Letters to the Editor
-
@aka Who said what, where and when
Do you have a link to Bill Clinton statement? I understand that it's pretty standard to edit an interview into segments, often with less than pleasing results for the interviewee. I have not seen any raw transcript of the full interview. It would be good to get a link of that.
This sounds to me like more or less a continuation of what was said at the PA debate. Israel has special friend status with the USofA, but I don't think we have treaty obligations to unconditionally enter into a nuclear war on Israels's behalf (feel free to correct me here) on a pre-emptive or post-mortem basis. At the debate, I thought Clinton overreached on this point, and seemed to minimize the role of Congress in approving such military action. Obama's words were more vaguely diplomatic, which I thought was entirely appropriate for the situation.
My concern is that while this position, along with the nuclear umbrella, gives Hillary a chance to talk tough on foreign policy and demonstrate a plan for calming the waters of the middle east, it may have the opposite effect. It could just as easily be preceived outside of the US as more sabre rattling and hegemonic empire building. The Bush Missile Shield is not exactly getting rave reviews everywhere.
-
Here's a link to the Countdown transcript.
I have copied all that applies to Iran. (A little more than fair use but with attribution, probably not egregiously criminal.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24247198/page/2/
OLBERMANN: You mentioned the oil suppliers and that obviously leads us into something else that really flew by during the debate that seemed awfully important. In that debate you were asked about a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel and your hypothetical response as commander in chief and you said, let me read the quote exactly, “I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would include massive retaliation from the United States but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”
Can you clarify since there was no follow-up to that which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?
CLINTON: Well, what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons — and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world — and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power so I could imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.
In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.
It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs.
I don’t buy that but I think we have to test it and one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going to permit them, if we can prevent them, from becoming a nuclear power. But were they to become one, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening and that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bulled into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that state by creating this new security umbrella.
I did a word search here and did not see the word obliterate. If I missed it, let me know.
-
Well, I am off to bed.
Make of that transcript what you will, but it seems to me that she is not talking about acting unilaterally and that she is mainly talking deterence -- reminds me of the old cold war stategy.
What I do like about it is that she is not talking about the Iranians as if they are weird religious fanatics who are beyond reason and therefore should be treated premptively. Keep in mind that some of Bush's favorite people have argued just that.
I have heard Biden speak about this very subject, and I have to confess that I liked what he has said better. He thinks Iran is not a current threat and a long ways away from a nuclear weapon.
So does anyone have what Obama has said that can be used to compare?
-
Found PA Debate Transcript
There's actually three separate instances here :
1) PA debate transcript where Clinton makes clear about a massive retaliation (diplospeak for nuclear exchange)
2) Countdown interview from tonight(excerpts quoted above by AKASmith)
3) ABC Good Morning America (not aired yet) where we have the
"Obilterate Iran" statement -according to ABC, in link I posted in prior post in this thread.
[PA Debate Excerpt: ]
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. [emph added by Fester]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print