her record. It’s all very clear.

    And since she’s decided to go with guns over butter, there would be absolutely no way to find funds necessary to support her social programs. Those are merely policy plans drawn up by wonks to win the election.

    The voters in PA were fooled, particularly the women. Don’t expect the same to happen in IN and NC. And don’t forget those "leaders" who have supported her, including Howard Dean, and by omission, John Edwards. They are a distinct sign of a sick party in need of real ideas instead of a phony candidate.

    Soon, Hillary will have to return to the Senate where she’ll then attempt to pursue the Neocon agenda once again with her pal Joe Lieberman. Thanks to the youth of America, African Americans and countless intelligent voters, she’ll be relegated to relative obscurity rather than being given a chance to run this country further into decline and fall. Yo Hillary, don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you walk away.

  • We all know how "tough" Hilary is, here in the real world. We know her husband was getting a blowjob in the Whitehouse, and she didn’t divorce him. What a "tough guy". Now Mrs Average Housewife would have dragged her husband into court, and screwed him for everything he has, but "Tough Guy" Hillary took it. She’s so tough - honest!