Hillary: She’s Panderific!
Yesterday, Donviti had a post about Hillary signing on for the terrible McCain plan of a federal tax holiday on gas for the summer. This is a clear case of the wrong answer to the question. I think it is designed to appeal to Hillary’s base, the uneducated masses. While snarky, it is indeed the demographic in which she is strongest.
Almost missed in the hullabaloo of the PA primary, was the fact that she threatened to commit genocide. No, I’m not being bombastic. When discussing Iran and Israel, Hillary said that if Iran attacked Israel, she would “totally obliterate” Iran. Not, “We would defend Israel’s borders and sovereignty.” Not, “We would repel Iran and attack them in ways that would destabilize their government.” Rather, she will obliterate them. Men, women and children.
Let’s compare this to the BS that was trotted out against Obama when he said that if al Qaeda were pinpointed in the mountains of Waziristan, and Pakistan refused to help, he would bomb al Qaeda. That seems reasonable. Hillary’s response seems insane.
The only thing that I can think that she is doing is pandering to the Jewish voter and the Conservative Christian base that wants to keep Israel around long enough to usher in the apocalypse. Either way, it is dangerous and foolish.
Tags: 2008 Presidential
Self-Imposed Retards for Hillary!!!
Yea!
The irony is that all Hillary was promising was Mutually Assured Destruction, the official US strategy for most of the Cold War. Retaliation not preemption.
Not saying I agree with total obliteration (which does not technically match the definition of genocide), but she is discussing a reaction not an action.
Also missed in PA was that she flat-out said, as she has consistently said for the past two years, that as President she would renounce the doctrine of preemptive war.
Both Obama and McCain have refused to do so.
I was shocked by her answer, shocked even more by its lack of coverage. Hillary basically changed Middle East policy and no one seemed to care.
Steve – She is discussing an over-reaction. Obliterate is not targeted strikes. Obliterate is not assassinations. Obliterate is nuclear.
How is this different from Iran saying that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?
Geek
I did not say that I agreed with her.
But that’s what we spent 40 years threatening to do to the Soviet Union.
There is somewhat of a difference. The concept of mutually assured destruction assumes that both sides have enough destructive power to destroy each other. That is clearly not the case.
I don’t think the difference is as large as you suggest.
A nuclear strike against Israel, due to the size of the country, would potentially result in the destruction of the country, if not from blast, from fallout.
(It would also make most of Jordan, parts of Lebanon and Syria, as well as Gaza uninhabitable, but hey who is counting?)
Thus Hillary was responding to a question that could be paraphrased as “What do you do if Iran launches a nuclear strike that could potentially destroy Israel?” Her answer: destroy Iran.
This is almost exactly the same calculus that we employed with the Soviet Union, and yes we did argue that first use of nuclear weapons by the USSR against one of our European allies would be considered an attack on the US and trigger massive retaliation.
Again, I am not subscribing to the doctrine, but I do think you are engaging in at least a certain amount of hyperbole in your description of Hillary’s response.
Frankly, I find any strategic doctrine that holds entire populations hostage to be immoral.
The point is she was pandering. Her comment was directed at the groups LG stated above. And, since I haven’t heard her mention it again (has she?) it strikes me as a very dangerous throw away line.
Here’s Obama at his best, telling the truth about the gas tax holiday in an ad in NC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywQKYga6uMY
Steve, I haven’t looked at this closely but what I gathered from Maddow on Olbermann was that she said that if there was an attack on ANY ally in the mid-east (Sauds et al) that we would obliterate Iran. That is what everyone is talking about when they are saying that she struck some definatively new ground with this statement.
That and it certainly looked as if she intended this to be a strike a la Kyl-Lieberman…no further requirement from Congress thank you very much.
I noticed that Obama knocked her plan but failed to tell us what his plan. Another great speech but no solutions
A striking Victory for Obama in Guam he was up there by a good margin but only won by only 7 votes seems he can’t deliver the knockout punch.