Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:49 PM Dec 2015

Hillary threatens first strike "nuclear option" against Iran, did she misspeak?

Hillary threatens unilateral first strike military action against Iran. Anybody else think that's nuts?

Once you threaten that, once you draw that line in the sand, you pretty much have to follow through, or you cost the USA its credibility as the top world cop.

Apparently Justice Breyer reigned in the insanity a little bit during the Saban forum today. That shouldn't be needed really.


Mrs. Clinton used the forum to continue staking out a harder line on Iran than President Obama has in public. She repeatedly threatened to take what she called “harsh” steps at the first sign that Iran seeks to violate commitments it made in the July nuclear agreement, which sharply limits its ability to possess or produce nuclear fuel for the next 15 years.

She said there should be “no doubt in Tehran” that if the United States saw “any violations in the deal” or an effort to procure or develop nuclear weapons technology, “we will stop them,” including, she added, “taking military action.”

At one point, responding to a question, she referred to using the “nuclear option” against Iran — usually interpreted as using a nuclear weapon — before her attention was caught by a prominent member of the audience, Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court.

“Oh, the military option, thank you, Justice Breyer. He’s a careful listener,” Mrs. Clinton said, reiterating that she meant a military option to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It was a rare moment: a sitting member of the court rescuing a political candidate from a mistaken comment.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-islamic-state-saban-forum.html
66 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary threatens first strike "nuclear option" against Iran, did she misspeak? (Original Post) Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 OP
Whoops. Agschmid Dec 2015 #1
Yes, that was reminiscent of Rick Perry's "oops" Android3.14 Dec 2015 #35
freudian slip UglyGreed Dec 2015 #2
Uh-oh, channeling her inner Maggie Thatcher again... HereSince1628 Dec 2015 #5
Could be. Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #26
I doubt it. beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #3
Her fans don't care if she wants to bomb Iran. That's loyalty. nm rhett o rick Dec 2015 #11
Of course not. beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #13
Her next book's title: A War of My Own Divernan Dec 2015 #20
Bwah! But too sad to be really funny - she is such a goddam hawk that it's scary. kath Dec 2015 #23
Ha! beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #25
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2015 #55
ouch. Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #60
The second coming of Maggie Thatcher Kelvin Mace Dec 2015 #29
But Killer Mike was raked over the coals when he made that comparison. beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #31
She's a war hawk, looking to prove she is tough. morningfog Dec 2015 #4
Hillary loves the little children . . . except Divernan Dec 2015 #24
Warm fuzzies for Likud and its proto-fascist cabinet FlatBaroque Dec 2015 #6
We really need to keep that hawk out of the WH DJ13 Dec 2015 #7
She's not flip-flopping on this one. Wilms Dec 2015 #8
Laughing it up with James Baker "just bring it on", Wow Chimpy II ,were's Henry Kissinger bahrbearian Dec 2015 #63
I don't know how someone fucks up jkbRN Dec 2015 #9
This sounds so much like her stance in 2002. rhett o rick Dec 2015 #10
Look, they're talking about Iran having nuclear weapons, I don't think it has to be looked at as cui bono Dec 2015 #12
Maybe it was one of those on purpose mistakes Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #18
Except her "claim to fame" is all her experience, especially on foreign policy jeff47 Dec 2015 #45
Maybe she's not such a pro after all Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #65
Yes, she misspoke. It was a slip. No, she will not nuke anybody. Turn CO Blue Dec 2015 #14
"Who knows how the brain stores information? " Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #16
Inall seriousness, ten years from now, neuroscience will FINALLY be in its infancy. Turn CO Blue Dec 2015 #17
Maybe just a slip of the tongue but she's such a pro though, I guess everyone makes mistakes. Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #19
she had no problem with Iraq so this can't be a mistake. she just loves war. if she were a dude we roguevalley Dec 2015 #32
Agreed. And this quote of yours is perfect: arcane1 Dec 2015 #30
eek. Not a slip you want to be known for. Kablooie Dec 2015 #15
She clearly misspoke. Vattel Dec 2015 #21
Yeah great....We just signed a treaty with them. So now lets threaten 'em Armstead Dec 2015 #22
She's beginning to remind of George Jr. with all this mis-speaking. jalan48 Dec 2015 #27
OT: I hate when they quote 3-word phrases and fill in the blanks themselves. Post the whole quote! arcane1 Dec 2015 #28
well... Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #34
A chill just ran down my spine Lazy Daisy Dec 2015 #46
Very quiet in here. GoneOffShore Dec 2015 #33
It makes one pause Android3.14 Dec 2015 #36
Talking points have not been published yet Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #38
They clock out for dinner at the same time... CoffeeCat Dec 2015 #42
War Hawk to the bitter end. Paka Dec 2015 #37
She's been extremely consistent in threatening Iran with war Scootaloo Dec 2015 #39
Iran is one of the 7 nations targeted by PNAC. Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #40
Isn't that perverse? CoffeeCat Dec 2015 #43
Bush-ites are calling her foreign policy "neocon" cprise Dec 2015 #47
I see your PNAC manifesto, and I raise you a PNAC letter to Bill Clinton... CoffeeCat Dec 2015 #57
Funny you mention UglyGreed Dec 2015 #59
Sold Her Soul Years Ago billhicks76 Dec 2015 #41
Just an observation shadowmayor Dec 2015 #44
Yeah Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #48
No, its a part of her history cprise Dec 2015 #49
We're not all Neocons now shadowmayor Dec 2015 #50
JFK's First-Strike Plan BlueStateLib Dec 2015 #51
she cant wait to get her hands bloody, to play with her soldiers........ bowens43 Dec 2015 #52
I find it disheartening, nee unbelievable, that she should be our front-runner. Scuba Dec 2015 #53
O-M-EFFING-G! Freudian Slip - in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #54
I will say she misspoke but given her past rhetoric on Iran Autumn Dec 2015 #56
Just another 'mistake'. How many 'mistakes' from her must we endure? nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #58
An awful lot if she makes it to the WH. FiveGoodMen Dec 2015 #64
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2015 #61
She is truly one of the WORST serious candidates... Herman4747 Dec 2015 #62
One of the worst and in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #66

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
5. Uh-oh, channeling her inner Maggie Thatcher again...
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:07 PM
Dec 2015

Clinton isn't always capable of modulating when she gets into the bravado.

remember We came, we saw, he died?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
3. I doubt it.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:00 PM
Dec 2015

Remember the video where she laughs at the thought of going to war with Iran?

Then there was her speech at the Brookings Institute.

And during the debate she declared Iranians are her enemies.

Once is a mistake, what we see here is a pattern.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
13. Of course not.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:24 PM
Dec 2015

What's important is breaking that glass ceiling so a woman president will have a chance to start a war too.

Instead of just voting for and promoting other presidents' wars, she'll finally have one of her own.

Sickening.

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
20. Her next book's title: A War of My Own
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:54 PM
Dec 2015

Or perhaps, "It Takes a Pre-emptive First Strike to Nuke a Village"

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
25. Ha!
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:03 AM
Dec 2015

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe she said "nuclear option" on purpose (more like a Freudian slip) but do we really want a warhawk like that in the White House?

Response to Divernan (Reply #20)

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
31. But Killer Mike was raked over the coals when he made that comparison.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:18 AM
Dec 2015

Even though more and more it's looking like he nailed it.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
4. She's a war hawk, looking to prove she is tough.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:03 PM
Dec 2015

It's really disgusting how little regard she has for human life.

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
24. Hillary loves the little children . . . except
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:02 AM
Dec 2015

for those living in parts of the world where cluster bombs have produced such lovely profits for the MIC, or for those living anywhere outside of the U.S. borders . . . . or inside the borders but not legally - send those precious babies back to Central America post haste . . . . or those whose parents dare to ask for $15.00 an hour minimum wage.

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
6. Warm fuzzies for Likud and its proto-fascist cabinet
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:08 PM
Dec 2015

This election is a disaster if this person is on the ticket

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
7. We really need to keep that hawk out of the WH
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:10 PM
Dec 2015

She is widely known to be a war hawk.

She voted to authorize the Invasion of Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. History and an unmitigated disaster that continues to unfold in the Middle East to this day costing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and trillions of dollars that could have been used to help the American people and alleviate human suffering, not cause more of it.

She has been closely associated with human rights/military disasters in Colombia, Honduras, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Calling it CT or RW slander doesn’t make it so. It’s well documented history.

She is calling for more war, not less.

Google any of those things for all the proof you need.

Those are facts. I know they're tough to swallow. A lot of people want us to turn a blind eye. Why would we? And what price would we pay?

How could any peace-loving person support this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/07/1457682/-Telling-the-truth-does-NOT-a-hit-piece-make

jkbRN

(850 posts)
9. I don't know how someone fucks up
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:17 PM
Dec 2015

"Nuclear option" with "military option" and "nuclear weapon"

This honestly, really bothers me.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
10. This sounds so much like her stance in 2002.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:21 PM
Dec 2015

"She said there should be “no doubt in Tehran” that if the United States saw “any violations in the deal” or an effort to procure or develop nuclear weapons technology, “we will stop them,” including, she added, “taking military action.” She somehow saw violations in Iraq and a half million dead later says she made a mistake. The neocons love her.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
12. Look, they're talking about Iran having nuclear weapons, I don't think it has to be looked at as
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:23 PM
Dec 2015

more than a mistake when all the terms are being used at the same time.

However, she should be more careful with something this important if she wants to be president. Imagine what could have been started if someone hadn't caught the slip up.

But it does show that she's too much of a hawk for my tastes.

.

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
18. Maybe it was one of those on purpose mistakes
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:47 PM
Dec 2015

Like where somebody says something but acts like it was a mistake, that way you get the benefits of saying it, like you can raise money from very hawkish billionaires, but still maintain the plausible deniability that it was just a slip.

It's a way to have your cake and eat it too. To take 2 positions at the same time.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
45. Except her "claim to fame" is all her experience, especially on foreign policy
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:32 AM
Dec 2015

where saying a phrase just a little bit wrong can cause very large problems.

Not to mention this isn't the first time she's talked about attacking Iran.

Turn CO Blue

(4,221 posts)
14. Yes, she misspoke. It was a slip. No, she will not nuke anybody.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:28 PM
Dec 2015

He didn't reign in "insanity", he helped her correct a misstatement which could happen to anyone in public speaking.

They were using the words over and over - "nuclear weapons" and "military options".

We all use the term "nuclear option" often when referring to crazy Senate Republicans.

Who knows how the brain stores information? Maybe under terms containing "options" and not separately...



___________
I'm a Bernie supporter, Bernie volunteer, but also an admirer of Hillary. Think of me as neutral and scholarly - something rare in primary season.

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
16. "Who knows how the brain stores information? "
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:33 PM
Dec 2015

Edit to say: That's a great question. I have no idea how the brain stores information.

Turn CO Blue

(4,221 posts)
17. Inall seriousness, ten years from now, neuroscience will FINALLY be in its infancy.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:47 PM
Dec 2015










___________
I'm a Bernie supporter, Bernie volunteer, but also an admirer of Hillary. Think of me as neutral and scholarly - something rare in primary season.





roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
32. she had no problem with Iraq so this can't be a mistake. she just loves war. if she were a dude we
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:24 AM
Dec 2015

wouldn't even wonder about this. This is her version of machismo.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
30. Agreed. And this quote of yours is perfect:
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:18 AM
Dec 2015

"In all seriousness, ten years from now, neuroscience will FINALLY be in its infancy."

Kablooie

(18,625 posts)
15. eek. Not a slip you want to be known for.
Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:31 PM
Dec 2015

I hate all the excessive Bernie boosterism around here but I still think he'll get my vote over Clinton.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
22. Yeah great....We just signed a treaty with them. So now lets threaten 'em
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:00 AM
Dec 2015

She pisses me off IT's like she WANTS to go to war with Iran.

Which is massively stupid. You think we've had problems in Iraq and with Isis and Al Quadeh?

Those are the Teddy Bear's Picnic compared to what would happen if we go to war with Iran.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
28. OT: I hate when they quote 3-word phrases and fill in the blanks themselves. Post the whole quote!
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:15 AM
Dec 2015

Not directed at you, of course, but to the author of the piece

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
34. well...
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:27 AM
Dec 2015

You inspired me to go find the video. This part starts around the 40 minute mark.




But even if she only means the "nuclear option" in the sense of a go it alone US first strike military attack against Iran, isn't that still pretty extreme?
 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
38. Talking points have not been published yet
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:51 AM
Dec 2015

What would be the defense? She's not going to nuke Iran, she just misspoke? Like it's really that much better.

I got to credit the Hillary supporters, they are a lot better organized and disciplined than Bernie supporters. They stick to their approved points. Trying to coordinate Bernie supporters would be like trying to herd cats with email.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
42. They clock out for dinner at the same time...
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:13 AM
Dec 2015

I'm sure they'll return after they've eaten their Hot Pockets.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
39. She's been extremely consistent in threatening Iran with war
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:52 AM
Dec 2015

I have no idea if she "mis-spoke" this time, but the fact is she's expressed perpetual hostility to that other nation, and so we can't just take it for granted that she tripped on her tongue.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
47. Bush-ites are calling her foreign policy "neocon"
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:02 AM
Dec 2015

And yes, that is perverse. But neocons sense their Republican ship is sinking and some are moving... they need a new home in the Democratic Party:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?_r=0

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-hawkish-think-tank-gives-militaristic-hawkish-speech/


The odd twist is: Bill Clinton declared in 1998 that Iraq had WMD and that regime change had to occur -- he swallowed the paranoid PNAC manifesto whole. Hillary had many years to reflect and reexamine this falsehood. She chooses to believe whatever a small cadre of paranoid whackos who preached Communism in college says about the Middle East.... US intelligence, European media, UN investigations be damned.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
57. I see your PNAC manifesto, and I raise you a PNAC letter to Bill Clinton...
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 11:01 AM
Dec 2015

I hear you. I've been mystified and disgusted by all of this. Nice to commiserate with others who "get it."

And yes, some Democrats, including Hillary--have no shame in acting like neocons. These scumbags are some of the worst humans on the planet.

I'm sure you know about the letter the PNACers wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998. Signed by a cadre of sociopaths, including: John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Kagan (who was an advisor to Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State).

Link to letter:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm

Here's what gets me. Those bozos were shopping around the Iraq war since 1998. Hillary knew that because her then-President husband received the letter. Fast forward to when Bush was galvanizing support to invade Iraq after 9/11. Hillary knows that the same warmongers (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, etc.) who asked her husband for war in 1998, and now in power, in the Bush administration, and asking for it again. This time, they were using 9/11 to go in. Anyone who dared to speak out against war with Iraq was positioned as a terrorist sympathizer.

Of course, the rationale for invading Iraq was ies. All you have to do is read the PNAC manifesto (Rebuilding America's Defenses) to understand that they crafted a plan years ago. They name the countries they want: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya.

Hillary could have singlehandedly stopped the Iraq war by waving around that letter they wrote her husband in 1998. She could have exposed them. But she didn't.

She went further, and banged the drum for war with Iran, when W tried to get that going. She also had a central role in overthrowing the Libyan government--an issue that has yet to be fully examined. It will explode into a scandal if she is our nominee, and there are plenty of emails (her own) to suggest that she was the architect of that failed mess.

She is embroiled in this neocon nonsense. She's their gal. She has betrayed the Democratic party.

More on Libya:
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18592/new-clinton-emails-expose-collaboration-with-media-on-benghazi-coverag1

UglyGreed

(7,661 posts)
59. Funny you mention
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 11:34 AM
Dec 2015

PNAC look at the countries they wanted to disrupt or overthrow and what has happened..............

shadowmayor

(1,325 posts)
44. Just an observation
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:24 AM
Dec 2015

I think she did simply get mixed up given the crowd and her position. And she was glad to correct her statement when called out. In our world and the DU world, to say such things is egregious. However, were she running with the clown posse . . .

If Trump or Cruz or any of the idiots on the Republican side clearly state, without any equivocation or apology, that they would nuke Iran their poll numbers would only go up up up. And the press would note how the American people back a candidate who's strong on defense and doesn't appear weak. Anybody catch Mara Liasson's BS comments on NPR about how the American people don't think our President is effective in dealing with terrorism and that "we" want a candidate who's strong and confident in fighting ISIS and radical Islam and terrorism? There are two separate narratives running through the media; one for repukes and one for the democrats.

shadowmayor

(1,325 posts)
50. We're not all Neocons now
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:59 AM
Dec 2015

Despite what Tweedy ranted, we aren't all neocons. I find Hillary even talking to Kagan or his murderous wife Nuland horrifying. I just thought that it sounded more like a slip of the tongue. Perhaps I'm being naive or hopeful??

I think all talk of war is completely mad. I spent OIF3 in Iraq, and people have no idea what war really means. The murder, the senseless destruction, the displacement and the endless propaganda are far beyond the capacity for most to comprehend. We've been killing Iraqi people for nearly 25 years now and I always ask: "What in the hell did the people of Iraq ever do to the people of the United States?

I am a Bernie backer and will vote for Hillary should she win simply because of the Supreme Court nomination process that begins with the President. I'll take Hillary in her choice for Supreme Court Justice over any Republican running. It's kind of a yellow dog thing.

BlueStateLib

(937 posts)
51. JFK's First-Strike Plan
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:24 AM
Dec 2015

The Berlin crisis of 1961 does not loom large in the American memory, but it was an episode that brought the United States and the Soviet Union close to war—nuclear war. Newly available documents reveal that the Kennedy White House drew up detailed plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets, and that President Kennedy explored the first-strike option seriously
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
53. I find it disheartening, nee unbelievable, that she should be our front-runner.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 09:45 AM
Dec 2015

Is this the future of the Democratic Party? Or our downfall?

in_cog_ni_to

(41,600 posts)
54. O-M-EFFING-G! Freudian Slip -
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 10:03 AM
Dec 2015

Keep that woman away from the WH. Her warmongering is DISGUSTING! Has this country not had enough of war? The MIC us going to bankrupt this country with her help.

KEEP HER AWAY FROM THE CODES! Now I have no doubt she'd use them.

Autumn

(45,056 posts)
56. I will say she misspoke but given her past rhetoric on Iran
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 10:21 AM
Dec 2015

it sure speaks volumes. Hillary isn't one to make a mistake like that.

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
62. She is truly one of the WORST serious candidates...
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:21 PM
Dec 2015

for president that the Democrats have considered in quite some time. (Jim Webb was worst, but he wasn't serious).

in_cog_ni_to

(41,600 posts)
66. One of the worst and
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 08:30 PM
Dec 2015
Scariest. She has no business near the nuclear codes. She'll use them - just to show how tough she is. Her warmongering is over the top and she needs to be stopped.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary threatens first s...