Two faced Hillary and her before and after stance on nuking countries.

Before (August 07):

By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288_pf.html

Now:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/

Words aren't important.

And in this case the situation depends on if she is in the lead, or nearing the death knell.

I like that. :)

for her.

Imagine, quoting her accurately and in context.

Why... I oughta...../#$%^&.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSh5KORghU

"... 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."

A lie.

We have to make sure that Senator Obama says he would not use nuclear weapons in this unlikely scenario. I guess taking no options off of the table is a lie then.

Right?

The American people need to hear him say that if Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel then he will use diplomacy to solve the crisis.

Oh that will go over real well.

It's not like they can defend themselves, either. No, Iran would be all alone there with its nuclear weapons. Poor, helpless, pitiful creatures.

That is definitely something they need to know and he needs to say it in no uncertain terms.

Of course that would undo 40+ years of accepted United States foreign polioy but he is the candidate for hope and change.

We don't believe in the sovereign rights of nations to conduct their own wars with their own hidden stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. America is the Weltstaffel, goddammit. They ought all come under our wing.

but, perhaps saying "I won't discuss world stability, nuclear armageddan, and possible WW3 in hypothetical terms to drum up votes period, but most especially not in a domestic party nomination contest." "Something like this is discussed in war rooms with strict security and the input of some of the smartest National Security minds weighing in" "Not hardly on a campaign STUMP!!!"

Jimminy Crickets.

But he is not dumb enough to toss ICBMs (The big nuke Armed B-2s and B-52s would take many hours to get there as opposed to FA-22s armed with JDAMS and F-15Es armed with Mavericks.)

He is not going to Toss nukes. He will invade whatever is left of Iran once Israel is done with them.

You don't fucking throw nukes halfway around the world on a rocket anymore. This is not 1981.

you think he would take a nuclear response off the table? Or that any response would not be the equivalent of a "massive retaliation" that would "obliterate" large areas? This issue is totally ridiculous and either Senator Obama's supporters are EXTREMELY ignorant of United States Foreign Policy or they are making up bullshit to attack Senator Clinton.

First of all it was directed at Clinton's stance which is beyond stupid because of what I said before.

Therefore her comments do nothing but enflame the region.

Don't twist my points to defend Clinton.

being dizzy.

Her comments only seem to inflame Senator Obama's supporters. It's common knowledge that a nuclear attack against Israel from Iran would be met with massive retaliation and obliteration no matter who the President was.

But if Senator Obama would prefer a different approach, say giving a speech or employing diplomacy and NOT responding militarily should Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel, then that is something the American people need to know immediately.

If so, I think Mme. Clinton might disagree with you.

And your common knowledge bit is 100 percent bullshit. We are not required to "Obliterate" a nation. We are required to destroy the military and force the government to surrender.

And again you try to spin with your second paragraph. Again I said military includes air force, NAVY and Marine attacks not nukes.

You are not going to spin this. The nukes are not to be let lose unless WE are attacked with a nuclear weapon. As by that time MAD comes into play.

MAD does NOTHING against IRAN whos populace believes that if they die in the name of Islam then it is perfectly fine.

So you have to destroy the military AFTER Israel lets loose the nukes in a localized environment.

He needs to make sure the American people and the world know that he would NOT use a nuclear response in the event of Iran using nuclear weapons against Israel.

This is something that the American people need to know, this is something that the Israeli people and Government need to know and this is something for anyone considering the development of nuclear weapons in Iran needs to know.

Let's make sure there is no error in his message here, Senator Obama will NOT use nuclear weapons if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.

You are trying to make Obama look weak for being reasonable when Clinton talks about killing millions of people.

You want to make the survivors pay for a decision their leader makes? Well you can go to the hot place. Because you are saying you do not care if the president kills the survivors of a nuclear war in my view.

Her vote helped send over 4000 military to their death in a useless war. With many more civilians killed.

Because the fact is by the time ICBMs land or our Bombers get there. There will be little left of Iran except for survivors.

You can't spin this. Clinton acting with nukes like she said "Obliterate" will send survivors of a nuclear war to their deaths. A war crime.

Wake up and taste the orange juice. There is very little difference in their positions on anything, even what they would do should Iran develop or acquire nuclear weapons and/or use them against Israel. I don't need to make Senator Obama look weak, he does that quite well on his own. He's got so many people fooled now about this ridiculous NON-issue that when he is asked about this in a debate with Senator McCain and gives a definitive answer, the nations hospitals emergency rooms will be overflowing with his supporters that have fainted because of what he has to say.

And if he doesn't say it, that he COULD use nuclear weapons in a scenario where Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, then Senator McCain, as batshit crazy as he may appear, will wipe the floor with him and be elected by the largest majority ever seen in this nations history.

The nation is at war. Yes, it's a war none of us wanted, and CERTAINLY was not the result of Senator Clinton voting Aye on the IWR. Now is not the time to be seen as a WEAK candidate on Foreign Policy and National Defense. Senator McCain will not appear weak on these issues. Senator Clinton does not appear to be weak on these issues. Senator Obama DOES appear to be weak on these issues and unless he can reverse that thinking, then get ready to register for the draft under President McCain.

Hello, friends!

Are you tired of being kicked around by elitists too soft on foreign policy? D you feel that not enough is being done to protect rogue states who refuse to disclose their nuclear arsenals? If so, then the Democratic Leadership Council is for you!

At the DLC, as we affectionately call it, we have everything the aspiring warlord could ask for - and more! From shady arms deals with South American drug runners to defending Israel's right to exist, you can find it all here, at the DLC!

condemning Israel and calling it a "rogue state". Oh PLEASE get him to say that so we can end this Primary season now.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

see that. i guess all that opportunity to kill little kids in Iraq has made it easier for her to think about killing Iranian kids. By the way, do you honestly think that the nuclear cloud will stop at their border? They estimate that it will kill 35 million people down wind. Maybe it will pass over your house too. Think about it.

She now apparently feels that appealing to the nuke-all-our-perceived-enemies crowd will get her elected.

of pandering and actually become a dumbass bubba.

Policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been far and few, but a new one emerged on Monday over a proposed gas tax holiday. Obama says he’s against while Clinton says she’s in favor, putting her on the same side as John McCain, who proposed such a holiday last week.

Gas prices could hit $4 this summer, raising the ire of voters and putting pressure on presidential candidates to promise immediate action.

Speaking on Larry King Live on Monday night, Clinton outlined a series of steps to address the issue at the beginning of the show, reflecting the growing importance of pocketbook concerns among voters. “I would also consider a gas tax holiday, if we could make up the lost revenues from the Highway Trust Fund,” she said, without specifying how to make up those lost revenues.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/21/clinton-joins-mccain-on-gas-tax-obama-opposes/

I seem to remember a bridge in Minnesota that needs those funds.

flip flop flip flop

She can buy them at Walmart

But then... it really isn't, is it?

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel."

A very specific quid pro quo....that means if Iran nukes Israel, we nuke Iran.

But I feel, Israel won't need us. I am sure it has it's own "very specific" retaliation or preemptive schemes.

damn shame, because a truly moral country would vow never to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and challenge all other nations to do the same . . . particularly if that country is the only one in history ever to have actually used nuclear weapons . . .

and yes, I know the arguments against making such a pledge . . . it's just that I disagree with them . . . vehemently . . .

during this campaign.

She's sounding a lot like that other swaggering adolescent now infesting the White House.

Maybe she'll challenge to an arm wrestling match to decide the nomination.