What is Mrs Clinton on?

She must be on steroids.

I know I certainly cringed, but Bill probably urged her to say it.

However, please let's not make it even worse by misstating the actual quote. She didn't say "If I'm the president, we will attack Iran," and it's inflammatory to imply that she did.

As you note, her context was that if Iran nuked Israel, the USA would nuke Iran. Actually, I think Israel would beat the USA to it.

Whatever the case, it's madness.

All best,
Fred

So I pose the question to you, Tony.

"if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel?"

What would you do if you were President?

Cheers
Jim

Like they say: Bend over, firmly grasp your ankles, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye!

All best,
Fred

What is Mrs. Clinton on?

A roll, apparently.

I think her remarks and her win in Pennsylvania are not unrelated.

All best,
Fred

Chaps,

I don't think Hilary is on anything.

It's a typical late PMS not being properly treated.

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:


I think her remarks and her win in Pennsylvania are not unrelated.

All best,
Fred

...as Fred says. We should be asking why that statement appeals to the electorate. A democrat electorate at that. If nothjing else Mrs Clinton appears to understand her consituency.

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:


I think her remarks and her win in Pennsylvania are not unrelated.

All best,
Fred

...as Fred says. We should be asking why that statement appeals to the electorate. A democrat electorate at that. If nothjing else Mrs Clinton appears to understand her consituency.

Bruce

Fear mongering always works. Right out of the Republican play book, especially her last minute TV ad with its brief footage of Osama bin Laden.

The reality is that Democrats and Republicans represent a continuum, and many Pennsylvanian Democrats, especially those outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, are more Republican than, say, Illinois Democrats. Pennsylvania is only relatively recently a blue state ... it's traditionally been staunchly Republican.

And Hillary's shameful fear mongering tactics -- the call at 3 AM, nuking the Iranians, Osama bin Laden, etc. -- strike their target well, as does her race-baiting capricious mention of Farrakhan in the debate, knowing full well there is no connection with Obama. But it scares many white people, especially those leaning more toward the Republican end of the continuum.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Fear mongering always works

Bollocks, it doesn't work with you and it doesn't work with me.

Many thanks to all who posted above with the facts of what Hilary said and the context in which she said it. Just shows how careless I am when I watch the BBC 10 o'clock news - which I always trust to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I thought (but am now seriously uncertain) that the question put was along the lines of "what would you do as President if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel?" and that her reply was more along the lines of "we could obliterate them" (not "we would..")and "Iran should know this - hopefully they will recognise this as a deterent" In political terms her reply seemed to be well short of any certainty of a nuclear response. As others have noted, Israel would probably respond anyway.

Please accept my apologies for not listening too carefully to what the BBC reported. I suspect many of us have been guilty of this in the past and will continue to fail in the future. That's the perogative of listeners and a problem to be overcome by journalists and polititians.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:
Chaps,

I don't think Hilary is on anything.

It's a typical late PMS not being properly treated.

You're Mick Parry and I claim my £5

OK, found the quote on the BBC webb site

"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."

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

Please accept my apologies for not listening too carefully to what the BBC reported. I suspect many of us have been guilty of this in the past and will continue to fail in the future. That's the perogative of listeners and a problem to be overcome by journalists and polititians.

Don't apologise for illustrating exactly why politicians need to be smarter than that, because quoting them out of context is an easy way to destroy their reputation. It only takes people to discuss the remark and that's it.
She's very, very foolish to fall into that trap, and not thinking it through is an eye-opener in itself. Hhmmm...I was very excited that she could win, but I'm not sure I want her to now.

quote:

.I was very excited that she could win, but I'm not sure I want her to now.

So much for Fred's theory about the "fear" card. That's three of us who aren't taken in...

Cheers

Don

You must not be one of them Republicans.

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:


I think her remarks and her win in Pennsylvania are not unrelated.

All best,
Fred

What an inane thing to say. Of course, every candidate's remarks are "not unrelated" to their victories (and their defeats).

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:


I think her remarks and her win in Pennsylvania are not unrelated.

All best,
Fred

What an inane thing to say. Of course, every candidate's remarks are "not unrelated" to their victories (and their defeats).

Jayd, could you please get off my case? You disagree, fine ... no need to use that tone, or to call my remark "inane."

Anyway, my point was specifically regarding the last minute barrage of Hillary's fear-mongering TV ads and nuclear saber rattling targeted at the large number of undecided voters. Leading up to the primary her lead had shrunk to 5 or 6 points, but exit polls indicate that many of these last minute coverts got the fear and gave her the more solid 10 point win.

It's the fear-mongering I'm criticizing. What problem do you have with me doing so?

Sincerely,
Fred

I totally agree with you Fred; Clintons words were a disgraceful case of fear-mongering.

To answer Tonys question - IMO a (caffeine fueled?) power trip.

*

Fred,

In the sense that "inane" means "lacking substance", I stand by my assessment of your remark.

Further, you post your opinions on a public forum, and expect impunity? On what grounds are your comments above response? If you'd rather not hear other people's opinions of your political position, perhaps keeping it private is a better approach. Just a thought.

And to answer your final question, I have no problem with you addressing fear-mongering. But your implications - namely, that white Pennsylvanians are scared of Farrakhan because he's black rather than because he's a nutjob, and that Pennsylvanians in general (only the ones who voted for Clinton, of course - Obama supporters in Pennsylvania are way smarter) embrace the idea of nuking Iran - strike me as sour grapes from the Obama camp.

Clinton's "fear-mongering" ad didn't mention Obama. It painted a realistic scenario, and asked a relevant question. That you seem to either find the scenario unrealistic, or the question irrelevant, well, frankly, doesn't surprise me at all.

Continue to try and make it about you if you like, continue to paint my responses as personal attacks if you must, but the fact is, all I know of you is what I have read on this forum - information you post of your own free will. I intend to continue to respond to that information as you provide it, whenever and however I see fit. As for your "case", it isn't really worth my time to be on. Sorry.

Careful with that axe, Eugene (Oregon, US) ...

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:


I think her remarks and her win in Pennsylvania are not unrelated.

All best,
Fred

What an inane thing to say. Of course, every candidate's remarks are "not unrelated" to their victories (and their defeats).

Jayd, could you please get off my case? You disagree, fine

...and just to enhance your clarity of my remark, you got it bass-ackwards. I was actually agreeing with you, which is easy to see by the fact that I said "of course yadda yadda yadda".

What I was actually addressing was the complete "well, duh!" quality of your comment. Here, let me illustrate: I think employee bonuses and their job performance are not unrelated. I think the success of Olympic athletes and their level of skill and conditioning are not unrelated.

Umm, well duh.

The point about Farrakhan isn't "that white Pennsylvanians are scared of Farrakhan because he's black rather than because he's a nutjob," it's that the only reason Clinton mentions Farrakhan is to try to associate Obama with a nut-job who also happens to be black, and who is, by the way, Muslim ... which handily further conflates the general disinformation campaign to paint Obama as a Muslim. Clinton herself has never made that particular claim, but apparently she's not beyond stoking the embers of that fire.

As far as her disgraceful saber rattling, if you think this is a "realistic" and reasonable campaign tactic, fine. Many folks don't.

Sincerely,
Fred

*

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

I was actually agreeing with you, which is easy to see ...

Yes, I do see how you "agree" with me ... I'm really feelin' it.

What increasingly bothers me is the supercilious tone.

Sincerely,
Fred

Fred

We've learned to live with yours....