Citing the disastrous 2003 US invasion of Iraq as an example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today warned that by continuing to refuse to abandon its civilian nuclear program, Iran was risking the possibility of an invasion by the US or “some other enemy that would do that to them.”
The comments came during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program, and when asked by interviewer and former Clinton-era official George Stephanopoulus, Secretary Clinton reiterated “that’s right, as a first strike.”
(the antiwar.com article has links to ABC News, follow the link above to get there).
Of course, just the other day, President Obama was trying to start a 'new beginning' with Muslims. Remember this part ....
"We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”
Of course, uncounted numbers of 'innocent men, women and children' have died as a result of our attack on Iraq. By implication, Secretary of State Clinton is threatening to kill many, many more 'innocent men, women, and children.'
I wonder if President Obama will fly home and confront the violent extremists here?
And, does anyone else notice how none of the real 'choices' given to the American voters last year mean any change at all in our policies? Does it sound like there is any difference at all between Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of State Clinton?
Then there's this ....
Clinton Threatens ‘Massive Retaliation’ in Case Iran Attacks Israel also on antiwar.com
Spending yet more time publicly railing against a nuclear weapons program which both US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency insist doesn’t exist, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today insisted that the American nuclear umbrella in fact extends over Israel, as well as “a number of nations” and that the US would retaliate “massively” in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.
Of course, for anyone paying attention, there would seem to be a much greater threat that Israel would attack Iran instead of the other way around. Israel routinely threatens to attack Iran. Israel recently staged major military excerises that seemed to simulate an attack on Iran. Over the last twenty years, Israel has attacked other nations in the region several times. And Israel is known to posses hundreds of nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to launch them. And in the quote above, SOS Clinton explicitly threatened that 'some other enemy' might attack Iran ... a rather transparent reference to Israel.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, experts seem to be in agreement that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, and they've shown zero ability to design a nuclear weapon that would fit on top of a missile, survive the g-forces and vibrations of a missile launch and still work when it gets somewhere. There are some very vague statements, with disputes over their translation, from one political leader in Iran, who does not hold absolute power, saying that someday Israel might not exist.
Seems like SOS Clinton would be much better off spending her time worrying about an Israeli attack on Iran, rather than the other way around. But, as one can see below, she seems to be signaling rather publicly that the US would support an Israeli attack on Iran.