Little-Acorn
New member
This was a rather stunning announcement during the recent Democrat debate. I have to wonder if it's just an unprepared, off-the-cuff remark, as Obama's promise to invade Pakistan last year was. But the use of nuclear weapons (the classic U.S. definition of "massive retaliation") is not something to be bandied about lightly.
If John McCain (or George Bush or Ronald Reagan) had made this statement, would the media have ignored it for them as they are doing for Hillary?
------------------------------------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62154
Dick Morris: Has Hillary gone ballistic?
Senator offers to protect Saudis, others with nuclear weapons
Posted: April 21, 2008
12:01 am Eastern
WASHINGTON – Overlooked in ABC's Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia was a new defense doctrine offered by Hillary Clinton that would have the U.S. defend Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates with nuclear weapons, political consultant and pundit Dick Morris points out today.
"Hillary's commitment to use nuclear weapons to defend Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait, which she made in the ABC Philadelphia debate went largely unnoticed," Morris told WND. "(George) Stephanopoulos, who asked the question, was too focused on Obama's wearing or not wearing a flag pin in his lapel."
Here's what Clinton said: "We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region ... . You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaities or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup."
Morris, who worked as a political consultant for Bill Clinton, suggests the sweeping new defense doctrine offered up by Hillary Clinton is "perhaps influenced by her husband's $15 million paycheck from Dubai or the $10 million the Saudi monarchy gave to his library."
In a column today in the New York Post, Morris asks: "Has Hillary gone ballistic? This bizarre new foreign policy stance went right over the pro-Clinton head of ABC's debate moderator, George Stephanopolous, who was too busy checking his list of pro-Hillary questions to recognize the import of Clinton's answer. But the fact is that no American president has ever made so sweeping a commitment in the region. Hillary certainly appears willing to break new ground."
He concludes by saying: "If there is one real warmonger in this race, it is Hillary Clinton, who is now willing to risk our cities to save some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East."
If John McCain (or George Bush or Ronald Reagan) had made this statement, would the media have ignored it for them as they are doing for Hillary?
------------------------------------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62154
Dick Morris: Has Hillary gone ballistic?
Senator offers to protect Saudis, others with nuclear weapons
Posted: April 21, 2008
12:01 am Eastern
WASHINGTON – Overlooked in ABC's Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia was a new defense doctrine offered by Hillary Clinton that would have the U.S. defend Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates with nuclear weapons, political consultant and pundit Dick Morris points out today.
"Hillary's commitment to use nuclear weapons to defend Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait, which she made in the ABC Philadelphia debate went largely unnoticed," Morris told WND. "(George) Stephanopoulos, who asked the question, was too focused on Obama's wearing or not wearing a flag pin in his lapel."
Here's what Clinton said: "We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region ... . You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaities or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup."
Morris, who worked as a political consultant for Bill Clinton, suggests the sweeping new defense doctrine offered up by Hillary Clinton is "perhaps influenced by her husband's $15 million paycheck from Dubai or the $10 million the Saudi monarchy gave to his library."
In a column today in the New York Post, Morris asks: "Has Hillary gone ballistic? This bizarre new foreign policy stance went right over the pro-Clinton head of ABC's debate moderator, George Stephanopolous, who was too busy checking his list of pro-Hillary questions to recognize the import of Clinton's answer. But the fact is that no American president has ever made so sweeping a commitment in the region. Hillary certainly appears willing to break new ground."
He concludes by saying: "If there is one real warmonger in this race, it is Hillary Clinton, who is now willing to risk our cities to save some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East."
lol
