BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle : "Totally Obliterate" is No 1 Story

[denem]

HRC's comments are being reported fairly accurately. A stern warning to Iran: In the hypothetical event of Iran developing and using a nuclear weapon, the US would retaliate (in kind). But it's her language that is the story. As the BBC reports finish, the word "obliterate" is repeated with unmistakable disgust.

These radio services reach are still relied on in states with tightly controlled media - Like Iran.

Links (for what its worth):
http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_single_mediaplayer/1,,1569740_struct_266,00.html?type=liveaudio
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/worldservice/meta/tx/live_news?size=au&bgc=003399&lang=en-ws&nbram=1&nbwm=1

Guess DW, BBC are twisting HRC's words because they support Obama. :sarcasm:

Edited: BBC is now leading with Hillary, and playing the full audio clip of her comments.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Written word on BBC News reiterates that

She said the US would attack, and could "obliterate" Iran, if it launched a nuclear strike on Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7359957.stm

[C_U_L8R]

2. Hillary paraphrases Nikita Khrushchev

"Whether you like it or not. history is on our side. We will bury you!"

did she pound a shoe??

[mckeown1128]

3. heh truth has an Obama bias... nt

[denem]

4. Story has just moved up to No 1 on BBC World Service

Playing the full audio clip of Hillary. The point is even Bush does not get lead story that regularly.

[Occam Bandage]

5. ATTN: HILLARY SUPPORTERS.

This is exactly what we were trying to tell you guys. Not that what she said was wrong per se, but that she was absolutely fucking insane to say it in the manner that she did, and in the unprovoked fashion that she did. To anyone who doesn't have a mailing address in Hillaryland, this comment was, frankly, shocking. It's a continuation of the counterproductive belligerence of the Bush years. It's a strong indication that, under a Clinton presidency, US policy towards Iran would continue in the same idiotic fashion it has under Bush.

And that sends a very bad message to Europe, to the Arab world, and to Iran.

Your girl simply doesn't have the chops to run a foreign policy.

[BzaDem]

7. Just curious, if you are now saying deterrence doesn't work, what is your solution?

Or do you agree with her substance and just take issue with the wording?

[Barrymores Ghost]

11. This is NOT Cold-War USSR or China we're talking about...

First of all, her grandstanding is nothing but cheap, political sabre-rattling at a straw man -- the Iranian nuclear threat doesn't exist. The nuclear threat from Iran to Israel is even further-fetched...and she knows it. She pulled this gem out of her ass to appeal to blue-collar Dems in home-state Pennsylvania on the night before a primary. This is low-rent, tawdry and worse: unnecessarily provocative and inflammatory. Are we supposed to be the Party of Diplomacy-First? Apparently not with this tool.

Secondly (in case you missed the parade), culturally-speaking, Islamic fundamentalists -- be they Shi'ite, Sunni, Sufi or Tutti-frutti -- don't historically respond with measured diplomacy when threatened. Hillary's step into this shit-pile is a provocation of the "bring it on" order. Do you not GET that?

[Occam Bandage]

15. What makes you think I'm saying deterrence doesn't work?

What I'm saying is that deterrence is a given. Iran not only has nothing to gain from nuking Israel, it has absolutely everything to lose. Israel has an extensive nuclear arsenal, and would not exercise restraint in retaliation. America's involvement in any war in which Israel's existence is threatened is a given as well. Iran is not going to nuke Israel.

Threatening to "obliterate" Iran serves absolutely no purpose save to antagonize--especially when Iran is not even capable of nuking Israel. What do you believe is to be gained by antagonizing and threatening Iran? Do you believe that the Bush administration has been successful in its consistently aggressive, confrontational approach to middle-eastern politics?

[BzaDem]

18. Fine. If that is what you meant, then I agree "obliterate" was a poor choice of words.

But the substance of what she meant is the same as what Obama would do. The "Holy mother of God" posts are way over the top. This is a wording issue, not a conduct issue.

[Ichingcarpenter]

24. 'Poor choice of words' are not Presidential or Diplomatic

unless you are on the board of Wal-Mart.

[Occam Bandage]

25. Wording *is* conduct on the international stage. An explicit threat of a thermonuclear holocaust

wiping the entire Persian people from the face of history is, no matter how you attempt to defend it, dumb foreign policy.

It isn't just the word "obliterate." When she was asked that question, Clinton was given the option to discuss her policy as regards Iran. She could have framed it any way she liked. She chose to focus on a threat that Iran is not posing, and the fact that America has the power to utterly annihilate Iran to prevent that threat from materializing. That is a chord that is not going to resonate pleasantly around the world.

[Barrymores Ghost]

26. This goes far beyond "a poor choice of words."

If she is so thick, or so-politically-driven, as to not recognize or acknowledge that Iran poses no nuclear threat to Israel (or anyone else, for that matter), and choose to respond to the interview in a thoughtful -- rather than in an insanely thoughtless, provocative and threatening manner -- then she has no beusiness being within a country mile of the White House.

[leveymg]

49. The point is to provoke Iran, or some faction or ally, into something stupid.

That will give the Bushist-Cheneyites, the neocons, and Likudniks the casus belli they need to carry out the next stage in their grand plan to "redraw the map of the Middle East".

I'm afraid, Hillary is playing a willing part in that plan. She's imbedded with Cheney, Perle, and the Ghost of Ariel Sharon.

[SoonerPride]

10. No, she IS WRONG. Period.

You don't even CONSIDER killing 71 million innocent men, women, and children.

PERIOD.

I don't care what their government did, you do not wipe out 71 million innocent people.

That is fucking monstrous.

[BzaDem]

14. You are completely spinning what she meant.

Maybe the word "obliterate" wasn't the best word to use (as if Obama always picks the correct word). But you know as well as I do that she clearly didn't support killing 71 million innocent people. If you actually thought this then you have no concept of how deterrence actually works in this era. It's the government/military/offensive weapons that would be attacked.

[Obamanaut]

Is that like what the meaning of the word "is" is? But it seems

to me that "obliterate" does in fact support 'killing 71 million innocent people.'

[Zachstar]

20. There will not be 71 million left left after the return fire.

But that all happens in LESS than an hour.

So by the time any ICBMs hit. They will do nothing but hit burned out cities where survivors are coming out. Killing them and turning us into the Monster of the earth. Meaning China, Russia, India, etc.. will likely launch against us soon afterwards.

Firing an ICBM into a destroyed city with no military value left is a war crime.

[Why Syzygy]

46. IINM, Russia has already signaled that they would support Iran in a conflict. nt

[Window]

12. What in hell is wrong with Hillary.

:wtf:

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. You don't say 'obliterate' you say 'effective deterrent' against Iran

I knew this was gonna play badly on the world stage.

[Occam Bandage]

19. This is how a sane politician would respond:

"Well, that's a very big 'if.' Iran, as you well know, was found by the American intelligence community to have suspended its production of nuclear weapons. The more relevant question to be considering now is what can be done to ensure Iran does not reconvene its nuclear program. And I believe that a stick-and-carrot diplomatic approach would do much better than the belligerent saber-rattling we've seen the past few years.

Obviously America has strong ties to Israel, and we will meet any action against Israel with a swift and appropriate response. Since we're speaking about such a grave hypothetical, I don't think it's appropriate for me to take anything on or off the table at this point."





This is how an insane politician would respond:

"Yee-haw! I'd fuckin' nuke the bastards! Every last one of 'em! Hear me, y'all weird-beard nutjobs? I'm comin' for ya!"

[Barrymores Ghost]

22. SNAP!!!!

That wraps this f*cking conversation up -- right THERE.

Thank you!

[redqueen]

44. Exactly. THAT is diplomacy.

That is showing leadership.

Not jumping on the "Iran is a threat! Be afraid! Be VERY afraid!" bandwagon.

But then, she *did* sign Kyl-Lieberman.

[fujiyama]

50. That's a sane response

and how a diplomat on the world stage would work.

I don't recall hearing the Clinton administration talk like this about NK when he was working on dismantling their nuke program.

[Bonobo]

38. I was called a liar for pointing it out. I guess the whole world is a liar too.

[Diamond Dog]

6. Right. The point isn't that there wouldn't be nuclear retaliation, but that...

... it's that much harder to hit John McCain in the General with it if you advocate doing just that.

[redqueen]

8. This one isn't going away.

It's not a "kerfluffle".

It's not "spin" from Obama's supporters.

What she said was not standard deterrence talk.

I honestly do not recognize some people here anymore.

What a sad, shameful and revealing day.

[libnnc]

30. you know, yesterday I had a really strange feeling

I was in my car listening to Mike Malloy's podcast from Friday....talking about the tinfoil rumors surrounding the cause of the big earthquake in the Midwest last week...(it was an earthquake and nothing else but the Russian press has floated the rumor that it was caused by the crash of a nuke-laden Stealth Bomber)

...anywhoo, as I was driving I just thought for a second "What would happen if I saw a huge flash on the horizon?" What would I do? What would any of us do? I am stunned by Clinton's remarks.

And for the first time since I was a kid, I am thinking about mushroom clouds again. I honestly thought we'd moved beyond that line of thinking.

[redqueen]

43. We moved beyond it, but then Bush dragged us back into it...

with his tactical nukes and his cowboy arrogance.

*sigh*

[islandmkl]

9. deterrence: "I will kick your ass if you screw up."

obliteration: "I will remove your ass from the face of the earth if you screw up."

only an idiot doesn't recognize the difference is the threat.

[Lerkfish]

17. well said. can you contribute that to my other thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5617764&mesg_id=5617764

[islandmkl]

31. happy to...

[Catherina]

21. Excellent analogy for simpletons who don't get it. n/t

[Justitia]

13. Ahhhh, just fucking great. Just what we need. Please someone, give her the hook! -eom

[Catherina]

23. Hillary. Bringing pride back to America once again

I'm glad the foreign outlets have picked this up.

[Ichingcarpenter]

27. 'Bring em On' comes to mind

When Bush said that, I went holy shit, you are an idiot.

[Barrymores Ghost]

28. Precisely. See my post here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5619153&mesg_id=5619609

[libnnc]

32. I guess we can call it "Cow girl diplomacy" now

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. 'Cow girls for Goldwater' and Nuclear war

Nice catch.

[goletian]

29. yeah, top story is her iran threat, wow.

and check this out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7360402.stm



tell me that doesnt remind you of rachel maddow!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. She really gets around.

Countdown...

Iran...

The starship Enterprise...

[goletian]

47. that doesnt look like her, lol. -nt

[Leftist Agitator]

34. And I'll bet that the rest of the world is thinking:

Great. Bush in a pantsuit. Just what we need...

[dbmk]

40. The story hasn't really broken her in Denmark

But everone I know with an ounce of interest in it, is asking "Wtf is she doing?" in general. This won't help.

[NorthCarolina]

35. I hope they are also broadcasting that Hillary does not speak for America yet... n/t

[XemaSab]

42. But the sad and pathetic part

is that she sort of does.

If the wife of the last president of Iran, or one of the "senators" of Iran, said "If America were to attack Saudi Arabia, we would wipe them off the map," would there not be OUTRAGE from most Americans? And rightly so? :shrug:

[thewiseguy]

37. Great that should change what the world thinks of us!

[denem]

39. The most important story in the world today

Thats the judgment of the world radio editors.

[barack the house]

41. Yep, the world is clicking on to middle east malarky and cleary upimpressed with Hillary.

The world don't want higher oil prices for the sake of anyone, and who can blame them.

[Why Syzygy]

45. She repeated it word for word to Olberman. She hasn't started ducking it yet. nt

[azmouse]

48. kick