Skip to comments.Dick Morris: Hillary Vows to Defend U.A.E., Kuwait, From [Nuclear] Iran
Posted on 04/23/2008 8:01:49 AM PDT by seanmerc
In last week's Philadelphia debate, Hillary Clinton said she would commit the United States to a retaliatory attack against Iran, presumably with nuclear weapons, if it dropped the bomb on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait.
Asked if "it should be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack against the United States," Clinton astonishingly responded that she'd use American nukes not just to defend Israel, our traditional strategic ally, but also other neighboring states such as the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait from an Iranian nuclear attack.
Barack Obama's far more sensible answer was simply to commit to definitively and aggressively extend our deterrent protection to Israel . . . period.
Here's Hillary's answer, when asked if she'd make clear to Iran that a nuclear attack on Israel would be answerable with our full retaliatory capability: "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 U.A.E. 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."
No American president has ever made so sweeping a commitment in the region but Hillary appears eager to break new ground.
Obviously, Iran will shortly develop the ballistic-missile capability to hit Europe and, eventually the United States, just as North Korea is doing.
France's Charles de Gaulle used to wonder if a U.S. president would ever actually trade New York for Paris; that is, retaliate against the USSR with nuclear weapons if Moscow nuked Paris, knowing that Russia would then retaliate by wiping out a U.S. city like New York. His doubts led him to develop France's own nuclear deterrent.
But now Sen. Clinton appears willing to mortgage America's cities to protect nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E., which includes Dubai, which has paid her husband (and the Clintons' joint bank accounts) almost $15 million in the past seven years.
Indeed, is it a coincidence that all three of the countries that she mentioned were generous benefactors to her husband's library? (While donations to the library remain secret, it's known that the Saudi monarchy gave $10 million.)
Liberals often say they don't want to exchange blood for oil. But how much more blood could there be than to guarantee nuclear war over an attack on these nations? Are they worth it?
None of these nations is a democracy; all boycott Israel; and Dubai has been cited for numerous human-rights violations by our State Department for its treatment of Pakistani and Indian workers who labor there.
Indeed, the emir of Dubai has been sued by parents of children his agents are alleged to have abducted to serve as undernourished and uneducated jockeys for his camel races. The class-action suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Miami, was dismissed after the emir's lobbyists (firms with close Clinton ties) got the State Department to signal to the court that the lawsuit was "a matter of interest" for the U.S. government.
What criterion does Hillary use to decide to protect these dictatorships? That Iran may hit them with nuclear weapons. Can't that apply to any nation on earth? Is the U.S. nuclear retaliatory capacity now available to anyone, with all the risks that entails for global nuclear war?
Hillary Clinton is now willing to risk our cities to save some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East. And she thinks we want her answering those 3 a.m. phone calls?
What about Americans? I really don’t care if Iran wants to nuke their Islamic neighbors. Sans Israel.
It’s really important to create as much distance as possibls between Herself and the “Football.”
There goes what’s left of her Moonbat support.
Clinton astonishingly responded that she’d use American nukes not just to defend Israel, our traditional strategic ally, but also other neighboring states such as the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait from an Iranian nuclear attack.
This, from a woman who is a well-establish professional liar? Now what do you REALLY believe?
I was watching Dick on H & C a few nights ago, and I have to agree with Colmes; all the dude does is slam The Beast. He never stops, never takes a breath, just keeps bitching. After awhile, it does get somewhat old, something the Colmes was alluding to.
All I hear when Alan Colmes opens his liberal yap is background noise.
It's a thankless job but sombody's gotta do it.
“All I hear when Alan Colmes opens his liberal yap is background noise.”
I’m the last guy to give props to Skeletor, but hoestly, Morris never stops beating the drum.
hoestly = honestly
The Clintons got enormous donations from the UAE for their library. Hillary is just trolling for more.
The Clintons got enormous donations from the UAE for their library. Hillary is just trolling for more.
Yes, foreign money has been the Clinton source for a long time. Our enemies and foreign detractors know a soft-touch when they see one. The Clintons have always been easily bought. Grifter bastards.
Wouldn’t a preventative strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities be easier? Cleaner? Less deadly?
Mmmmm, sort of like hillllereee does with Obama? Hmmmm?
Here we go again.....protecting the Arabs. Let them solve their own problems.
I can understand Dick’s criticism of Hillary; but not his hatred of her. I seems to really be eating at his soul. It is palpable whenever he’s on the tube...he never seems to have the same burning vitriolic feelings for Bill and he really has been non-critical of Obama all-the-while dinging Hillary and throwing a barb or two at McCain too.
What about Americans?
With the promise to bug out of Iraq, Hillary has conceded military control of Iraq to Iran and has taken for granted a future Iran armed with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
Iran has no need to nuke its neighbors. Once America has bugged out of the region and after they have The Bomb, all they have to do is have their tanks roll in to the rest of the Persian Gulf and threaten nuclear suicide-martyr bombing if they are interfered with.
If the Iranian religious nut-jobs decide to gain an Eternity in Paradise by way of nuclear suicide martyrdom, their first and, admittedly, their last targets will be Tel Aviv, Washington, D.C. and New York City.
Yes, President Hillary Clinton, aloft in Marine Corps One somewhere slightly outside the blast radius will have ordered our nuclear forces to obliterate Iran but that will not bring back Tel Aviv nor Washington, D.C. nor New York City.
No bias from these writers! Fair and balanced as always...
I certainly wouldn't trust Hillary, and I wouldn't support a formal commitment, but this is precisely what we should be telling Iran, and our oil producing allies in the region. An attack the heart of America's economic strength is an attack, and will be responded to.
Not long ago the Dems were suggesting that we consider taking action against Saudi Arabia because 19 of 21 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Now they’re suggesting we use our nuclear deterrent to protect them? Which is it?
Reminds me of that dialog in “Animal House”: Hey, they can’t do that to our Pledges! Yeah, only we can do that to our Pledges! Government by National Lampoon.
Am I missing something? Why are we promising to protect anyone in the Middle East? IT’s a cauldron always ready to blow. Our nukes are for when we get attacked.
As I understand it, Israel has enough nukes to annihilate Iran many times over...Let them deal with things in their neighborhood.
All we need to do is deploy 2 or 3 THAAD batteries to the middle east. Maybe 2 in Saudi and one in Qatar or even Northern Iraq. We also have, I believe, nearly round-the-clock coverage in the Persian Gulf of Aegis equipped DDGs and CGs. Upgrade them to the ballistic missile defense role, load a couple dozen SM-3s on them...problem solved. Throw in a few Patriot PAC-3 batteries around population centers for point defense. All those ballistic missiles and warheads are now functionally useless, a drain of resources for no gain.
Think of it, if (when) the nut-job in Iran finally flips over the edge, either attacks his Islamic brethren directly, or attacks Israel it'll be the same net effect. Israel will not sit lightly and let even radioactive debris fall on its territory. It will strike back at Islam, Mecca and Medina.
The Saudis know this. So the last thing they want is the whack-job in Iran trying to take over Islam, become a "leader" by "showing Israel who's boss" when it is really Saudi cities that are at risk. (in addition to Iranian) Saudi, and most of the other Gulf States, just want to do business and be left alone. They are serious about not wanting to pollute/dilute their culture, fine by me. I may not agree with their cultural norms, but I wouldn't presume to tell them how to live, just as I don't want them telling me how to live.
The biggest threat to the more moderate Gulf States isn't the west and our culture, it is radical Islam. Radical Islam threatens not just their lives and foreign policy (as it does ours), it is also a threat to their governments, their culture, their religion - basically everything it means to be Saudi, Jordanian, Qatari, etc. The misguided fools on the fringes of Islam threaten the middle east far more than they threaten us. If I was the Saudis, I'd be very, very wary of my neighbor across the Gulf...
Of course, you'd never hear Hillary advocate this approach. The liberal line is that ballistic missile defense doesn't work, that it is simply an expensive boondoggle of the Bush administration. BS. It works just fine, and is getting better all the time. As long as no-one pulls the funding rug out from underneath it, it will continue to stay ahead of the threats posed by the unstable regimes in North Korea, Iran, and others.
Anything via political rhetoric to achieve personal gain and live in the White House again.
The Clinton dogma with life...
Hey Slick Willie could fire those cruise missiles like July 4th fireworks.
I’m sure Hillary will know where the “arm” button is.
Via "feel good" politics, it is very potent when catering to the weak minded voter's who just want to feel good.
But she will say ABSOLUTELY A*N*Y*T*H*I*N*G to get crowned. She’d promise us, each-and-everyone, a palace and slaves to rob the power.
If Iran nukes ANY middle east country..including Israel...The United States of America will do what it did in Vietnam and what it will do in Iraq...it will run away and let the people it promised to defend on its own...in other words the States will do ZERO (0) !
I wonder if America would even retaliate with nukes if one of its city's were hit by nuclear weapon???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.