Clinton makes threat against Iran as voters go to polls

[Exeter]

Clinton makes threat against Iran as voters go to polls

Ewen MacAskill and Daniel Nasaw in Washington
Suzanne Goldenberg in Philadelphia
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday April 22 2008

Hillary Clinton, in her most bellicose comments since the presidential race began, today threatened to obliterate Iran if it launched a nuclear strike against Israel.

Speaking as voters went to the polls in the potentially crucial Pennsylvania primary, she said: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)."

Barack Obama immediately accused her of "sabre-rattling", saying this was the kind of language that had been used by the Bush administration over the last few years and was not helpful.

In an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, she was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. She said: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

US policy, whether Republican or Democrat, is to retaliate against anyone launching a nuclear strike against Israel. In spite of her harsh words, both Clinton and Obama have said on the campaign trail they would like to begin negotiations with Tehran, though Clinton has said there would have to be strict preconditions in place first.

Obama, responding to Clinton's interview, said: "One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate'. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in sabre-rattling."

Obama is to abandon Pennsylvania before polls close later today in a tacit admission that he does not expect to do well in the potentially crucial primary.

While Hillary Clinton is to stay in Philadelphia for what her campaign team has billed as an election victory party, Obama is to head out for Indiana, scene of the next primary. He is scheduled to hold a rally in Evansville, Indiana, at 7.30pm.

The previous day Obama effectively conceded that Clinton, as has been expected, would win the primary. But the key question is whether she can win by a big enough margin, of 10% or more, to justify remaining in the race.

Obama's early departure suggests his team believe she is going to achieve that margin.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Pittsburgh radio station KDKA, Obama said he did not anticipate emerging victorious from Pennsylvania. But he said: "I'm predicting it's going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect."

Even if Clinton were to secure the outsize victory she needs in Pennsylvania, figures for funding released yesterday raised questions about her ability to fight on.
Obama raised more than twice as much as Clinton last month, entering April with $42m (£21m) in the bank. Although she raised $20m in March, she is still staggering on with $10.3m of debt.

Obama has been outspending Clinton by two or three to one on TV advertising and mailshots - some of which include DVDs. In the final hours before the primary, his ads have been inescapable on stations in the greater Philadelphia area, home to 40% of the state's Democratic voters.
The campaigns have been engaged in a pitched battle in Pennsylvania for more than a month, in what observers have called the largest political mobilisation since Iowa, which held caucuses on January 3.

Sarah Triplett arrived to vote this morning long before her suburban Philadelphia polling place opened and soon had plenty of company.

"I had to be here to vote, and I pray that Obama does make a big change in a very positive way," said Triplett, a "65-plus" woman from Levittown who works with the disabled.

In Allentown, where a line snaked out the door at First Presbyterian Church, 68-year-old Ellen Woolley, who works in finance, went for Clinton. Obama, she said, is a "marvelous speaker, but I really don't hear a lot of substance."

Yesterday saw some of the most acrimonious exchanges and attack ads of the campaign, as Obama accused the Clinton team of the kind of scare tactics and lies that the Republicans had used against the Clintons themselves in the White House.

The latest Clinton attack ad included imagery of Osama bin Laden and hammered home her message that she is better equipped to be commander-in-chief. "Harry Truman said it best: 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.' Who do you think has what it takes?"

Clinton makes threat against Iran as voters go to polls | World news | guardian.co.uk

[Kernunnos]

'Asking for jewish money to repay her debt .... or at least she hopes they will believe her.

[Errigal]

It shows how Neocon/Zionist support is uniquely bad. Money from manufacturers may corrupt a politician into bad trade deals or signing bad military equipment contracts, money from agricultural interests may mean loose regulation of migrant workers; Neocon/Zionist money means hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in a mad project to transform the Muslim world. It also means more diplomatic conflict as the US foreign policy establishment acts as neo-Trotskyites against Russia, Serbia or any independent state unwilling to submit to the sole superpower.

Obama is the only sane choice now, in my opinion.

[Marcus Marulus]

It is clearly a covert pro-Obama propagandistic move. The Democrats decided that Obama-Hillary rivalry harms the prospects of a democratic president: while the two battle each other, McCain is slowly mounting in the polls, albeit his prsopects are still quite meager. So last week Hillary said that Obama was "the only one who could beat McCain", which was interpreted by many commentators as her giving up the candidacy, although not formally. It was assumed that she would do anything in the future to harm her own prospects in order to empower Obama. All that for the "higher interests of the party". It is probably some of those who pull the strings in the background giving her such advices. A prospective war with Iran has become so much of an unpopular cause that even the perceivedly bellicose McCain calmed down his tones significiantly on that issue. Now comes Hillary with such a bomabastic statement boosting an unpopular cause. It can point only in one direction.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Errigal

It shows how Neocon/Zionist support is uniquely bad. Money from manufacturers may corrupt a politician into bad trade deals or signing bad military equipment contracts, money from agricultural interests may mean loose regulation of migrant workers; Neocon/Zionist money means hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in a mad project to transform the Muslim world. It also means more diplomatic conflict as the US foreign policy establishment acts as neo-Trotskyites against Russia, Serbia or any independent state unwilling to submit to the sole superpower.

Obama is the only sane choice now, in my opinion.

It means that any coloured immigrant in Europe will feel empowered and capable of becoming successful at our expenses in our societies.

A black with his fingers on the US nuclear arsenal and as a commander in chief of NATO will also be our chief.

Let's reflect....

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Marulus

It is clearly a covert pro-Obama propagandistic move. The Democrats decided that Obama-Hillary rivalry harms the prospects of a democratic president: while the two battle each other, McCain is slowly mounting in the polls, albeit his prsopects are still quite meager. So last week Hillary said that Obama was "the only one who could beat McCain", which was interpreted by many commentators as her giving up the candidacy, although not formally. It was assumed that she would do anything in the future to harm her own prospects in order to empower Obama. All that for the "higher interests of the party". It is probably some of those who pull the strings in the background giving her such advices. A prospective war with Iran has become so much of an unpopular cause that even the perceivedly bellicose McCain calmed down his tones significiantly on that issue. Now comes Hillary with such a bomabastic statement boosting an unpopular cause. It can point only in one direction.

It seems Hilary has more jewish support than Obama ... in the past she even feigned some jewish ancestry in order to get some cheap electoral points.

She is also indebted by ten millions of dollars.

She is posing as the most reliable candidate for the jewish interests, when Obama is not liked by many jewish commentators because of his moslem past and his association with a black pastor who harbors the famous old rivalry between blacks and jews.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Kernunnos

It means that any coloured immigrant in Europe will feel empowered and capable of becoming successful at our expenses in our societies.

A black with his fingers on the US nuclear arsenal and as a commander in chief of NATO will also be our chief.

Let's reflect....

Well I suppose it shows how much of a mess America is in that Obama is the best choice of the three, but he is. All the evidence suggests McCain would be even more in favour of war than George Bush, and Hillary Clinton would continue the Clinton foreign policy which carried out Kosovo, the blockade of Iraq, carte banche for Israel etc.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Errigal

Well I suppose it shows how much of a mess America is in that Obama is the best choice of the three, but he is. All the evidence suggests McCain would be even more in favour of war than George Bush, and Hillary Clinton would continue the Clinton foreign policy which carried out Kosovo, the blockade of Iraq, carte banche for Israel etc.

So you think Obama is not a stooge?

It is likely the best concocted of the bunch .... the illusion for a "change", the clean slate, the renewal .... a well packaged stooge.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Kernunnos

So you think Obama is not a stooge?

It is likely the best concocted of the bunch .... the illusion for a "change", the clean slate, the renewal .... a well packaged stooge.

My guess is that the Obama campaign was encouraged by the Democratic Party leadership but it was assumed he would not get this far. As things are today it is almost mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. In normal circumstances a candidate in her position would have stepped aside, but she remains in the race largely because she is supported by the super-rich of New York who have powerful friends in the party.

After saying all that, I would have to agree that Obama will bring no real change to US foreign policy. It would be almost impossible for him to do so because of the existing foreign policy establishment.

The Strategic Class

Also, he's shamefully too inexperienced to be the head of state and president of a republic. He is no American de Gaulle, that's for certain.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Errigal

My guess is that the Obama campaign was encouraged by the Democratic Party leadership but it was assumed he would not get this far. As things are today it is almost mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. In normal circumstances a candidate in her position would have stepped aside, but she remains in the race largely because she is supported by the super-rich of New York who have powerful friends in the party.

After saying all that, I would have to agree that Obama will bring no real change to US foreign policy. It would be almost impossible for him to do so because of the existing foreign policy establishment.

The Strategic Class

Also, he's shamefully too inexperienced to be the head of state and president of a republic. He is no American de Gaulle, that's for certain.

Either of the three contenders will be a shameful president, all in all, given the bizzarre character of Mc Cain, who seems to suffer from serious mental ills due to long time spent under torture (shame on his captors, I mean ...), I don't see any chance of having a decent human at the helm of the Superstates of America.

Technically, Ron Paul is still running ...

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Kernunnos

She is posing as the most reliable candidate for the jewish interests, when Obama is not liked by many jewish commentators because of his moslem past and his association with a black pastor who harbors the famous old rivalry between blacks and jews.

Jews are not such a monolithical entity. Maybe some Jews dislike Obama, but others support him. There are even Jews with pro-Palestinian attitudes. Jewry is very complicated.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Jews are not such a monolithical entity. Maybe some Jews dislike Obama, but others support him. There are even Jews with pro-Palestinian attitudes. Jewry is very complicated.

Yes, I would guess there is a split among Jewish Americans on which candidate would be best for them. In a way they win no matter who gets chosen.

Kernunnos is right that the more serious Jews who are primarily concerned with foreign policy and business would prefer Hillary. The more soft-hearted (or soft-headed) Jews find the idea of a Black president just too exciting to miss. Obama as president would be good for the Jewish domestic political agenda while Hillary or McCain would help carry out the Jewish foreign policy agenda.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Errigal

The more soft-hearted (or soft-headed) Jews find the idea of a Black president just too exciting to miss. Obama as president would be good for the Jewish domestic political agenda

I don't think it is any sort of soft-heartedness, it is one of the ideological flavours present in modern Jewry. They do not have to be any less "serious" than those who would support Hillary or McCain, just serious in a different way and for a different purpose.