"Hillary didn't mean she'd nuke Iran when she said we'd give them "a nuclear response""...

http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/3rd-hillary-staffer-hillary-didnt-mean.html

"Well, we now have a third denial from the senior levels of the Clinton campaign that Hillary did not mean nuclear weapons when she referred to giving Iran a "nuclear response from the United States" should they nuke Israel. Then what did she mean by "a nuclear response"? Here is what Hillary said just last night on Keith Olbermann's show:

"(T)heir use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."

Two senior Hillary aides denied last night that Hillary meant nukes when she repeatedly implied over the past weekthat she'd nuke Iran, and when she explicitly said just that last night. And today I find out that Clinton campaign senior adviser Ann Lewis also said last night that Hillary didn't mean "nuclear weapons" when said we'd give Iran a "nuclear response."

Then what did she mean? We'd sprinkle them with nuclear fairy dust? This story is now a total mess. I wrote more extensively about this earlier, but it sure is pretty peculiar having Hillary running around suggesting that we start nuking the Middle East, only for her staff to turn around and say she never said it. What are our enemies to think? What are our friends?"

I suppose it all depends on what the meaning of "nuclear" is.

LIARS!



EDIT: The typo hunt begins...

then she should needs to be more careful in choosing her words when dealing with an issue as explosive --please excuse the expression -- as Iran. What if she were make a gaffe like this as president? :scared:

We've had enough of politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth over the last 8 years. Hopefully we can move on.

Either she's talking neuclear response or beers with whiskey shots at a bar in Tehran.
:rofl:

That was supposed to be 'unclear' not 'nuclear'.

Some to the effect "I really, strongly, vehemently don't like you having attacked Israel."

pathological liar.

Self-destruction is evident.

but we're to believe that she mis-spoke about nuking Iran and obliterating them? Seemed rather clear to me. It's obvious that she was courting the Sean Hannity vote. :eyes: Her IWR and Kyl-Lieberman votes say it all. Frankly, her reckless comments like this scare the living hell out of me.

... and I was amazed that everyone spent the post-debate time discussing ABC's horrendous performance, rather than Hillary's promise of an "overwhelming response." Just a slightly more relevant comment than any discussion of lapel pins.

despite it being on tape. Hillary says she would have a "nuclear response", and now her staff/surrogates are insisting that isn't what she said.

These people are not to be trusted. Their words mean nothing.

fallout. she can kiss my ass.

Is that the nuclear option she was talking about?

:rofl: