I almost missed this one from the April 16th democratic debate:

OLBERMANN: Can you clarify…which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?

CLINTON: What we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be a 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.

I always knew Hillary was a Zionist, but it seems she’s even more willing to start World War III than Israel itself. And how many average citizens living in Israel truly feel the way she does? What would even warrant an Iranian attack on Israel? Are we forgetting that a nuclear disaster for Israel is also a nuclear disaster for the Palestinians, the very people Iran has sworn to defend?

It seems in Hillary’s efforts to please the Devil, she’s lost all reasoning ability. It’s amazing that she’s so eager to perpetuate the bigoted depiction of middle eastern people (and nations) as mindless ogres who would attack and kill anyone if given the chance.

Meanwhile, Iran has accomplished more calculated strategic victories in the past four years than any country with interest in the region. Senator Clinton, if you insist on bullying a smaller country and labeling them an enemy threat, at least take the time to know your enemy.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.