Clinton Defends Saying She Would ‘Obliterate’ Iran

Here’s something you Democrat Primary
voters in North Carolina and Indiana
need to think about since a majortiy of you want to end our involvement in Iraq and bring our troops home:
Clinton has spoke out recently on the need to extend America’s nuclear deterrent to other countries in the middle east. When asked who would fall under that “nuclear umbrella”, Clinton explained “the theory that I’m putting forth is, we have to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. We have to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the region, because I’m not so concerned about them falling into the hands of states, which is bad enough, as I am about falling into the hands of terrorists.”
In other words Hillary Clinton would
commit us to defending Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, The United Arab Emerates, etc!
This dumb idea would lead to spreading our forces and equipment way too thin and be a total disaster!

“Clinton also responded to criticism that her comments would undermine Iranians seeking democracy and an alliance with the United States. ‘The experts I consult with don’t say that,’ she explained.”
Are these the same experts you consulted about your plan for a gas tax holiday? You know, the experts on political pandering?

Maybe Hillary is looking for Bush’s endorsement?
Bush has a great record for not listening to the experts and we know where that got us.

More saber rattling. This woman is pulling out all the stops because she knows she will loose. At least my man Ron Paul lost with dignity and truth. This woman is dangerous much like McCain.

Well I do not think that the Middle East region and it’s people, Israel included, could in fact sustain two atomic explosions.
Goes back to the make glass out of the Middle East argument. Thoughtless and provocative.

All things considered, it does not seem that Obama is very forceful. But none of the three candidates is perfect, none of them. So, once again, we will be voting for the lessor evil from our own individual perspective. May the best person for the country, not a political party, win the Office of POTUS.

I guess Obama would probably be okay if Iran made a nuclear attack against Isarel. After all, his church published the Hamas Manifesto calling for the end of Isarel in their church newsletter, and Hamas supports Obama for President. Not defending Isarel would be a no-brainer for Obama.
Does anyone really think it’s okay for Iran to make a nuclear attack against an ally of the USA without expecting massive retaliation?

So on the one hand, she claims she’s the candidate that will pull us out of Iraq (you know, the war she voted to authorize). And on the other hand, she promises to obliterate other countries by dropping nuclear weapons on their civilian populations.
What to believe? The saber-rattling or the promises to end the war in Iraq?
I’m very confused. But she mentioned NASCAR several times in one of her speeches earlier today, so she’s got my vote.

The term is called deterrence. It works along with negotiations. It scares me that Obama wouldn’t stand up for countries against a nuclear weapon with deterrence. The United States has been using it for years. Kennedy used deterrence, Nixon used it, Reagan used it, Carter used it, Bush Sr. used it, Clinton used it, Bush Jr. used it. So now the only person that wouldn’t use deterrence is Obama…That is scary.

If we extend our nuclear umbrella over our allies in the middle east, Russia and China will respond likewise. Where is this stupid woman taking us?

Why do Iranians/Iranian Americans always make comments about how mean it is for Hillary to talk about attacking Iran but completely ignore the “if Iran attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon” part? If you are so concerned about innocent people and humanity, why only care about Iran? If Iran has only “peaceful nuclear technology” they’ll never hit Israel with a nuke so you have nothing to worry about. I am concerned that Obama’s years as President would be like Jimmy Carter’s years as President. Obama is already criticizing the idea of standing up for our friends and allies. Not much gets solved by trying to be the nice guy (remember the Carter years).

What I think is this:
-If Hillary Clinton suggest she wanted world peace, the Obama freaks would rip her a new one and call it a LIE or PANDERING .
- If Obama was caught clubbing baby seals on the head on tape, they would somehow say it showed his ‘inner strength’ .
I really wonder if there are ANY Obama supporters who actually know how the world works, or what the presidents job is.
I wish the Obama suppporters would just grow up and stop taking anything Clinton says and twist it into a scathing negative. Quite often it looks immature and quite offensive.

And how would Israel benefit from the distruction of the Iranian population, after its own population has been massacred? Pushing forward such lunatic scenarios are meant to hide the lack of real solutions, which would include a more open support for Israel and at the same time a real dialog with Tehran and a more effective participation of the international community to the consultations.

OH Cmon Now, If Iran attacks Israel that is what any president would do except maybe Obama, who would probably consult Rev. Wright.

tj remember that gw bush talk act tougher than hillary clinton but where here is the progress in international relations so far(in eight years)?
irak in civil war……………(finish the rest}

Hillary knows the issues and can get something done. Obama is still learning to stream his words.

The Donald Young Story will be appearing soon for Obama to explain away.

i beleive that with the so called ” white middle class” AND THE OLD PEOPLE is that with all respect they can not make the difference between HILLARY PANDERING AND THE TRUTH COMMING FROM OBAMA. THEY USED TO BE LIE TO BY PEOPLE LIKE HILLARY AND BILL AND THEY ARE NOT FAMILIAR TRUTH TELLING PEOPLE LIKE OBAMA

If Obama would shaft his friend Rev. Wright for political gain…What does that say about his character? He has also spent much more money to buy the superdelegates than Hillary has.

i am not shocked that Clinton using such strong word does not make Americans people turn against her. Is it that they are all war mongers.I think the world is not safe with these can of people in it.
When you walk in the dark you will never understand the light, you would never even know you are in the darkness.
cyrus

JFrance
IM WITH YOU 100%
WHY WOULD DEAN AND PELOSI, ASK THEM SUPERDELEGATES TO PLEDGE WHILE THE PRIMARIES IS STILL ON. THEY WANT TO FORCE-FEED US OBAMA..
IF THEY PUT OBAMA IN, ILL VOTE MCAIN FOR THE GOOD OF THIS NATION..

So what would Obama do? Nothing, like his debate answer suggested?

nodevilsplease -
You are a complete tool and you obviously have way too much free time.

It would be nice if we were in a world that Obama dreams of but in the real world some countries want dominance over others and the only thing they understand is power and the knowledge that the president will use it if necessary.

Anders Scooper, Why are you so down on the chosen one?

I just don’t want to hear anyone who is supporting Obama right now complaining 2 years from now when they finally realize change is not always a good thing.

I can’t think of a better endorsement than having Iran bad mouth you.

Azar-
The question asked towards Hillary was “IF” Iran were to attack Israel w/ nuclear arms.

Too many for me to count Anders

What would Obama do if Iran nuked Israel? Tell them: “That was not nice. I’m sorry, but we’re going to have to punish you. You can’t sell your Iranian made Persion rugs in the U.S., until you say you’re sorry.”

This is nothing but political posturing and an insult to not only Americans, but all people. It is a given, that any sitting president would do the same. There is not big secret that Israel is an ally. However, Israel has the largest mini nuke cache in the world and Iran or anyone would suffer should the leadership of any nation would be so idiotic to nuke anyone. How dare you, ABC, your so called new journalists peers to play the Karl Rove scare tactic and help to Americans that don’t know who and what you are into voting out of fear. Shame on you ABC. Shame on you Hillary, I did not believe that you would stoop so low.

When BO takes office the world would unite with the US as the chosen leader with God’s hand picked Messiah at the helm. Our enimies will be our best friends, and Iran, Hamas and Al Qaeda will abandon their viloent path and drink milk out of Barack’s hand. This is our destiny. The US and the world will prosper under BO and our world will become the land of milk and honey.

Our insider polling forecast massive victories for Barack with a 30 percent margin in NC and 15 percent in Indiana. The race is over and the presidential elction is over too. None can stand against the tidal wave and the tsunami of support and goodwill for barack. Barack, the new Messiah is God approved.

Let us heal and unite. Barack Obama is already elected as the President of the US. Nothing, repeat nothing, and no one, repeat no one. will stand in the way. Join the movement, a nation and the world to change our destinies forever. There will be no more wars foreven under barack, our enimies will be come our best friends. Amen!

“Azar-
The question asked towards Hillary was “IF” Iran were to attack Israel w/ nuclear arms.” Michael;
That was a stupid question and her answer was a brainless answer for the reasons stated in my earlier comments and the following:
Once again, Israel is not only one of the strongest nations on earth, but also the strongest in the Middle East. She has hundreds of nuclear bombs and means of delivery. She is fully capable of defending herself without any outside help. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or means of delivery. According to the best estimate, they are at least 10 years away which means if they succeed in developing one, it would be after 2016 when she would no longer be in the office. As stated earlier, a nuclear explosion anywhere in the Middle East, would affect the entire region including Iran. I do not think that Iranians would like to destroy their own country.
Finally, the election is about electing the president of the United States of America and not the president of the United States of America and Israel. Also, the US foreign policy interest is much different to the Israeli interest. Further, the US is not a state of Israel and nor is Israel the 51st state of the US. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton makes it look like Israel is our 51st state. That’s why her remarks of “obliterating” Iran was dangerous. It was a Nazi like statement.
Therefore, voters should condemn her and not vote for her.

The simple truth is, had Saddam adhered to UN resolution 1441 the US would not have invaded Iraq. Documents secured from Saddam now show that Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD program as he did not think the US would invade him. So sooner or later, the world would have had to face up to the immediate threat Saddam posed to the world. Post 9/11, the US decided it would not wait and be attacked by a known enemy of the West . An enemy who cheered 9/11 , provided aid to Hamas , and who every intelligence agency reported had WMDs. Thus Iraq was invaded. In my opinion, whether it would have been better let Saddam stay in power is a moot point at this time. The facts on the ground now in Iraq are that Al Qaeda is there and if the USA retreats and turns Iraq over to them, Al Qaeda will have access to Iraq’s large oil reserves and thus the means and opportunity to attack us and attack us hard. Our Middle Eastern allies will abandon us and hook up with Al Queda, not to mention the boost a withdrawal from Iraq will give to Iran, Syria and Hamas. Think WWIII, A lot of people on these posts seem think the worse of the USA, again as embodied in the anti-American sermons of Rev. Wright. Further, they scoff at the threat Al Qaeda and the rest of their ilk poses to the security of the US and future of the Western World. I say stop thinking the worse of America and save a little of your vitriol for our true enemies who would kill us all if given half a chance. If Obama or Clinton are elected their defeatist policies will put us all at more risk of another 9/11 attack and even worse the blow up the middle east which will mean more will die. Remember WWII when people thought Hitler could be appeased and were wrong, very wrong and millions more died and don’t make the same mistake.

I watched the TV and the question was if the Iran used nuclear weapon to attack Israel ( country) what will be your reaction.
Considering the size of Israel, once it was attacked by the Nuclear weapon, it was basically obliterated. For Israel, 70% of the population confined in a narrow strip of as little as 9 miles(14km). The major population centers are only 9 to 14 miles(14-22km). So what US will do. Of course US will choose to obliterate the attacker: basically or totally.
I don’t think all the Harvard affirmative action admitted students are always dumber. However senator Obama has shown to us that he is dumbest one with lowest IQ among those admitted students. If you don’t have brain, don’t talk like one with trained brain.

nodevilsplease, you are right on. No one can touch you in this forum because you speak the truth. I love to read truth! Hillary supporters hate it and just keep telling lie after lie!

The world is a dangerous place and there are a lot of people out there that want to do the US harm. People like the fanatic Muslim terrorists now waging war and blowing up and murdering innocent women and children in Africa and the Middle East. The supporters of Obama and Clinton seem to think that all will be well with the world if the US just retreats from Iraq and leaves Iraq to the tender mercies of Al Qaeda and Iran. I think not. In fact, a retreat from Iraq will put the US at greater risk of another 9/11 attack. Further the people in Iraq who supported the US will be put at risk of being slaughtered by Al Qaeda. Just like what happened in the killing fields of Cambodia when the US retreated from Viet Nam. Question is can the Obama and Clinton supporters live with themselves if they get their way and the US retreats from Iraq, and another slaughter (similar to what happened in Cambodia) occurs. Fact is, the US invaded Iraq and now Iraq is the responsibility of the US to make whole and not betray the people in Iraq who are supporting us.

I think what Hillary said about Obliterating the Iranian nation is tactless, undiplomatic, and completely beneath the credentials of someone who is seeking the presidency, esp. in our current era. it is obvious that she is trying to sound tough and to appease the jewish voters. What is funny about it is that now she has realized that she might have offended the arabs in the region by her asymmetric response and to win them back, she wants to expand the nuclear protection to saudis and UAE, and the rest of persian gulf states. I say funny because the 19 hijackers were from saudi (15), UAE, etc. The lack of knowledge about the region never surprises me anymore.

i find it strange the way most of the comments here are. Being an outsider i wonder if this what democracy is in the land of the free.Heard democracy means respect for the other no matter wht views he/she holds. after all u ppl represent ur candidates.So far the goose n the gander are no different.

Is that witch totally insane? Would the American people really let her put her finger on the doomsday button?

“Obliterate” implies we would destroy the whole nation and people of Iran if Iran attacked our allies in the Middle East. That is genocide. The United States does not wish ill to the people of Iran as cooler heads have said in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
While we could no doubt “obliterate” Iran in response to an attack, to deliberately set out to do so would be a crime against humanity. The military response to an attack that we expect from a responsible president is one sufficient to elimiate the threat to the United States and its allies, no less, but no more. A nuclear response to an Iranian attack, should it ever be necessary, would doubtless be devasting in Iranian lives an property. But it should never be targeted at civilians for the sake of “obliteration”.
Since I cannot believe that Yolanda Diaz and others on this thread really believe that the total “obliteraion” of innocent civilians is ever a proper military goal for this nation, I have to believe that the cheering for Hillary’s chauvinism is just partisan noise and not meant seriously.
As to whether we should extend our “nuclear umbrella” to autocratic Middle Eastern regimes that don’t share our values, essentially making our nuclear response subject the vagaries of whatever trouble a wayward sheik might provoke, the idea is ludicrous. Israel and Saudi Arabia under the same U.S. “umbrella”? Right.

Israel doesn’t need our help. Back in 1981 Israel bombed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad which it thought was being used to develop nuclear weapons. Israel will never allow Iran, Syria, Iraq or anyone else in the Middle East to develop a nuclear weapon. Israel can take care of itself.

. . . we need to start gathering intelligence on american mosques, to gain some appreciation of just how they have sought to establish these links, and with whom. and, we need to understand just how seemingly unrelated activities and organizations are linked up, and how centralized their planning is, and just how well they have their agenda’s mapped out.
. . . the examples of long range planning by the Muslim Brotherhood, their goals and agendas, and how they have implemented the same via a worldwide terrorist network, coordinated with a demographic attack on Europe, does not suggest that Islamic and arab interests in this country have been satisfied to sit around and do nothing.
Besides elect a president with a muslim name who attended a muslim school as a child

If Iran attacks Israel, then I think Obama would “understand” why they did that? Just like he “understand” why Mr Wrigh said “damn” america. If he becomes President, this would be his reposnse. He would “understand” why people want to harm america and gave them benefit of doubt.

God Help Us All

Mary Ruth I have to call BS on your pro-Clinton propaganda
Show me a single statement where Obama said he did not want those two states to count. It was not up to him. He did not author the DNC rules that were violated, both he and sen Clinton agreed that the votes would not count under those rules.
Neither state legislature could come up with a plan for a re-vote. Explain please how any of that is Sen. Obama’s fault or the result of his actions?

If you oppose Iran, than stop pushing your gas tax holiday.
Every economists and foreign relations adviser has called it a terrible idea.
It will result in much higher oil prices. Meaning billions more money for terrorist Iran.
Hillary, ask a child, they know how to connect the dots.

Louis,
Tell me just one time when it came out of Obama’s mouth that he wanted the voters in MI & Flo to be allowed to revote or be counted. Once Rules did not allow women or blacks to vote. That was wrong then & is wrong now. The supporters of Clinton offered the money to pay for a new election for Flo & MI. Obama stood up for the powerful DNC instead of the rights of voters. This is a terrible decision by Obama for the general election. He had a chance to stand for the voters and he did not. Both Flo & MI know this. This should not be about candidates. It should always be about voters’ rights, and those voters did nothing wrong.

Did you notice that whatever Hillary said, OBAMA attacks.
Then OBAMA keeps a very low profile.
He just wants to sit it out and let the party does the dirty work for him again.
It is disgusting that the party is fixing this election for OBAMA.
Shame on you! Pelosi, Dean, Joe Andrew and the sorts.

“Obliterate”? To Obliterate an entire country is to kill every Man, Woman, and Child. I read about a person like this in college. His name was Ganghas Kahn. OBAMA ’08

It is sad when some Obama voters care more about Obama than voters’ rights. Republicans & the Supreme Court once cared more about Bush than voters’ rights in Fl. It is wrong both times. It is also stupid for the general election.

Okay folks if we’re going to “Obliterate” Iran, let’s look at it realistically. We’re already over extended in Iraq, and Afghanistan. How are we going to staff a Military to “Obliterate” an entire country? The Draft is a certainty. Everyone in favor of a draft raise your hand, as if we don’t have enough war already

On the other hand Obama would just consult Farrakhan on what action is appropriate. After all, he did just receive his church’s lifetime achievement award for the man who “truly epitomizes greatness”. Who better to ask?

It is obvious that Iran’s threat to Israel goes beyond attacking an ally, rather it is motivated by the sincere conviction that democracy, free-market economy, free press, and Western-styled civil rights optimize the symbiosis between government and people and leads to stability. Israel is the only regime in its region that possesses these qualities, and therefore American support of Israel demonstrates our commitment to these values and furthermore serves as means of projecting our values into a distant sector of the world.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say his nuclear weapons program is for peaceful purposes. HA. He has actually said he wants Israel “wiped off the map”. Attacking Israel is a direct attack on Western culture and influence. Now, I am not a Democrat, and not a Republican, and I, like most people, don’t like war. However, we live in the USA. We are a predominantly Christian religion, with a free democracy. People hate us. There is not much we can do about this at this point.
Clinton is absolutely correct about this one. She must be forceful and she must not mince words. If Iran attacks Israel, we will launch attacks. It will not be a war, but it will be an engagement. These are the stakes in living in America. Hopefully we can get back to the 90′s with foreign relations. Anyone who is upset about this thought should be much more concerned with Iran’s rise to power, and they should stop seeing the world in black and white. The world is gray. There are times we do things out of neccessity that we wished we would never have to do.
Obama’s stance doesn’t seem firm and comes across as wavering. May I also point out that Obama called for invading Pakistan? I don’t see how this would be any less of a stretch for our military.

Hillary is showing that she knows her stuff. By saying that she would “obliterate” Iran, she is using deterrance theory which has guided US defense policy since the end of WWII.
I studied game theory and I remember how much fun the class was.
“Deterrance theory assumes that a credible and significant threat of retaliation can curb an aggressor’s behavior; if an individual believes that aggressive behavior may trigger an unacceptable and violent response from others, he or she is less likely to behave aggressively. The threat of reprisal does not directly reduce the probability of violence; instead, the perceived benefit of aggressive behavior decreases, in the face of probable retaliation. If two individuals recognize that their best interests lie in avoiding each other’s retaliation, neither is likely to initiate hostilities.”
Don’t listen to the Obama spin machine.
Clinton knows her stuff.

Or that we are at least aggressive enough to stave off attacks. Thank you George for the informative post. People seem to see things one-sided. War is typically a one sided issue. Everyone wants to be a powerful, prosperous nation, and they want peace. As nice as that sounds, it is idealistic, unless you live in Denmark minus the power. We have to begin to weigh the casualties versus the mission, and in the case of Iraq the casualties far outweigh what we can get done now. If you want peace you’re going to have to threaten and be aggressive, because some world leaders will never be okay with America, and unless you want to engage in combat you better give the impression that they are in a lose/lose situation and they’ll back down for a while. We cannot be respected without being formidable. Sad as that sounds.

Sen. Obama was asked this morning what he would do. His usual answer..”I’m not going to speculate on that” I’m in this to win. Typical politician avoiding an answer to anything important he is asked that he is afraid may make him look bad. This is one of the many reasons I will never vote for Obama. He’s a wishy washy politician that stays silent on anything unless he sees first it makes another candidate look good, then he jumps all over it. He’s a pathetic and I too believe his fiasco with Rev. Wright and the press club was all a set up. Where’s Rev. Wright now? He’s no where spouting off his racism, he’s done Obama’s dirty work now.

If Iran attacks Israel, Obama will ask, where is the “present” button I can push? Then Obama will go shoot some hoops and complain about the bitter small town Americans clinging to their guns and religion.

Although I’m a big Obama fan, I’m starting to wonder about his stand on some of the issues. I believe Clinton lies, but don’t know what is worse…lying or not talking about it. Gosh, this is really upsetting me.

ChayaFradle,
Yeah she has told some mistruths but so has he. At least with her she is well versed on the issues. The reason I won’t support him is partly because of that reason. I have no idea where he stands on anything.

OK people, lets not forget the context of the question. Iran just detonated one or more atomic bombs in Israel as they have repeatedly “said” they would if they could. When asked what she would do her response indicated that she would detonate a few atomic bombs in Iran to “obliterate” them. She did not say she would “talk” to them like Obama says, or “invade” as some of you have implied. I think placed in the situation of the question her reaction would be correct. What else could she “do”? But that is not her mistake, no. her mistake was to answer the question at all. Both her and Obama are “politically” wrong here. But given her error of “honesty” verses Obama’s error of “hypocrisy” I would support “honesty” over “hypocrisy”. I recall Obama being asked if he would invade “Pakistan” to get OBL. His response was yes….Now “invading” Pakistan would be worse than invading Iraq. If you look at all three of these candidates, each has flaws, so once again we most choose the lesser evil. I choose Hilary…

Obama has his head on the sand,just like most of the liberals posting on this page. These type of people will only wake up and understand after a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our cities or in Israel. Once that happens your life or your kids life will never be the same. The only solution is to stop Iran BEFORE they get the bomb.

There are too many people who fear us. They fear us because too many of us fear them and want to attack them before they attack us. Out of their fear, they start thinking “hey we should attack the U.S.”

You can tell the Obama’s campaign have their people manning their computers to knock down everything positive about Hillary. Just like they bullied the voters in Texas.
As far as this article, Obama likes to hear himself talk. Obama will be still talking while Iran is loading up the Nuclear Bomb. We don’t need a bunch of talk, we need someone who is strong to take on the terroist. Obama can’t even take on Jeremiah Wright. The Democratic Party has to losers, who know nothing.

The difference is this:
=======================
Israel has nuclear weapons for decades now, and had many reasons and opportunities to use it but NEVER have. They don’t intend to use it either if peace can reign with their neighbours – nuke is a very useful deterrent.
Iran on the other hand are trying to get nuclear to “obliterate” Israel just for the sake of hate. The Palestinians will be sacrificed. Iranians won’t mind dying in the process, because they will all go to see their Prophet, which is their aim in life and death.

I don’t think Hillary’s term of “obliterate” is too strong. Iran needs to know that America is not going to play games with them. It was a forceful term, but one that needs to be stated. I applaud Hillary for her comment and for standing up for America.

I have NEVER seen a candidate fight so hard for the White House. Hillary has the PASSION, PRIDE, ENDURANCE, and PERSERVERANCE to become President. These are qualities that a president should have. I have NOT seen these qualities in Obama. It seems like he just repeats the points that Hillary makes. When he is on the stump, he loses it, can’t speak, has no direction. I was not a Hillary supporter in the beginning, but have changed my mind. She IS the BEST hope for America in this time of NEED! Hillary 08 !

HILLARY SHOW’S STRENGTH. OBAMA IS LIKE CARTER A WIMP.

Were it only true, that the answers were so simple, and the truth so apparent for all to see. No matter what any politician may say, someone is always ready willing and able to discredit them with rationalizations. Be the candidate liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrats, there are always those who over simplify the issues and spin their words into extremist BS to serve their polarized ideologies. I am a registered Republican ready to aid in the destruction of that party in the hope it will make room for a viable new party. We Americans of all beliefs need to unit for our common interests. We are stuck with these three choices. I may be wrong but Obama does not impress me as being an honest and sincere man. I will not vote Republican, unless Obama both gets the nomination and manages to change my perception of who and what he is. I would vote for HRC but only because the alternatives “appear” worse. And so to all of you I ask, how did we get here? Why do we not have a candidate we can all rally around?

i agree with clinton if they attack irans we should be ready but lettimg iran not have their nuclear weapon is not something US should get in to. every country has the right to produce nuclear weapon. we should instead negotiate with iran and try to solve problems without using forces. Obama is calling clinton a Bush what about the fact that he was ready to bomb pakistan if they don’t Negotiate in finding Al- queda. he is the real bush. that guy is not even experience enough to deal with foreign policy. the minute he takes the white house bombs would be all over america.

Martin>>> do you think there is a difference between a stupid lie spoken in a moment of political ignorance, and a calculated lie spoken to miss represent ones self? Case in point, when Obama was in the Illinois legislature he told his constituency he was “against” a pending drug bill, yet at the same time he was accepting campaign funds from the Drug companies. Later he voted “FOR” that Drug bill. Obama “said” he sponsored a bill to stop lobbyists from buying Washington politicians lunch, but truth is that bill only prevented them from doing so if the politician was “sitting down”. Now honestly they all lie, they all say one thing and do another. But that is why Clinton and McCain are clearly the better choices here. Not because one lies and the others do not, but because they all lie. So our only way to know what to expect is by knowing who they are as people at their political cores. We can only learn that over time! Maybe in time I will be able to vote for Obama…maybe in eight or years, but not today!!! In a field of people who lie, its always best to choose the liar you know.

Jerome… I guess you think the Obama supporters that would be ready to riot if Obama doesn’t win are more intelligent??? How do you figure that?

Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric was not appropriate. People need to understand that we are already in a war. We do not need to antagonize another one. I will tell you also that the Iranian army is not the Iraq army!! They are trained and disciplined very well. But say we do get in a war with Iran. We will be left weak with China the real superpower that wants to be the dominant superpower. We are walking a very fine line. We need to watch how we talk to certain countries because truth be told we only have one true ally Britian because we have messed up all our friendships by arrogance (Hillary Clinton). United States could be like the fall of Rome.

James, To you it sounds thoughtful…but he is playing the typical politician. He knows when not to give a full answer, so as not to give the wrong one. He learned something in the beginning of the race. Obama is unwilling to take a strong stance on almost anything as long as his vote isn’t on the line. You may mistake his words as careful, and “nurturing” while the rest of the world knows we want to elect someone who has yet to stand up in aggressive manner to our enemies. If there is a inch Iran will take a mile. He has called for destruction of Western influences…how you expect to diplomatically handle this? You think Amadinejhad wants to sit down and talk this out? He thinks he is the Mahdi ( the Savior of Islam) he wants to attack us. What will stop him? If the cons outweigh the pros. If he thinks we will not hesitate to fire back, he will think twice before doing that. If you wanna conversation save that for the ambassadors. The President will not be manipulated by Iran, while he plots behind our backs. If ANYONE thinks we are weak, they WILL attack. If anyone thinks we don’t have enough military, or that we are sour over the war, they WILL attack. And they will not only attack us, but they will call on more terrorists. Let’s face it…diplomacy works in countries that aren’t against us because of our religion and beliefs. That’s it.

ohplease: You are assuming a single outcome game. Nuclear exchange vs. non-nuclear exchange. There are a lot of other outcomes we would like: Iran people overthrow Iran government, no terrorists attacks, no coalition of anti-American middle east countries, etc. The U.S. president threatening Iran makes it more difficult to reach these outcomes. To be honest, terrorist attacks are more likely than a nuclear missile. Her comments make those terrorist attacks even more likely.