The second "argument" made is that Hillary "wants" to "obliterate" Iran. But what did Clinton actually say?
"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."
Now, it is important to note that:
US policy, whether Republican or Democrat, is to retaliate with nuclear weapons against anyone launching a nuclear strike against Israel.
It is also important to note that Obama said:
Israel is "the most important ally" the United States has in the Middle East, and that Washington would respond "forcefully and appropriately" to any attack.
Does anyone believe Obama, despite quibbling over the word "obliterate," is not on board with this policy? I certainly do not. Indeed, consider Obama's own, even more bellicose stance on Iran expressed in September 2004:
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said. But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. “In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
Now you may disagree with these views (I certainly disagree with the more extreme view expressed by Obama in 2004), but only Clinton Derangement Syndrome (or less charitably, to coin a phrase, being a moron) can explain believing that Obama has been less hawkish on Iran than Clinton.
By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only
