Threatening to nuke Russia's friend isn't sounding tough. It's sounding stupid and insane.

And which party is she running for again?

She said the same thing GWB would love to say, a total Neocon outlook.

Who was she pandering to?  Or is she really a warmonger that is "not as bad as McCain" as FairyTale just said?

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

I've been in that camp until today.  Advocating genocide -- which is what talk, no matter how loose, of "obliterating" a country is all about -- is a dealbreaker.

Generally speaking, the arena of presidential politics I care most about is the Supreme Court. I believe Clinton would appoint better justices than McCain would.

But I had not imagined that a Democrat would advocate so reckless and appalling a foreign policy.  I could not condone it, and will leave the party if she is to be the standard-bearer.

So she's either a frightening warmonger or a shameless liar and panderer.  But we already knew that...

curiously they seem to be flogging the same dead horse. I would like to know what their hero thinks he will do if Iran nuked Israel or for that matter how he aims to stop them from having nuclear weapons.

Reminds me of the SNL sketch where Amy Poehler, as Hillary Clinton, assures an interviewer that her vote to go to war with Iraq was for political expediency only.  I wish I could find the clip somewhere.

Right. Earlier in this campaign we were told by HRC that you're not supposed to say WHAT you're going to do with your nukes. I guess that's flipped and flopped to we can say that we're going to nuke Russia's friend. Smart.

If you think carelessly throwing out words like "nuclear" and "obliterate" is good foreign policy, you may be in the wrong party.

I understand how hard it is to criticize your own candidate, but, really, you must see that this is pandering of the highest order.

You are completely correct.  Hillary's stand is the responsible approach.  She's trying to argue against the positions of Bush And McSame, but Democrats are too stupid to see it.

I'll reply to this one, because you maintain a civil tone.

First, of all, I am familiar with the concept of deterrence.  It is essentially a game of chicken and on several occasions it nearly got us all killed.  The glory of the end of the cold war was that we would no longer have to endure a system in which two countries held each other's populations hostage.

I'd much rather emphasize a policy of prevention (of Iran obtaining nukes) than talk about destroying an entire country.

Did I miss sometihng, did Kennedy nuke Cuba?

Except of course Russia would respond by nuking us so we're deterred from nuking Iran.

Right. Because threatening to nuke Russia's ally is good foreign policy. Perhaps if you're in the GOP.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. ......

Oh, that's a good one. Clinton supporters live and breath off of quotes taken out of context.

...people who talk about nuclear attacks on non-nuclear states without grasping that such threats increase the threat of proliferation really shouldn't be lecturing anyone about not understanding foreign policy.

Look, I posted this once already but since you are so condescending about foreign policy maybe it's worth another shot.  Just on the subject of deterrence and not even taking into consideration her unfortunate turn of phrase, the proposal in respect of Israel and the Gulf states is a definite eyebrow-raiser in foreign policy circles, largely on the point of 'credibility.'

Perhaps a moment of silence in respect of the passing of the relative sanity which has prevailed in the politics of nuclear 'deterrence' over the past fifty years or so is in order:

That umbrella of deterrence would be offered, Clinton suggested, in order to deter other nations in the region "from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: 'Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself' unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions."

This is a rather bold proposal. Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland proposed something similar in January 2007 when he wrote:

"The United States should also be prepared to extend guarantees of territorial security for Arab states in the Gulf region. Bush should announce that he wants consultations with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab states -- as well as principal U.S. allies in Europe -- on extending a U.S. or NATO nuclear umbrella over friendly states in the Gulf. This would be a direct defensive response to Iran's destructive drive for a nuclear program that can produce atomic weapons. U.S. guarantees would enable Arab states to forgo developing their own nuclear arsenals, just as the U.S.-Japan bilateral security treaty is intended to keep Japan nuclear-free."

But Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Reagan, says this proposal is a dangerous one.

"It's one thing to promise to respond to a nuclear attack by a potential global hegemon, the Soviet Union, against a major ally, such as Germany or Japan, especially when Washington has deliberately disarmed them," he wrote last year in The National Interest. "Very different is to promise to protect Jordan or Kuwait, friendly countries, true, but neither historic nor important allies, against an attack by Iran, a regional power without global reach. The latter is an extraordinary extension of a doctrine fraught with danger."

That's because, he wrote, such an umbrella "makes conflict more likely in other ways. First, if the U.S. commitment is not credible, there is no deterrent effect. ...Second, if war erupts, U.S. involvement (assuming America makes good on its promise) is automatic. Washington loses the ability to weigh costs and benefits in the particular case at the particular time...Third, offering to lend America's military to a friendly nation reduces the latter's need to develop its own defense and foster its own alliances. This perverse impact of U.S. defense promises and deployments is evident in East Asia today. The primary example is Japan, which only now, six decades after the end of World War II, is debating a more active defense and foreign policy that is commensurate with its abilities and interests."

He calls the policy "reckless."

Jake Tapper - Clinton's "Umbrella of Deterrence" for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE ABC 17 Apr 08

I actually am sympathetic to the notion of a nuclear deterrent arrangement with Israel, in the event of a proven nuclear attack capability being developed in Iran, along the lines of that provided to Great Britain in the Cold War.  But to turn this to adversarial campaign rhetoric is, dare I say it, naïve and irresponsible.  To extend it to the Gulf States is rash.  To throw it out as a bit of 'red meat' to an electorate which has not heard the pros and cons of the debate and the implications and constraints on the future options of the nation is deplorable.  To make the comment that the US would 'obliterate' a sovereign power, and a populous one, without unequivocal qualifications and disclaimers is staggering.

Are you suggesting that we should start WWIII over Israel? Is that honestly in the interests of America? Or don't you care about that?

So, if you don't want to nuke Iran, you don't care about Israel.  I never realized foreign policy ("for adults," apparently) was so simple.

Bet his answer wouldn't be nuke Iran. He's said it would be a mistake to use nukes in areas that have civilians.

In that case, the answer I'd rather hear is "I would act, in concert with our allies, to destroy those weapons, or, barring that, Iran's ability to use them."

Isn't that better than "I will destroy the entire country."?

The response is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing:

You disagree with the premise of the question and say that there are other ways of dealing with Iran.  You could also point out that Iran is the only functioning democracy in the Persian gulf and that its people care much more about reviving their economy and liberalizing their state laws than they do about obtaining nuclear weapons.  You could also remind everyone that the most recent NIE stated that Iran was probably about ten years away from obtaining a nuclear weapon and the last time we got ahead of ourselves in this type of thinking, we wound up in a disastrous war which has cost nearly a trillion dollars and has not accomplished any of its major goals.

You've jumped the shark there.