Publish to Newswire
Add an EventDemocratic candidates agree on expanded US military aggression in the Middle East
Both candidates demonstrated that their criticism of the Bush administrations invasion and occupation of Iraq does not represent opposition to American militarism, but rather a concernvoiced even by significant sections of the military itselfthat the war in Iraq has become a diversion from other, even more important, strategic objectives.
Obama was interviewed on the NBC News program Meet the Press, while Clinton appeared on ABCs This Week.
Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, cited an NBC News report that the Bush administration is drawing up plans for air strikes against Iranian weapons factories and military training facilities, on the pretext that these sites are helping insurgents kill US soldiers in Iraq. If it could be demonstrated that was a fact, would you be in support of such limited attacks in Iran? he asked Obama.
The Democratic candidate did not challenge the premise of the question, or recall that that Bush administration used similar propaganda before the invasion of Iraq, circulating claims of Iraqi links to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that proved bogus. Instead, he said he would want to take a look at the kind of evidence that the administration is putting forward, what these plans are exactly. Ive always said that, you know, as commander in chief, I dont take military options off the table and I think its appropriate for us to plan for a whole host of contingencies.
Read More Obama: Clinton on Iran Obliteration:
Bush Clone
Barack Obama criticized Hillary Clinton on Sunday for her threat to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. He said on Meet the Press,
'MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton was asked about if Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel, and this is the answer she gave. Let's listen.
(Videotape)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): (From "Good Morning America") Well, the question was, "If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?" And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that.
We would be able to totally obliterate them.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "Obliterate them."
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: What do you think of that language?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, it's not the language that we need right now, and I think it's language that's reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and, in the meantime, we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran. So--and, you know, the irony is, of course, Senator Clinton, during the course of this campaign, has at times said, "We shouldn't speculate about Iran." You know, "We've got to be cautious when we're running for president." She scolded me on a couple of occasions about this issue, and yet, a few days before an election, she's willing to use that language. But in terms of... terms of...
MR. RUSSERT: But would you...
SEN. OBAMA: ...in terms of...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you respond against Iran?
SEN. OBAMA: It--Israel is a ally of ours. It is the most important ally we have in the region, and there's no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise. So--but it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush. And this kind of language is not helpful. When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach."
I had complained at the time that this diction is monstrous. I mean, it is surreal to have Democrats discussing whether it is appropriate for the US to "totally obliterate" another country. It would be one thing if she had threatened the Iranian military. Targeting civilians, who would be included in the "total" obliteration, is a war crime.
Clinton stood by her remarks: "I don't think it's time to equivocate. [Iran has] to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in." The premise that "they" only understand the language of massive violence is in fact a rightwing premise more characteristic of W. and Ariel Sharon than of the Democratic Party tradition.
Clinton's remarks would not be unusual if she had confined herself to saying that the US would forcefully retaliate for any WMD attack on Israel (though the US has no treaty obligations that would require such a response, unlike in the case of NATO). It was the "totally obliterate" phrase that that was objectionable, insofar as it implied the commission of a crime against humanity.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/05/2008 06:08:00 AM 
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.