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.”
Of course what she said was calculated, and you don’t need to be a genius to see that. Obama seems to me to be showing better judgment, however; I think if I were at all involved, which I’m not, I would have as a result written Hillary off from this point. The true outcome remains to be seen.
The Republicans, on the other hand, can only offer someone, granted his virtues, who is about eight years too late to be a contender. Pity about that — eight years ago.
Obviously the sabre rattling is not THE reason Hillary won Pennsylvania. Thomas gave a very detailed analysis of the situation there seven days ago: Pennsylvania and delegates – who wins what? He predicted (from South-West Sydney!) 52% Clinton to 48% Obama; the result seems to have been 55% to 45%. Pretty good though; Thomas still favours an Obama win in the end, I think…