Hillary threatens first strike "nuclear option" against Iran, did she misspeak? [View all]

[Cheese Sandwich]

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