Hillary Clinton - The new boss really is the same as the old boss

Hillary Clinton, in an apparent nod to "The Who", confirmed one of the band's most memorable lines by reminding us that the "New boss" really is the same as the "Old boss".  The clarification came in an interview with Keith Olbermann in which Clinton raised the specter of a nuclear showdown with the only functioning democracy in the Persian Gulf region.

MSNBC reports

In [an] interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran's leaders that "their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."


If there are any true progressives out there still supporting Hillary Clinton, I'm wondering what you make of this statement.  I really hate to "go there" by making statements like "Hillary Clinton is now using Republican campaign tactics against Democratic rivals" or "Since when did a nomination battle give one person the right to destroy an entire party".  So I'll refrain from saying these things outright.

But, really, why bring up nuclear war with Iran?  Aren't there more constructive things to talk about like flag lapel pins and Louis Farrakhan?  Can't we be civil and just go back to calling each other elitist?  

This kind of nonsensical saber-rattling is why we're currently bogged down in at least two wars.  Never mind that this rings about as true as John Kerry's statement that he opposed the death penalty because it was "the easy way out" for convicted murderers.

Mrs. Clinton has made it abundantly clear that she'll yank every single service member out of Iraq as soon as she is elected no matter what anyone says.  I guess we know why now.  At least Cheney restrained himself to dropping the F-bomb.  What bombs will Clinton drop?  Personally, I hope it's not the A- or the H-.

Tags: axis of evil, clinton, Iran, terrorists (all tags)




   will do whatever she thinks will empower her the most. If it means dropping a bomb on Iran just to prove a Dem can, she'll do it. Her vote for the Iraq War robbed her of any credibility. She's got zilch.
by southernman 2008-04-21 08:31PM | 0 recs

for a total lack of objectivity, and intellectual dishonesty.

by SluggoJD 2008-04-21 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: trollrated

But isn't this "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran"?

by lizardbox 2008-04-21 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: trollrated

   Right, like you are objective. What did I say that wasn't true? She's already admitted we could blow Iran apart, which means she's obviously thinking about it. She did vote for the Iraq war!!

  You want to troll rate me for stating the obvious go ahead...but it's not me who suffers from a lack of objectivity!

by southernman 2008-04-21 09:29PM | 0 recs
Danger Will Robinson, danger!

Danger Will Robinson, danger!

The last person who diaried about this was last seen jumping on cars while wearing a tutu in downtown Manhattan, before police took him over to the Loony Tunes Psychiatric Center for observation.

by SluggoJD 2008-04-21 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Danger Will Robinson, danger!

Was he scratching his cheek at the time?

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 08:36PM | 0 recs

He was giving the finger to everyone.

by SluggoJD 2008-04-22 06:03AM | 0 recs
Obama is no different

all she said is that if Iran uses nukes on israel, we'd have the option open. obama hasn't ruled that out yet.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-21 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is no different

She said "would" not "might."

Now, you may be right.  Obama might feel the same way.  I sure hope not, and the 52 seconds that the right talkers have been yaking about would seem to indicate otherwise, but he may support this notion.  I am much more comfortable with what I've heard from him so far however.  Massive nuclear draw-downs seem to be the right move.  We must lead by example.

by proseandpromise 2008-04-21 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is no different

But why engage in these hypotheticals?  She needn't say "well nuke Iran" to have that option on the table.  No one was trying to force her to take it OFF the table.  

What is her plan if China nukes Taiwan?  

Or if Russian nukes Mongolia?

What if India nukes Pakistan?

Or if France nukes South Africa?

What if ISRAEL nukes IRAN?

Are we going to respond with nuclear weapons if any state uses them against another?  Or does it only matter if one is an ally and the other a perceived "enemy"?  Assuming all first strike nuclear attacks are viewed as morally wrong, how would we respond if Israel nuked some other country?  Are we so morally ambiguous that we only care if it happens to an ally?

There is no need to lay out our intent to nuke another state.  It's not laying out a policy position.  It's saber-rattling of the worst sort.    

by freedom78 2008-04-21 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton - The new boss really is the

I don't necessarily see this as a big deal, considering that it's just a hypothetical about a nuclear-armed Iran.  However, I really don't like it when our politicians start rattling sabers against other countries like this, when it serves no purpose.  The "axis of evil" speech certainly hasn't done us any good in our talks with North Korea.    

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton - The new boss really is the

I think this hypothetical is qualitatively different from other such hypotheticals.  The use of nuclear weapons is so indescriminate and morally complicated that approaching this topic so flippantly gives me great pause.  It is hypothetical saber-rattling of the worst kind and it lends credence to the forces in this country who are spoiling for an open war with Iran.

This was a perfect opportunity for her to dial down the rhetoric and she passed on the opportunity.  I'm not sure how many more opportunities like this she can miss and still get my vote if she becomes the nominee.

by the mollusk 2008-04-21 09:35PM | 0 recs
Visions of Slim Pickens

Wah hooing, riding an H bomb.  A big bomb with room for two.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-22 04:59AM | 0 recs
Just so we're clear...

Praise Ronald Reagan's inspiring version of political rhetoric = treason in the party.

Adopt his foreign policy = toughness and clear-minded thinking?

The deterance argument might be pramatically effective, but it is by all means unethical.  I am horrified by this notion.

by proseandpromise 2008-04-21 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton - The new boss

We do in fact have an extremely expensive nuclear arsenal.  I, for one, do not favor unilaterally disposing of it.

Multilateral disposal by treaty would be great, but we're not very close to that point.  So long as we must maintain this expensive nuclear arsenal (or at least a substatial fraction of it), why not make the only conceivable use of the arsenal that may be made?  The threat value of nuclear weapons can come pretty close to completely eliminating certain unacceptable outcomes, such as nuclear attack on Israel.

In most cases, saber-rattling is bad.  However, nuclear deterrence against unacceptable eventualities is an exception to that rule with proven effectiveness.  I'm not sure what you mean by "unethical,"--in fact, I don't have a clue what  you mean--but I personally am too outcomes-based to regard something that prevents things like nuclear aggression as that.  

Nuclear deterrence simply doesn't work unless, of course, you anounce it in advance.

by Trickster 2008-04-21 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton - The new boss really is the s

Are you of the opinion that she should not " warn " Iran that "their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States." ?

- I would think any rational president would warn Iran of such consequences to serve as a deterrent.

Seems like a reasonable position to me.

by lori 2008-04-21 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton - The new boss really is the s

I am sorry, but suggesting the nuclear option is a option just goes beyond the pale of rational thinking. I think there are probably more than a few real foreign policy experts, not to mention some military ones absolutely scratching their head wondering what in God's name is she thinking.

I know many in the Hillary camp will disagree, but this verges on neocon saber rattling.

This of course doesn't even take into account the latest  NIE which has Iran much further away from a nuclear capability than previously thought. However since she choose to vote on Iraq without reading the Iraq NIE why should she have read this one.

by jsfox 2008-04-21 08:55PM | 0 recs
how old are you?

were you born during the cold war? do you understand the concept of viable nuclear deterrence? Here is something for your education:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/0 4/iran_and_extended_deterrence/

Finally before writing a diary worthy of the loony tunes, ask yourself what would Obama do if Israel was nuked? How will he deter Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Hoping that he will not play politics (like he always does and did when the same question was asked off him and he gave a avgue non-specific answer...either that or he is just does not have a middle east Iran policy) and give an honest and detailed answer worthy of someone running for president if USA and not president of his high school class.

by tarheel74 2008-04-21 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: how old are you?

Forgive them for they know not what they say lol.

She is plainly laying out a policy of deterrence even if Iran gets a nuclear weapon.

Its just bizarre .

by lori 2008-04-21 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: how old are you?

yeah if this were 1936 these people would have joined the Republicans and looked for a way to lynch FDR

by tarheel74 2008-04-21 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: how old are you?

This is however not 1936. It's 2008 and we should stop trying to be in the business of senseless and stupid posturing.

by lizardbox 2008-04-21 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: how old are you?

Why aren't Israel's nuclear capabilities deterrent enough?  Surely some of its weapons would survive an initial attack.

by rfahey22 2008-04-21 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: how old are you?

Anyone who knows for sure what they would do in that situation is lying or is delusional.  It may well be that that's not an unreasonable position, but it isn't something to fire off the night before a primary on Keith Olbermann.  The reason she said it is to appear as tough as possible.  This was a pander of the highest order.  I would have been much more comfortable with a vague answer.

Besides, if you really think Iran is that big of a threat, then there is no way in hell you can be serious about taking the troops out of Iraq.

by the mollusk 2008-04-21 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: how old are you?

Oh so you would have preferred her to parse her words , thats just great.

She said what she believed should be the case , if it offends your sensibilities then i don't know how to be of help.

I am sure even Obama won't disagree with what she said , infact i expect him to come out in a couple of days and announce the same position.

It is a policy of deterrence , If you get a nuclear weapon and you are thinking of bombing Iran better have it at the back of your mind that we would come after you , so don't try it.

Simple , thats all she laid out . Any reasonable president would do that.

However it seems as if her words upset you even though she spoke what was basically reasonable , what you are saying is you would have preferred if she wasn't so upfront about it.

I disagree.

by lori 2008-04-21 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: how old are you?


I'm 60 years old so, don't even  presume to lecture me on the cold war. And i have a rather full understanding on nuclear deterrence, but thank you for the link.

So I am guessing from your post anybody who disagrees with you is a loony tune. Next I don't recall saying I was for Obama. Have we finally gone down this path so far that the fact I  disagree with a policy statement Hillary makes I must be default be for Obama.

FYI: Here is the most recent NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/200712 03_release.pdf

by jsfox 2008-04-21 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: how old are you?

either you are willfully ignoring the accusations in the post above or you really think that nuclear deterrence does not work. But I direct my words to people here who have not grown during the cold war and live in willful ignorance that USA did have nuclear missiles in nearly every country in Europe who were allied with NATO to serve as a successful deterrence to the eastern bloc.

by tarheel74 2008-04-22 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton - The new boss really

Rec'd for an important subject.

by DeskHack 2008-04-21 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Troll Diary


Cheney is a whole lot better than Hillary Clinton.
If that's your closing argument, you need to be over at RedState.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-21 09:30PM | 0 recs
Get over it

   I said nothing that wasn't true. Hillary has mentioned the possibility of bombing Iran...she did vote for the Iraq war and in my opinion that robs her of credibility on these issues.

  TR me if you like...but it's not me that isn't objective...it's you!

by southernman 2008-04-21 09:30PM | 0 recs
And if Israel launched nukes on Iran?

by benmasel 2008-04-22 12:32AM | 0 recs
Re: And if Israel launched nukes on Iran?

That's easy:  We invade Pakistan.

by the mollusk 2008-04-22 05:30AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads