'Provocative' Clinton angers Iran

BBC
May 1, 2008

Tehran has complained to the UN about remarks made last week by Hillary Clinton on the circumstances under which the US might attack Iran.
. . .

Asked how she would respond if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, she replied with a stark warning.

"If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them," she told TV network ABC.

"That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7376741.stm

Translation: If in the possible event, that Iran were to be so foolish, at some point in the future, to attack Israel with nuclear weapons (not non-nuclear weapons), the United States would feel impelled to retaliate. While Hillary did not say how, she pointed out that the US is so well armed, that we have the power to obliterate Iran, and they should take that into account, when they consider whether or not they want to attack Israel with nuclear weapons.

I realize that it is a lot more fun to pretend that Hillary said she was going to obliterate Iran, and the fact that she did not say that, is no bar to you and the others who are saying that, to go on your merry way. But a lie is a lie. We would not tolerate it in the Republicans, and we should not tolerate it in ourselves.

But then, you may not care about the truth; you may be a Republican. Or maybe, you will go back an correct the record, or not.

The inclusion of "would be able to" does appear to diminish intent. You better send your memo to Harry Reid; I understand he heard it the way I heard it.

In any case, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. If Iran and Israel want to get into Armageddon with each other, a prudent President would opt to stay out of it. There are more important things in life than Israel: the survival of life on Earth, for instance.

has played a key role in keeping nuclear weapons from being used foolishly. It's foolish to not use deterence. I think Bush would use nukes if the negatives were not so strong. He might REALLY end up in the Hague.

It was the Cuban Missile Crisis that taught both the Soviet Union and the US that nobody could win such a war. What was true then, is still true.
It is better that the threat come from the US, and not Israel. If it came from Israel, it would be too in your face. It is the same if Israel admits to having nuclear weapons. The Muslim countries would lose face. They know what Israel has, and always have.

It is not embarrassing to be held at bay by the US, but it would be by Israel. Factually, if Iran fired a nuclear missile at Israel, Israel would know about it before it left the pad. Possibly, it would never launch; maybe blow up. Then, nobody would have to respond.

Does Israel have spies in Iran? I think you can count on that. Iran is a safer place for that.

Israel has spies HERE. For some reason, that knowledge isn't making me feel any safer.

the spies Israel has in the US, gather information to help Israel, and not to hurt the US.

The US spies in the US, gather information on Americans, for use by the US government, not to help Americans, but for illegal purposes.

When it comes to foreign spies v. US spies in the US, I'm not sure who I trust less. It's an open question.

Good observation, Miss M.

Then why the need for covert operations? Why wouldn't we help our "friends" with all of the information that they legitimately need?

Fact is, they're also here to steal design secrets to help their own weapons industry (along with the spies of dozens of other countries as well, who are also lacking a noble purpose here). I'm sure they also gather compromising information on US politicians and military officers.

Throwing domestic spying into a discussion of foreign spying is to throw a red herring out to distract from the subject of Israel.

According to Pollard, he gave only information regarding Iraq's missile threats to Israel.[6] Press reports cited a secret 46-page memorandum, which Pollard and his attorneys were allowed to view.[7] They were provided to the judge by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who described Pollard's spying as including, among other things, obtaining and copying the latest version of Radio-Signal Notations, a 10-volume manual detailing America's global electronic surveillance network.[8][9]

With regard to friendly nations spying on each other, Pollard supporters cite the 1983 statement by Senator David Durenberger, former head of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee. Durenberger claimed, while speaking to a Jewish group, that the CIA had turned an officer in the Israel Defence Forces, and that he had been an active source during the 1982 Lebanon War.[10][11] His name was Yosef Amit and he was an intelligence officer for the Israeli Army. He was sentenced to 12 years for spying for the US.[12]

Pollard was sentenced to life in prison on one count of espionage. Pollard and his supporters protested that this was a sentence unprecedented for espionage committed for an ally and that this was in violation of his plea agreement. However, the prosecutor complied with the plea agreement and asked for "only a substantial number of years in prison"; Judge Aubrey Robinson, Jr. imposed the life sentence after hearing the statements of the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, and other U.S. government officials (plea agreements are not binding upon judges).[20]Pollard's attorney then failed to file his appeal within the mandated ten-day period after sentencing. In 1987, Pollard began his life sentence, which he is still serving. Pollard's wife, Anne, was sentenced to five years in prison but was released after three and a half years because of health problems.

Three weeks before Pollard's sentencing, Wolf Blitzer, at the time a Jerusalem Post correspondent, conducted a jail-cell interview with Pollard and penned an article which also ran in The Washington Post headlined, "Pollard: Not A Bumbler, but Israel's Master Spy." published on February 15, 1987.[14] Pollard told Blitzer about some of the information he provided the Israelis: reconnaissance satellite photography of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) headquarters in Tunisia, specific capabilities of Libya's air defenses, and "the pick of U.S. intelligence about Arab and Islamic conventional and unconventional military activity, from Morocco to Pakistan and every country in between. This included both 'friendly' and 'unfriendly' Arab countries."

(ed. All of this happened during the Reagan Administration, that used Iran to launder money to send to the Contras, to get Israel to replace the missiles and send them to Iran. Israel sent the missiles to Iran, because it had no choice, not because it was a friend of the Ayatollah.)

In addition:

Several years later, with a different attorney, Pollard filed a Habeas Corpus petition. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled two-to-one to deny Pollard's petition, primarily due to the failure of Pollard's original attorneys to file his appeal in a timely manner. The dissenting judge, Judge Stephen Williams, stated that "because the government's breach of the plea agreement was a fundamental miscarriage of justice requiring relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, I dissent."[22]

More information about the sentencing and criticism of it and the judge is featured in Miscarriage of Justice: The Jonathan Pollard Story by Mark Shaw.[23] He points out that the life sentence given Pollard is excessive when compared with any other assessed to a person spying for an ally of the United States. He also questions the validity of the devastating report forwarded to the court by Caspar Weinberger contending that Pollard committed devious acts of espionage far beyond those charged against him. Shaw also presents similarities between Pollard's case and that of the French officer Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer who was wrongly convicted of espionage by military authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

I believe Israel spied on the US because Israel doesn't trust the US, and for good reason. The specific capabilities of Libya's air defenses had been requested, because there was information that Libya was preparing an attack. Israel needed to know if it were only a rumor. The US held back that information, and that could have lead to a needless war.

And how is it that an attorney in an espionage case fails to file an appeal inside of the mandatory 10 day period? I've never heard such a thing! What's with that? Don't you think something is up with that? I feel that someone doesn't want Pollard to talk.

Then maybe they should refuse the billions of dollars in aid and weapons that they accept from us each year.

As for Pollard, well, I have no sympathy. In most other times and places in human history, he would have been executed.

Ally or not wouldn't YOU want to keep an eye on W and his gang?

First let me point out that this was a loaded question. It was designed to weaken Hillary no mater what way she answered. Had she gone with a peaceful answer then she would lose rep with the warmongering part of the population, particularly the Armageddon lovers*. The way she answered has clearly lost rep with the peace mongering part of the population and of course the isolationists who believe the US is already putting to much funds and blood into the middle east.

Remember while hypothetical questions do allow us to see what possible ways a person would react to situations not yet in reality they do, even more so, show the mentality of that person as well as that persons ability to reason in other situations too. They tell us how a person would react not just on their answer but how fast they answer and how vocal they answer it.

Hillary answer was... enthusiastic... and played right into the hands of her political enemies. Now she has alienated the peaceful section of the populous by giving her the image as someone who would get orgasmic pleasure off starting another war. She could of answered with remorse, worded her response so it couldn't be used against her politically. Pointed out how she would regret the actions she would feel forced into but in the interest of protecting a ally who has signed defensive pacts and the honor of the US to it's treaties she would have to commit to battle.

Instead her response created the image of a warmonger and it doesn't matter the ifs and buts of the question, the image now stands.

Nothing you say can change the fact she now is stained with this image of raining oblivion onto Iran. The way she answered will, if she is elected, strain relationships even further with Iran and the middle east in general. Even if Iran never had the intention of nuking Israel, and so the hypothetical will never come about, it will be seen as another saber rattling from the USA and just further their drive towards militarization.

The biggest thing a hypothetical question allow us to see is if a candidate is wise enough to avoid traps, as hypothetical questions are usually traps....

I highlighted this fact because it is what people must realize. These questions, as I said, are always loaded and have to be turned and looked at from every angle. A politician even more so should be wise enough to realize this, smart enough not to rush in with the obvious answers, a quick enough to find a 'loophole' that turns the question about on it's head.

Sadly though Hillary wasn't wise, smart or quick enough to realize there is a third answer!

Ron Paul, be him a poor choice for me, was the candidate who answered such a hypothetical in a way that was both diplomatic and fit into reality:

He pointed out how stupid the question was!

Paul pointed out Iran would never be so stupid to invade Israel. He pointed out that even, if some insanely small chance it did, Israel would be able to handle the the problem even without US interaction. That Israel has more then enough military might to distroy Iran all on thier own so even in the hypothetical the US involvement was a moot point.

He laid down the real facts on the ground to those seeking to weaken either his principals as a libertarian, by betraying then and joining warmongers everywhere, or make it look as if he was willing to let an ally be slaughtered by some 'hoard of insane blood thirsty Arabs' all to save a buck. By answering as he did he proved, clearly to me, he had a better grasp on reality then any who would of answered that question differently.

I said it before on other threads on this topic: Had Hillary had the wisdom to answer along the same lines, pointing out that the question was meaningless war mongering and would never be reality.... Well she would have my vote then and there and nothing the right could bring forth would sway me from that conviction.

We need presidential candidates who one can respond to even even a hypothetical with realistic facts.

*This wouldn't of been a big blow to her, they tend to despise anyone with a D after their name regardless of that persons stance and would never vote for her to begin with. That alone weakens my respect for her as she should clearly see she can't win these people over no matter how many countries she promises, hypothetically, to bomb....

1. The media is treating Obama so daintily, nobody has asked him this sort of loaded hypothetical. Especially not about foreign policy matters. It's much easier to not say anything unfortunate when nobody asks you any tough questions.

2. If you've been truthful here in the past (and I have no reason to believe that you haven't been), then nobody can "have your vote", since you're not eligible to vote here anyway.

1) I firmly believe the media is a tool of the right, simply because of the leanings of the small group that owns said media. There are many within the MSM who have already attacked Obama, many more who have attacked Hillary. Laying the ground work so regardless of who gets nominated it isn't going to go easy for them.

The only one really getting a free ride is McCain... typical.

Besides: This was about Hillary's response, not Obama. The two are separate entities and one doesn't always have to be brought up when the other is mentioned.

2) I said they would have my vote, not that it would be eligible. Definitely she would have my respect, maybe I should of put it forth in those terms but hey I'm not that bright when it comes to getting a point across. For being smart enough to escape such a obvious trap I would even campaign for her, pushing my eligible to vote friends in her direction.

Moot though, seeing she fell for the trap, hook line and sinker.