In Human Events today I discuss Iran's complaints about Hillary Clinton:
Last Wednesday Iran’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, lodged a formal protest with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and the United Nations Security Council against…Hillary Clinton.Hillary aroused Danesh-Yazdi’s ire with her remarks about what she would do if Iran nuked Israel while she was President. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
In his protest, the Iranian ambassador said this kind of talk was “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible.” He declared: “I wish to reiterate my government’s position that the Islamic Republic of Iran has no intention to attack any other nation,” but “Iran would not hesitate to act in self-defense to respond to any attack against the Iranian nation and to take appropriate defensive measures to protect itself.”
You’d think Hillary had called for nuking Iran just so she could watch the pretty mushroom cloud. She might be forgiven for thinking that Iran had designs against Israel, given the fact that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has crowed that “the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come.” Ahmadinejad has urged Palestinians to keep up the pressure on Israel, in order to bring about “the destruction and the downfall of the Zionist regime.” He has declared that “the Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive.”Nor is Ahmadinejad the only Iranian official who drops to sleep at night and dreams sweet dreams of a rubble-filled, corpse-strewn Tel Aviv. Yahya Raheem Safavi, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Commander, declared on July 30, 2006, as Israeli forces clashed with Hizballah in Lebanon: “In light of the Zionists’ crimes and oppression, I ask God to hasten the years when this regime will no longer exist....The Zionists are hastening their own death through their foul deeds, since Hizbullah and the Lebanese people are undefeated. There is a need to topple the phony Zionist regime, this cancerous growth [called] Israel, which was founded in order to plunder the Muslims’ resources and wealth.”
It’s even more ironic that Iran would complain to the UN about Hillary when a former President of the country, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has boasted that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything,” while a retaliation will “only harm the Islamic world.” He even added: “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”
Not irrational? Really? Such aspirations to murder on a grand scale may be rational from the perspective of the Shi’ite apocalyticism to which Ahmadinejad and other high-placed Iranians adhere. They not only await the return of the Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ite savior figure, the twelfth Imam who disappeared late in the ninth century and will return in the latter days to Islamize the world – they also believe that he will return at a time of great suffering for the Muslims.
This suffering, however, would not be outside the Muslims’ control, as terror analyst Patrick Poole notes: “But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action.” That is, “it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.” The believers could thus affect the Mahdi’s reappearance by bringing chaos and violence upon the Muslims – not inconceivably in the form of a retaliatory nuclear attack. Such an attack, as Rafsanjani said, would “only harm the Islamic world,” and hasten the Mahdi’s return.
This peculiar ideology sets up a win-win situation for Iran. The mullahs know well how to play the game at the UN, using Hillary’s remark to rally international opinion against the United States once again, around the fantastic claim that they have no designs on any other nation. But at home they still push a genocidal ideology of hatred for Israel and love of death, wrapped around the promise of the return of the Mahdi – who will set right all the chaos that the mullahs have loosed on the world. What Hillary Clinton doesn’t realize is that a threat to “obliterate” Iran will do nothing to stop their plans, because they don’t fear obliteration. When the Iranian ambassador calls Hillary’s statement “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible,” he should apply his words to himself and to this sinister ideological brew – which, no matter who ends up in the Oval Office, threatens to unleash death and disaster upon the world on an unprecedented scale.
Unless, of course, some Western leader has the guts and vision to do what is necessary to prevent this.
This remark by Hillary Clinton was exactly the kind of thing that needs to be said, and needs to be echoed, by others. For only thus will deterrence conceivably work. There has not been enough making clear to those who run the Islamic Republic of Iran the consequences of an attack on Israel.
It is astonishing that John McCain has not echoed these sentiments.
And it is telling, and deeply disturbing, that Barack Obama finds that Hillary Clinton's remark is what he chooses to criticize. There is plenty to criticize about Hillary Clinton. That remark, that warning to Iran, was not among them. Obama's attitude, and his choices, or what we know of his choices (we all know so very little about his future probable personnel, as we know so very little about his actual policies -- while we know so very much about "Change" and "Yes We Can" (a variant on his friend Deval Patrick's equally vague, deliberately vague, equally demagogic slogan "Together We Can" -- which winning slogan has not prevented Deval Patrick,two years into his reign as the governor of Massachusetts, from being an embarrassment to its former supporters, though he has been most attentive to the care and future feeding of Deval Patrick), and now seemingly stymied after the defeat of the One Big Budget Plan, that rested on the unwise, prepostrerous, and now soundly defeated plan to build three casinoes).
It seems that Hillary's desperate campaign remarks have hit just the right chord in dealing with Iran's
outrageous threats against Israel. Her remarks show that two can play at the "threat game."
I generally don't like these kinds of loose-cannon remarks being made during a Presidential campaign, but in this case I enjoyed Iran's insulted reaction.
Hillary's comment was unwarranted, huh. Hoofmanupyoursjob said he would "wipe Israel off of the map"; which makes Hillary's plan completely appropo given Iran's constant threats. Wow, Hillary has a pair after all (tee hee).
Although Hillary Clinton’s comment was well intended it is useless for the simple reason, as you well pointed out, because Iran does not fear obliteration. How about the US or Israel do something BEFORE they get the bomb?
Here is a quote from Bernard Lewis in the WSJ of August 8, 2006: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers." And "In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead -- hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115500154638829470.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
At least Clinton acknowledges that there may be a need to obliterate Iran. One can easily suppose that, should Obama be nominated and win, there will be NO finger on the trigger - EVER!
To clarify, by US or Israel doing something I meant, of course, the destruction of Iranian nuclear sites.
Isn't this like the tea kettle calling the saucepan black?
Ditto all that Hugh said.
It's telling that the Iranian ambassador found Hillary Clinton's remarks “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible”. I guess the ambassador believes his own government's announcement that Israel should be "wiped off the map" is conciliatory, necessary and responsible.
The fact that our first serious warning to Iran about the consequences of the path they are going down was from a female presidential contender must be a source of considerable irritation for the Iranian leadership. Good. No one is more in need of reality therapy at the moment than that group.
The only conceivable way to get Iranians to reign-in their government, and for their government to accept it, is to make it unmistakably clear what the result will be for the Iranian people and their leadership. This is not a standoff, nothing close to a MAD scenario, and the western world should not let it develop into one over the next few decades.
It's true; the Iranians are not the Soviets, Islamists are not Communists, and may not be sensible enough to choose life over the certain destruction of their country, their people, and their history. But if there is objective morality for the West in a situation like this it has to be in speaking the truth to the Iranians, their war machine, and by extension Islam in general. They may attain the capability to wreak horrible destruction on the West, but they will have only one shot at it and satisfaction will be short lived; in this case a literal flash it the pan.
In contrast, retaliation will be certain and as complete as the West's moment of rage deems necessary. I give Hillary credit for speaking the truth in this instance; that retaliation will most likely be completely complete.
Barak Obama has aroused my ire with the opinion that we should not obliterate Iran in the event that they nuke Israel. That is outrageous, and he should be made to answer for it.
Before I give in to the temptation to talk like an Iranian mullah and say "May this indeed happen, because if it does, Israel will survive and Iran will not" I would like to ask if American criticisms of Hillary's remark are not considered warranted simply because Americans live by a different standard? The crazy talk can come from looney mullahs, but the American response ought surely to be more reasoned, more responsible, more civilized?
On the other hand, while I think the civilized world should require the highest standards of itself, one has to wonder how long we are to be expected to allow for the very lowest standards from others, particularly when they are in the habit of wearing their religion on their sleeve, making a self-celebratory fuss about their moral superiority...and are about to become nuclear empowered.
Wait.
Hillary has been making campaign promises left and right that I doubt she intends to hold if she (ever) gets elected. Could this be just another one, and we're rushing to the conclusion that someone who has a chance of being president might be able to react in a swift, timely and decisive manner?
What makes us think that it'll be any different from Clinton's (1) "attack" on Iraq?
-Peter
I hope McCain wins.
But, definitely Hillary over Hussein, the Muslim sympathizer, as numerous members of his family are Muslims.
Hillary's words mean something only if SHE means them. I doubt that she does. Her statement is meant to answer the fears of most Americans who believe the Democrats are unable or unwilling to defend American interests abroad. It is also a nod to the Jewish vote, a large segment of the Democratic base. Given that many Democrats, including their likely nominee, are on the side of the Palestinians where Israel is concerned and view Israel as the aggressor, I take her pronouncement with a HUGE grain of salt.
At the moment of truth, she's just as likely to talk about how we must refrain from "punishing innocent Iranians" for the actions of their leaders.
Let Iran whip up public opinion. Why it should matter when no one who takes offense at Hillary's statement will defend us is beyond me. Oh sure, they might mourn our dead and maybe print headlines about how everyone is an American now, but that won't last long.
RalphInfidel said "retaliation will be certain and as complete as the West's moment of rage deems necessary."
I'm not so sure. "Disproportionate" is a word that will fill the airwaves. The West (primarily the US) will become the villain in the blink of an eye. Apologists everywhere will say: we made them do it.
I hope McCain wins.
But, definitely Hillary over Hussein, the Muslim sympathizer, as numerous members of his family are Muslims.
Posted by: darcy
You and I are very like-minded, darcy. I am voting for McCain, and with McCain & Hillary, what you see is what you get; but with Obama, there is way too much mystery surrounding him. He would not be good for our country on so many levels.
"Hussein, the Muslim sympathizer, as numerous members of his family are Muslims."
-- from a posting above
The charges that Barack Obama is 1) a "Musliim sympathizer" and 2) this is explained by some Muslim relatives are both 1) false and 2) bring into unnecessary disrepute real charges, true charges, that can be and should be made.
It hardly matters that Barack Obama's father, who left him when he was two, was, or called himself, a Muslim. It does not matter that he lived for a time in Islam-dominated Indonesia. After all, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Ali Sina were all raised as Muslims -- and who would not want their world-view to prevail?
What worries is that while much about him is unknown. Twenty years as a community organizer in southside Chicago and a state Senator, and only two unremarkable years as a Senator do not tell us what he has read, what he has studied, what he understands. But all the signs are worrisome. His tolerance of Wright, and of Wright's admiration for Farrakhan. His apparent taking tuition from Rashid Khalidi, and therefore his apparent swallowing whole of Arab propaganda. His reported remarks to Abunimah. His reported remarks about the supposed "tragedy" of the "Palestinians." His reported remarks, to Abunimah and others, about how, now that he was "running for President," he would have to distance himself from them, or remain silent on certain matters -- exactly what Wright reported he said to him -- and he hoped they would understand. The feeling that he may turn out to be Jimmy Carter, smiling and saying the obvious things about "supporting Israel's right to exist" and then, once in, smilingly doing everything he could not to help repair Israel's case, not to present its case properly, as one of a small country merely trying to stave off an endless Lesser Jihad (which is what the Arab and Muslim war on Israel is all about, and not about the carefully-cultivated "national rights" of the deliberately-fabricated "Palestinian people").
He opposed the war on Iraq. But so did Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky. Did he oppose the war for the right reasons, because he accurately foresaw that Bush was dumb, and messianic, and would cause American troops to remain there for a long time, when they should have been pulled out as soon as the regime toppled (which guaranteed a transfer of power to the Shi'a, with all troubles that that was sure to cause), and Iraq had been properly scoured. It is not enough, not even the right thing, to have been against the war if one was against it because one does not regard Muslim regimes as dangerous, does not believe that all of them have to be prevented from acquiring, or from being able to deliver, any unconventional and especially dangerous weapons.
He has not been forthcoming on the subject of Iran, save to attack Hillary Clinton for making exactly the kind of threatening noises that should be made -- should be made by all of the candidates, so that the need for attacking Iran is lessened.
His choice of advisers disturbs. There is Samantha Powers, who has made her career out of Darfur and genocide, and whose works and days have given her the Carr Center at Harvard as her fiefdom, but have not saved the life of a single black African, Christian, animist, or Muslim, in the Sudan, and whose views on Israel should worry anyone who worries about the continued survival of that permanently beleaguered state. Still worse is Obama's having chosen, to advise him, the by-now comical and vicious Brzezinski, whose record in the Middle East -- he helped lose Iran, with a little help from Carter and Gary Sick -- and had Iran not been lost, had the Shah been able to see things through and then not gone back to his vainglorious ways, much woe might have been avoided. And Brzezinski is well-known for his complete lack of understanding, or sympathy, to Israel.
There's more. All of it bodes ill.
"Hussein, the Muslim sympathizer, as numerous members of his family are Muslims."
-- from a posting above
The charges that Barack Obama is 1) a "Musliim sympathizer" and 2) this is explained by some Muslim relatives are both 1) false and 2) bring into unnecessary disrepute real charges, true charges, that can be and should be made. --Hugh
Well, OK, Hugh, but I disagree.
"It hardly matters that Barack Obama's father, who left him when he was two, was, or called himself, a Muslim. It does not matter that he lived for a time in Islam-dominated Indonesia. After all, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Ali Sina were all raised as Muslims -- and who would not want their world-view to prevail?" --Hugh
Well, Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan and Ali Sina have all publicly renounced Islam. They are apostates.
Obama has not done that. And there's the huge difference.
Champ,
With McCain and Hillary what you see is what you get and in both cases it's BAD.
Bad things always come in threes and barring convention upsets, we're poised to elect our third sitting senator as president.
Obama has never called himself a Muslim. He is under no obligation to publicly "renounce it." He is not an apostate. What he is under an obligation to do is to relieve worries of those who wonder about his choice of foreign policy advisers, and his naive remark about "sitting down with Muslim leaders" (which shows he has no idea what harm such a meeting would do in legitimizing, and propping up, such people as Ahmadinejad) and somehow come to some greater understanding. And such a suggestion is of a piece with his seeming lack of worry about Iran.
One longs to see some sign that he has begun to find out about Islam -- and not with the slightest desire to discover some "part of his identity" -- we've had quite enough of that stuff, thank you -- but because he may be intelligent enough -- though intelligence alone is not enough -- to try to find out what is this Belief-System, what do its texts say, what are its tenets, its attitudes, and what causes someone who was once the Jordanian Minister for the Waqf to speak like this:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1761.htm
and then to find out that this kind of thing is not unusual nor "extremist" but simply the orthodox Muslim view, when that view is being expressed to fellow Muslims, and the speaker is oblivious to the likelihood that it may be recorded for the edification of Infidels.
He needs to do a lot more. He needs to do something, to relieve all kinds of worries. He needs, first of all, to meet -- and meet again -- with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and have a long long talk with her. He's had two years in Washington to do it, and he failed to. His father was from Kenya. She's from Somalia and lived in Kenya. She's someone who makes perfect sense. Why has he not been in touch with her? Why has he given no sign of realizing how worrisome his silence on the subject of Islam is for so many?
I watched the Memri TV clip.
Concerning all of his blather about "conquering Roma and Spain and America and Europe," I'd like to slap that deluded pompous supremacist self-aggrandizing conceited Barbarian across the face:
"...and what causes someone who was once the Jordanian Minister for the Waqf to speak like this:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1761.htm
and then to find out that this kind of thing is not unusual nor "extremist" but simply the orthodox Muslim view, when that view is being expressed to fellow Muslims, and the speaker is oblivious to the likelihood that it may be recorded for the edification of Infidels."
"
"Why has he not been in touch with her {Hirsi Ali}? Why has he given no sign of realizing how worrisome his silence on the subject of Islam is for so many?"
Oh, Yeah. Exactly. Very, very worrisome.
Hillary's remarks were too hyberbolic and inexact to take seriously, and she gave no convincing reasons to retaliate for Israel's sake. If she were not an accomplished prevaricator and poseur, and had she said what must be said--that unprovoked aggression against Jews or the Jewish State would guarantee the complete detruction of Iran's Islamic Regime and the deposing of its clerics--then she would have demonstrated foreign-policy acumen and made a positive contribution to resolving this nuclear impasse.
"There's more. All of it bodes ill."
...from Hugh
Yes, including his relationship with raila odinga.
It is ironic that all the Democrat talking heads are calling for her to give it up "for the sake of the Democratic party", when she, albeit for her own selfish reasons, continues to be their only chance to win the White House in November. When the real campaign gets underway, the majority of Americans, including a lot of Democrats, will not be as forgiving of B. Hussein's serious lapses of judgement and weakness of character as the swooning MSM and the brain-dead left has been.
How, how, how do we get it through to the Soccer Moms of America, what it is that Islam has in mind for them, for their daughters and granddaughters, forever?
Rape. The murder of all their menfolk. And then slavery, slavery and beatings and abuse and the hideous burqa, purdah and the harem, forever and ever and ever. Child marriages. Forced veiling. Forced marriages. Denial of education. No more driving!
If Hilary had even a gram of sense she would invite Phyllis Chesler, Bat Yeor, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish and Brigitte Gabriel, and a selection of ordinary moms from all over the nation (take a random sample of PTAs), black, native american, and Euro-American, both anglo and latina, to an all-day workshop and dinner. Throw in Mr Robert Spencer as honorary male guest to give the after-dinner address.
They would watch 'Submission' - with Hirsi Ali herself to give the commentary, backed up by Gabriel and Sultan and Darwish.
And then let the guests hear Mr Spencer explain what Islam teaches about women; what sharia prescribes; and what happens today, in Yemen, or Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or Saudi Arabia, Iran, 'Palestine'.
Go into detail on the absurd sharia laws about rape, and how they function to deny any recognisable form of justice to a rape victim, indeed, to push off all the guilt upon her, so that she is more likely to be murdered, often by her own family (!!) than avenged. Spend plenty of time on Surah 4:34, and all those obscene clerics who defend the beating of wives. Make sure the women understand that under Islam, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's - and that in ANY case of sexual crime, her testimony and that of any other woman who may have witnessed the crime is ...ruled out of court altogether, such that she cannot testify even when, especially when, she has been the victim.
Someone has to get the women of America and, indeed, all Infidel women, coldly, intelligently, furiously angry.
Let Western women hear what Tawfiq Hamid said about Zawahiri's preaching, at the university in Cairo: '
"His passion for jihad was astonishing. He advocated complete Islamic dominance, urging us to pursue jihad against non-Muslims and subdue them to Shari'a - the duty of every true Muslim. His rhetoric inspired us to engage in war against the infidels, the enemies of Allah.
"He particularly condemned the West for the freedom of its women. He hated the fact that Western women were permitted to wear what they pleased, to work and to have the same opportunities as men.
"He dreamt of forcing the West to conform to a Taliban-style system in which women were obliged to wear the Islamic hijab, were legally beaten by men to discipline them and were stoned to death for extramarital sex."
Let the women of the West know that there are thousands - indeed, probably millions - of Zawahiris out there, nursing the same insane ambition, the same will to destroy all the hardwon freedoms that we western women currently enjoy.
Hilary, if she had any wit at all, would be laying all this on the line, putting it right out there - and resolving, with grim determination, to make ruthlessly sure that neither the mad mullahs of Persia, nor the obscene House of Saud, nor any other jihadi, anywhere, would be able to pursue their program of enslavement for the Infidel women of the world.
"I am woman - hear me ROAR".
Don't just say it, Ms Clinton - MEAN IT.
And if *you* won't, maybe someone like Sue Myrick will. Pray God it will be soon.
Why has he not been in touch with her? Why has he given no sign of realizing how worrisome his silence on the subject of Islam is for so many?
Posted by: Hugh
Hugh, if it were "so many" then we wouldn't even have to worry about Hussein Obama coming even near the white House, much less get inside it.
The subject of islam is indeed worrisome, to put it lightly. Unfortunately not for enough people yet.
I have been going to other blogs like Monica Crowley's to check on the attitudes of Conservatives there.
Seems like even among self-confessed Conservatives we have a large number of people who think islam is to be negotiated with and that we should be gentlemanly with them and tu-quoque and so forth.
On the other hand it seems that a steady presence of WHY THE SOFT APPROACH DOESN'T WORK AND WHY IT NEVER WILL illustrated by example after example has brought out those who've been harboring misgivings about islam and who will speak in my support when the Lone Liberal on the blog makes his inane statements about me being a "racist".
There were two regular liberals over there and one has already left for good.
Either we turn the rmeaining one - a real tough case of brooklyn Jewish Liberalism through and through - or we'll drive him off the blog as well.
Though it is sometimes good to learn how the enemy argues and study his techniques.
So far I have learned that the techniques of liberals tend to be mostly of the reflexive Pavlovian-dog kind..
They really don't consider what you say, they just react to it in a pre-conditioned reflexive sort of way.
The only way to rattle him is to use Shock-and-Awe.. to say things he's never even heard before.
That is when the liberal is at his most vulnerable.. "what will the other liberals say..?"
"Am I racist for possibly agreeing with this guy..?"
What we need is LOTS of people who find islam a worrisome subject indeed.
What we need is LOTS of people who find islam a worrisome subject indeed.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah
Easier said than done, after decades of drinking the multicultural Kool-Aid. The United States is no longer a country with a unique culture. It's an address.
The LOTS of people to whom you refer have to come from those who made and served us the Kool-Aid. They have to come from the universities and from the Democratic party. They most especially have to come from Democratic women everywhere. Hillary's pronouncements now are too little, too late and not believable. She wasn't all that worried about Islam when embracing Mrs. Arafat, was she? Islam didn't change one iota between then and now.
Sue Myrick is doing a good thing but she has a huge handicap - that "R" after her name.
Why is this happening only now? The Republicans were in charge of the House for almost six years after 9/11. Neither Islam nor its doctrine of jihad changed one iota between then and now. But we had to worry about offending "peaceful Muslims". Why didn't those supposedly peaceful Muslims ever have to worry about offending US?
A very few reasons Rodham-clinton said it:
- she's a capital P - Politician
- her verifiable predilection for statements based on pure fantasy
- her perspective of reality (once she departs fantasy land) would not allow her to push the obliterate-button
most important and factors related to first reason
- she doesn't really mean it in the way she said it; it wasn't what she really said; she's under a lot of campaign induced stress; her statement was taken out of context; "please, please, please - my islamist campaign-cash donors, don't stop your flow of cash into my coffers"; she is enabling the islamists by giving them one more reason to play their "victim-status" card; ...
Hillary or Barack - pick your poison.
Barack or John - pick your poison
Hillary or John - pick your poison
Hugh et all,
I disagree with the following statement from Hugh:
"This remark by Hillary Clinton was exactly the kind of thing that needs to be said, and needs to be echoed, by others."
As Mladen pointed out in an earlier post, MAD is not a reliable policy in the case of a regime that considers its own destruction as an acceptable outcome.
Retaliation against Iran for a nuclear attack on Israel is ABSOLUTELY NOT an acceptable scenario. No amount of retaliation can undo the death and destruction caused from such an attack. The ONLY acceptable scenario is PREVENTING such an attack in the first place by an means necessary - diplomatic or otherwise.
Furthermore, invokation of MAD compels such an attack from Iran to simultaneously target the retaliator as well as Israel. The only acceptable scenario is PREVENTION, not retaliation.