Soccer Dad

oh get over it.
The line was a direct response to the specific question asked by the interviewer as to how she would respond if iran attacked israel. her response was that she would obliterate iran.

BE GREATFUL and shut up

Grateful? There are a number of possible responses to promises given by candidates running for office, but grateful is not one that comes immediately to mind.

Good joke, though the sniper fire reference was in Bosnia, not Kosovo.

Sure if Johnny McCain said it, you would be singing his praises. They asked her a direct question, she gave a direct answer.

1. Thank you for pointing out my Kosovo/Bosnia error--I corrected it.
2. I have been critical of McCain as well
3. Direct question or not, I still think it is relevant that she has made no similar statement in regards to Iran and the death of American troops.
4. I don't sing. period.

"The line was a direct response to the specific question asked by the interviewer as to how she would respond if iran attacked israel".
............................................
Matzahman is right. I think people, whether on the left or right just look to jump on Hillary for anything she says and put a negative spin on it. I can imagine that the lefty bloggers are probably calling her a neo-con, Zionist warmonger. Of course being a neo-con Zionist is a compliment from our perspective, but for the dailykos crowd, neo-cons and Zionists are worse than islamic terrorists.

Hmmm.

I'm no huge fan of Hillary Clinton,but this isn't the first time Her voting record has also been reasonably decent on the subject.

One can compare her answer with that of Obama,who merely said, in response to the same question that an attack by Iran on Israel would be 'unacceptable', by which I suppose he means he'd make a firm protest on the matter at the UN ; it was left for Hillary to say that such an attack would trigger 'massive retaliation' by the US.

She'll catch hell for that from the Angry Left, but then, they mostly aren't voting for her anyway.

Senator Clinton by no means is my choice for president, but yeah....I'm grateful there's at least ONE Democrat in the race with the guts to publicly stickup for our ally Israel.

And frankly, given how little regard there is for for Israel by a significant portion of American Jews on the Left, I think the political reward for Senator Clinton was not as great as one might suppose - credit where credit is due, chaverim..

I still hold that what a candidate says about Israel, especially during a crucial primary with a significant Jewish population should be looked at critically.

Last year we heard the following from Hillary about Iran:

"Clinton then reiterated her position that the president does not have authority to launch an attack on Iran and said she was working on legislation with Democratic Virginia Sen. Jim Webb to put that into law."

In the interest of the US no, but now suddenly for Israel, yes? I don't buy it.

Fair enough,and like I said I'm not a supporter of hers...but her answer was a response as to what the US would do in the event of an attack by Iran on Israel, not a US pre-emptive strike...not that there's anything wrong with that!

BTW,I still think that the idea of a US strike is problematic, though possible. Israel had better be figuring on how to handle that alone,just in case - and soon.

I'm wondering though...OK, so Hillary said this in response to a direct question.

1. Just what would you expect Hillary to say?

2. Does anyone honestly believe that if she were President and Iran really did attack Israel with nuclear arms, that Hillary would in fact live up to this 'promise'?