Israel must be self-reliant

[toomuchtime_]

I read it three times and no where is she stating that Israel must be self-reliant.

Pretty good spin, though, I'll grant you that.

Hillary is one of the queens of spin. By all means, tell us exactly what she stated.

"I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran , there would be retaliation."

Why don't you show us, without your stupid editorial BS, where she said Israel must be self-reliant. After you present us with the entire text of her comments and questions, of course.

The transcript of the exchange is as follows:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your own envoy Dennis Ross has said one way to strengthen the position the United States going into these negotiations is to make it very clear that if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel or any U.S. ally, that would be met as an attack on the United States [and would result in a] full response. Now, that was your position during the campaign, as well. Is it U.S. policy now?

CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal as it is with NATO, but, I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is we want to avoid a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East. And we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.

Clinton Soft-Pedals on Fighting Iranian Attack on Israel - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=7775502&page=1

 

[rhodescholar]

Yes, of course I understand, but I don't think Jews would have chosen Bavaria, though. Bavaria is not mentioned in the Torah, I think. Madagascar is also not mentioned.

I would MUCH rather israel have been placed in Madagascar, like paying the native $20 B to buy the southern half of the island - so you'd have a split, just like with Haiti and the Dom Republic. This way, the arab muslim filth could just kill themselves, and they'd look even more foolish and hilarious killing themselves while they blame everyone else for their natural failings as a people and culture.

But then, what would the leftist dung in the UK unions be able to protest against?

 

[DamnYankee]

Hillary is one of the queens of spin. By all means, tell us exactly what she stated.

"I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran , there would be retaliation."

Why don't you show us, without your stupid editorial BS, where she said Israel must be self-reliant. After you present us with the entire text of her comments and questions, of course.

The transcript of the exchange is as follows:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your own envoy Dennis Ross has said one way to strengthen the position the United States going into these negotiations is to make it very clear that if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel or any U.S. ally, that would be met as an attack on the United States [and would result in a] full response. Now, that was your position during the campaign, as well. Is it U.S. policy now?

CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal as it is with NATO, but, I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is we want to avoid a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East. And we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.

Clinton Soft-Pedals on Fighting Iranian Attack on Israel - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Transcript: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 'This Week' - ABC News

In fact, it was clear in the original post:

In a reversal of her stated position as a presidential candidate, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed that an Iranian attack on Israel would no longer be considered as an attack on America . Speaking during an interview on ABC TV, she said "I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is, we want to avoid a - a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East." She would not, however, repeat her explicit statement from 2008 that the U.S. would be a part of such retaliation. When asked if her new statement was official U.S. policy, Clinton dodged the question, "I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations (too evasive). I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran , there would be retaliation."

(snip)

The election in Iran has proved her wrong again. Only three months ago U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: I want to see what the president's engagement will bring& I think there's an enormous amount of potential for change, if the Iranians are willing to pursue that." Even president Obama admitted "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," "Either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States."

(snip)
Writing The Wrongs: Israel Must be self-Reliant!

 

[toomuchtime_]

"I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran , there would be retaliation."

Why don't you show us, without your stupid editorial BS, where she said Israel must be self-reliant. After you present us with the entire text of her comments and questions, of course.

The transcript of the exchange is as follows:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your own envoy Dennis Ross has said one way to strengthen the position the United States going into these negotiations is to make it very clear that if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel or any U.S. ally, that would be met as an attack on the United States [and would result in a] full response. Now, that was your position during the campaign, as well. Is it U.S. policy now?

CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal as it is with NATO, but, I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is we want to avoid a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East. And we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.

Clinton Soft-Pedals on Fighting Iranian Attack on Israel - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Transcript: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 'This Week' - ABC News

In fact, it was clear in the original post:

In a reversal of her stated position as a presidential candidate, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed that an Iranian attack on Israel would no longer be considered as an attack on America . Speaking during an interview on ABC TV, she said "I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is, we want to avoid a - a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East." She would not, however, repeat her explicit statement from 2008 that the U.S. would be a part of such retaliation. When asked if her new statement was official U.S. policy, Clinton dodged the question, "I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations (too evasive). I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran , there would be retaliation."

(snip)

The election in Iran has proved her wrong again. Only three months ago U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: I want to see what the president's engagement will bring& I think there's an enormous amount of potential for change, if the Iranians are willing to pursue that." Even president Obama admitted "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," "Either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States."

(snip)
Writing The Wrongs: Israel Must be self-Reliant!

The meaning was clear to me, but apparently not to Ravi, so I provided a link to the full transcript of the interview. Not only has Obama changed US policy concerning a nuclear strike by Iran against Israel, but he is reportedly also determined to block a move by Europeans to impose new economic sanctions against Iran at the G8 meeting. Despite his evasive answers to questions about whether he is reconciled to Iran having nuclear weapons, it seems clear to me that he is and that he intends to do no more than issue enough slogans about diplomacy and engagement to satisfy his fund raisers. The message to Israel is clear: with regard to Iran, you are on your own both militarily and diplomatically.

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

I think the one lesson we should have learned from Iraq is that we, as a country, cannot afford to go to war everytime some country becomes a minor threat. It is fiscally irresponsible.

Iran is no minor threat, to anyone.

Yeah, destroying their worst enemy and replacing it with their best ally, giving them influence west of the Shattab al-Arab for the first time in four centuries, has completely changed the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. Well, that and kicking Syria out of Lebanon.

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

I don't understand why people think Israel is so helpless. They did pretty well from 1948-1967 with no real help from us, fighting multiple wars against the entire Arab League and winning them decisively.

Now they have the most advanced military technology in the world and enough nukes to destroy the entire Middle East (and have promised to exercise "the Samson option" if they are ever overrun).