This amount of arrogance, the sheer impardonable pretension, is bound to be popular.
Hillary Would Retaliate Against Iran [Updated]
[Update, 5 May 08 1541: Apparently, the site to which I linked as a "pacifist dhimmi" objects to the label. Consider it retracted, because I really don't have any investment in the charge. However, it appears that while I was distracted I have become a "pro-Clinton site" and the seminal case of "Clinton Losing Anger Syndrome". Regular readers may find that somewhat humorous. Readers who are irregular should read the caramely goodness that is my written voice more frequently, because they would learn of my disapproval of all of the candidates this year, and as regular readers they wouldn't be so prone to be pacifist dhimmis.][typos fixed, too.]
So the pacifist dhimmis and Iranians are up in arms over Hillary Clinton's assertion that she would unleash the nuclear dogs of war on Iran if they first launched a nuclear strike against Israel.
If Iran's nuclear program is only for peaceful uses, then they will never have a nuclear bomb. If they never have a nuclear bomb, they will never use one against Israel or anyone else.
Nuclear bombs are very difficult to fake.
So is the willingness to defend an ally. Hillary shows it. Obama does not.
Easy solution to Iran's problem: don't launch a nuclear strike against Israel. If you do, you won't be around to regret it.
Sphere: Related Content
2 comments:
I hate getting all Constitutional but a defense pact is a treaty and, as such, requires approval 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate. Such a treaty exists with the NATO nations, for example.
I am not aware that any President has signed such a treaty with Israel and submitted it to the Senate. Hillary didn't say she would write a treaty. She skipped past the Constitutional niceties and went straight to the obliteration threat.
That's a point I hadn't considered, Knight, but I don't think it's as big a deal as you do.
The President is Commander in Chief for precisely situations such as a nuclear strike on Israel. Further, there would be overwhelming support in Congress for retaliation.
Post a Comment