Disturbing Hawkishness from Hillary Clinton. Is this her true belief or is it merely

[Indepatriot]

"political expediency" ? Either way, this is important for primary voters to see. Personally, I've had more than enough WAR already, and I believe anyone who would advocate "Total Obliteration" of any country is unfit to lead our nation.

[brooklynite]

1. Would it have been possible to explain what this is in reference to?

[brooklynite]

2. Never mind; I see this was something from 8 years ago...

[Indepatriot]

7. So you're saying she's "evolved" on this issue? If she has I'd like to know. Did she apologize for

and/or refute this statement? To me, there is no "statute of limitations" on Total Obliteration.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Back at Hillary 3.0?

Don't people read about firmware upgrades? Did they not receive the engineering change notification?

[AgingAmerican]

53. So nothing she has said in the past still stands?

nt

[brooklynite]

55. Depends on whether there's any evidence to suggest it's still relevant.

Care to point out an equivalent statement from her more recent tenure as Secretary of State?

[AgingAmerican]

57. Previous position statements are relevent

nt

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Maybe this: Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. What would Senator Sanders do if Iran dropped a nuclear bomb on one of our allies?/NT

[Indepatriot]

12. Why don't you ask him? My belief is that he would take appropriate action. "Total Obliteration"

of millions of innocents is not appropriate action.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. What do you think the appropriate reaction to genocide would be?/NT

[Indepatriot]

27. Honestly, I'm not quite sure, but I am sure more genocide is not the appropriate response.

[qazplm]

54. that's not a great answer

if responding militarily isn't the answer, then what is?

[PoliticAverse]

37. Bringing those responsible for the genocide to justice. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Russia has some 8,000 or so nuclear warheads.

What should the response of the United States be if Vladimir Putin used all of them on us?

Would just bringing him to justice be the adequate remedy for killing hundreds of millions of people?


Your suggestion seems to invalidate the premise of Mutually Assured Destruction that using nuclear weapons will result in massive retaliation and thus makes nuclear war much more likely.


Socrates smiles... The truth is reached by asking questions until material truth is arrived at. That's just what Madame Secretary was doing; making the use of nuclear weapons much less likely.

[Purveyor]

82. 'What difference would it make'? If he used "all of them"...the planet is toast anyway. eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. The whole point of my argument is that he nor we would use them because using them ...

The whole point of my argument is that he nor we would use them because using them would precipitate the apocalypse.

[HassleCat]

44. This is an example

I find it disturbing how far some people will reach to defend their candidate against criticism. This often takes the form, as this post does, of, "Well, OK, but what would your candidate do?" Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. It probably never will have a nuclear weapon. If it did have a nuclear weapon, Iran would probably not be stupid enough to drop it on Israel, since Israel has multiple nuclear weapons, and is more than capable of retaliating in kind.

I guess this involves defending Hillary Clinton against criticism of her answer to some hypothetical question about what she would do if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel. I don't criticize her for her specific answer, since it's a hypothetical question, and those are impossible to answer correctly. She should have just responded, "That's a strange hypothetical question, and I can't answer it." Anyway, now we're trading hypotheticals back and forth, putting words into the mouths of our opponents, and getting kind of silly about the whole thing.

Sanders people, aren't we intelligent enough not to resort to citing responses to hypothetical gotcha questions? Clinton people, aren't you intelligent enough to avoid responding in kind? Everybody, can we stop acting like kids fighting on the playground?

[Voice for Peace]

81. thanks! you took the words out of my fingertips

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. You took it out of context. Are you that afraid of Clinton that you will distort and twist?

Read you own link: "If Iran attacks Israel...." More distortion, twisted attacks.

[Indepatriot]

8. I read the link. I don't care what the context is, advocating Total Obliteration of any nation is

unacceptable to me as a human being.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. What would Senator Sanders do if Iran dropped a nuclear bomb on one of our allies?/NT

[MoonRiver]

26. crickets, of course n/t

[still_one]

30. I suspect many here are not aware that Bernie is a strong supporter of Israel. He believes in a two

state solution, prefers labor of the likud, but will continue to support Israel if he becomes President.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Which is where most Americans are./nt

[still_one]

36. of course, as is every single Democratic nominee. The only candidate that I am aware of that might

have a different view on this would be Rand Paul.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. There you have it ladies and gentleman

Damn the context...if she said it, I can twist and distort and make it mean anything I want to, as long as it paints Hillary in the ugliest light possible.

[Agschmid]

17. Yup.

[Indepatriot]

21. I did not twist or distort anything. "Total Obliteration" of millions of innocents is unacceptable

to me no matter the context. And context is fully provided by the link. I believe it is you who are attempting to "twist and distort" here.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. By the way, welcome to DU

I see that you are new here.

Regarding twisting and distorting: you purposefully posted a thread with a partial quote from Ms. Clinton suggesting that she would bomb Iran...with no context and then called her hawkish.

Now Hawkish: certainly "bomb bomb bomb Iran," would be considered Hawkish. However suggesting that we would respond if one of our allies was attacked, is actually, the only acceptable answer. Sitting by and watching allies suffer with no response, that is not pacifism. That is betrayal.

[Indepatriot]

35. I've been "here" since 2007.

Perhaps you need to view the link again. I did NOT post a "partial" quote, the whole thing is right there for all to see, including the complete context. If you want to give Hillary a pass on this that is your choice, I choose not to support anyone who would so casually advocate the murder of millions of innocents.

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. Casually advocate....there you go again...

Lol.

[Agschmid]

49. "Casually Advocate"

What a stretch...

[AgingAmerican]

58. "Total obliteration is unacceptable"

Such an 'ugly' thing to say!

[OKNancy]

9. "If Iran attacks Israel" you can bet your house that Sanders wouldn't sit back and do nothing.

And I will add that the ruling parties in Iran have changed since 2007.
As with good diplomats, she is now speaking to the CURRENT situation ( her words are easily found on the internet)

[GeorgeGist]

40. So doing nothing is the only alternative to obliteration?

Sounds like something a Tea Party member would think.

[AgingAmerican]

60. It's called "Black and white thinking"

Everything is either good or evil, no gray areas. And, yes, it is how the far right sees the world.

[mylye2222]

47. Ah very interesting link!!!

Curiously right now, Iran talks are soon coming to deadline (belated to July 9th) and corporate Democratic media as well as RW ones are dismissing Secretary Kerry on the false story he cant set that deal... as Hillary Clinton is still the favorite and certainly needs to highlught her State tenure.... and now we learn she might not be really wish a deal? Hmmm hmmmm.....

Thanks again for the info, no-hypocrisy.

[Martin Eden]

52. **IF** Iran attacks Israel

For clarity's sake, context is important. Based on the link you provided, Hillary's quote was about a scenario in which Iran attacks Israel.

I don't necessarily agree with that response, especially because "attack" could be applied to acts that are a far cry from a military assault and/or may have been largely provoked by Israel.

Personally, I think our aid to Israel should be tied to compliance with UN resolutions and official US policy regarding settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The US enables these violations as well as the oppression and destruction wreaked upon Palestinian civilians.

Putting relations between the US and Iran in historical context, our actions have been worse than theirs. In 1953 we helped engineer a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected government, ushering in a quarter century of oppression under the regime of our man the Shah. Then we aided Saddam Hussein in his bloody 8 year war against Iran.

Hillary Clinton's tough sounding rhetoric indicates more of the same brutal foreign policy in the Middle East that has cost us so much and left the region is such a mess. Her vote for the IWR in 2002 is consistent with her current worldview. I will never, in a Democratic primary, support any candidate -- including John Kerry and Joe Biden -- who voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.

That alone is a deal breaker, and it really doesn't look like HRC has "evolved" in these matters.

[leveymg]

69. Israel has hundreds of A-bombs, and is the only one (ambiguously) threatening to use them.

The whole premise of which Hillary speaks is upside down.

The question should be, what would you do if Israel went first-use against Iran?

[Indepatriot]

15. Context is completely provided by both the link and the narration. Call me a dove if you

want but in my opinion her answer disqualifies her as an acceptable candidate for the presidency. You answer seems to suggest it was political expediency in a "heated campaign". Either way, no bueno.

[Agschmid]

19. Almost every candidate has voted for war.

In one way or another... Pretty much they are all tainted from this type of vote.

You are aware of this correct?

[Agschmid]

13. OP FAIL.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. Sanders: I'm not "going to let some damn war cost me the election."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251425220

[MoonRiver]

28. Oh noooos!

[still_one]

31. I don't think so. Bernie is not a pacifist, and he never said he was.

[Indepatriot]

50. The OP is not about Sanders. It is about HRC's own words about "totally obliterating" Iran.

If you want to discuss Sanders triangulating on something perhaps you could start a thread of your own on that subject.

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. Actually, it is about words and actions

The actions and words of Sanders were actual. The words of Clinton you chose to highlight are twisted and distorted.

Have a nice day Indepatriot. I'm heading out for a run before the temperature gets too hot.

[Indepatriot]

56. Are you saying that actual video of HRC's own words are ''twisted and distorted"? Was the video

edited or her words overdubbed? If you have knowledge of such actions please share it with us, because if HRC didn't say this I will be happy to retract this thread and issue an apology to Mrs. Clinton and her supporters. I honestly wish she'd never said this, as I'd like to have several good choices in January. If this clip is so disturbing to you as to motivate you to deny the actual content perhaps you should reconsider your support for Mrs. Clinton. Denial is not a river in Egypt. Enjoy your run.

[Nite Owl]

85. Her hawkisnness

is the reason I voted for Obama in '08.
When did she say this?

[Jefferson23]

22. One main problem with that interview is the question she was asked. CNN asked her

a willfully stupid question, based on a bullshit presumption that Iran intends to have/will
have nukes and will therefore use them against Israel if they accomplished that alleged
goal.

It is a dishonest conversation from the beginning, Americans are fed a diet of nonsense
by the MSM.

I am not giving Clinton a pass, but she is correct, that would be US response, and that
is also why Iran, who is not suicidal, is not pursuing nukes, what they do want and their
history from our coup decades ago taught them not to trust us, is a level of deterrence.

None of that is discussed.

[Indepatriot]

24. I agree with you that the press is nearly useless and that the question itself was hyperbolic. But

her answer is terrifying.

[Jefferson23]

25. Yes, but she is only stating what would happen and she is correct..that's what we'd probably do.

But as I said, the whole interview was bullshit.

[MoonRiver]

29. The idea of Iran nuking Israel, or any other country,

is terrifying to me.

[Indepatriot]

43. I would assume then, that Hillary blithely advocating "Total Annihilation" of Iran would

terrify you as well.

[MoonRiver]

61. I don't know what she actually said or the context.

I know what you said she said.

Edit: I found the link I think you are talking about down thread. It's clear she's talking about a possibility of attacking Iran IF Iran were to attack Israel. I doubt any president, including Bernie Sanders, would just sit back and let Israel be destroyed.

[Indepatriot]

71. I think "totally obliterate them" coming from her own lips, on videotape, is pretty clear.

Again, this is totally unacceptable to me as a human being from any candidate no matter their affiliation.

[MoonRiver]

74. Context is everything, unless you're on a mission to smear someone.

[Fumesucker]

62. Which nation has actually employed nuclear weapons against a civilian population?

[MoonRiver]

63. That has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

[Fumesucker]

64. You were speaking of your fear of Iran using nukes

I was pointing out that logically Iran has much more to fear from the USA than we do from them, the USA has a history of employing nuclear weapons against civilian populations while Iran does not.

[Indepatriot]

68. "Logic" we don't need no stinking logic....

[Indepatriot]

65. Details,details...

[still_one]

34. That is why in general politicians avoid "hypothetical" questions. In this case, as you pointed out

it is a dishonest conversation. A hot button hypothetical, and because of the "hot button" nature of the question, not answering it would cause more uncertainty.

[Jefferson23]

38. Yes, and another reason I can't stand the MSM..they do not serve what is suppose to be their

purpose.

[still_one]

39. I absolutely agree

[tularetom]

33. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…"

Remember how we ridiculed Senator McCain for his little attempt at humor?

But now it's OK I guess.

[Evergreen Emerald]

73. This is the problem with half truths

People read the title, and then jump to the distorted, biased conclusion created by one with an agenda. To compare Clinton's statement to McCain's....

[Indepatriot]

76. Please do not accuse me of posting "half-truths". I provided a link with a complete question/answer

from HRC without editing or paraphrasing, then stated that this level of hawkishness made it impossible for me to support her. I "distorted" absolutely nothing, and you saying so is not a "half truth" it is a LIE. Furthermore, if anyone "jumped to a conclusion" because of my personal opinion they need to work a little harder at finding their own way. I posted only THE TRUTH and my opinion bout how that truth effects my view of HRC. NO LIES/DISTORTIONS/SMEARS were posted in the OP. If HRC's hawkishness makes you uncomfortable that is not my fault.

[Thinkingabout]

42. If you are worried about who is hawkish why would you try to demean DNC candidates?

I am sure you know the alternative to a DNC candidate id the hawkish GOP. There are situations which would require action, I don't like war either and I realize protection of our nation is vital and also assisting our "friend nations".

[Indepatriot]

48. Please explain to me how sharing a link that provides both context and a full, unedited quote

from Hillary Clinton, then posting my opinion that this quote is unacceptable to me is somehow demeaning her. Did she say "totally obliterate them" or not? Why would you try to demean a rational conversation about a candidates stated position on a VERY important subject. Is discussing HRCs own words demeaning or attacking her?

[Sheepshank]

59. Yes, the nation must base its voting preference on your mind reading pronouncements

God this was a useless op.

[Indepatriot]

66. Are you saying that a candidate's statement that they would "totally obliterate" another country

is unimportant information when making a decision on whom to support? "mind reading"? No need to mind read when there's video evidence. I never said anyone should base their vote on my preferences, only that this information may be of use when making a choice. Perhaps you could avoid such "useless" OPs in the future, rather than feeling compelled to comment on such trivialities...

[Agschmid]

67. Unfortunately unless you block them, anyone is entitled to respond to this OP.

Like it or not.

[Indepatriot]

70. I'm trying to get as many folks involved in the conversation as possible. I merely observed that

Shawshank was free to not reply to such a "useless" OP. You yourself have now chimed in 3 or 4 times on this "failed" OP. Seems it's not quite as "fail" as you thought. Don't misunderstand me, I'm happy you're participating, but not quite sure why you would bother with such a "FAIL" of an OP.

[Agschmid]

72. You may be trying to get people involved...

But what you are actually doing is alienating an entire group of people at DU.

[Indepatriot]

75. So you're saying that discussing a candidate's own words and positions is somehow

"alienating" their supporters? All I did was post a video of her answering a question. If the truth of her answer is somehow offensive to you or her other supporters maybe you should reconsider supporting her. Either that or not join in the discussion. I did not modify in any way or even paraphrase HRC's words. I simply presented them as they were recorded. If that is an affront to her supporters than I can live with that. But they cannot claim to want an open discussion of the candidates if they are unwilling to debate the actual facts.

[asjr]

79. "All I did was post a video of her answering a question."

I see you are fairly new to DU. You also seem to be putting words into mouths of others. That is simply not Kosher. But it sounds trollish. You may criticize HRC; a lot of others do also, but most of the others make their statements and then move on.

[Indepatriot]

80. As did I until I was accused of "distorting" "smearing" "demeaning" ad nauseum.....Seems any

issues-based discussion of Hillary that questions her ability to be an effective candidate will be met with a chorus of her supporters unable to discuss the actual issue, and hell bent on attacking the OP.....now THAT's what I call democracy in action...

[Indepatriot]

84. Here since 2007..What words did I put in anyone's mouth. Examples please or it is you who is

attributing words not expressed by others to them. Please, show me where I put words in someone's mouth and I will retract them.

[wyldwolf]

78. A Democrat is a hawk? FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton would be shocked!