YAWN! Hillary:If Iran Attacked Israel With Nukes 'We Would Be Able to Totally Obliterate Them' (Updated)

This according to ABC News.
Looks like someone is after the Jewish vote.

3 questions:

o Was there ever any question that if Iran would actually use nuclear arms against Israel that 'we would be able to totally obliterate them'? The real question is not if the US would be able to take action--the question is whether we would take strong action. Hillary does not answer that.

o Secondly, considering the indications that Iran has been behind the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, shouldn't Hillary be directing her suddenly hawkish pronouncements against what Iran actually is doing?

o And the fact that Hillary is not addressing Iran's killing of our troops--doesn't that indicate that Hillary is full of baloney?

Or is she still recovering from the sniper fire in KosovoBosnia?

UPDATE: Soccer Dad writes today about Hillary's Transformation, noting that JoshuaPundit believes that her support for Israel is real and not pandering. Still, while Hillary is very gung-ho now about how she as President will attack Iran if they use nuclear arms against Israel, keep in mind that 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."

I'm just not convinced that her support for Israel is authentic.

In any case, Caroline Glick explains that Clinton's deterrence model is no more effective than Obama's plan for dialog:

The second reason that basing US policy towards Iran on a deterrence model will likely fail is because Iran's leadership has made clear that is not necessarily concerned about the survivability of Iran. From Ayatollah Khomeini to Ayatollah Khamenei to Ali Rafsanjani to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's leadership has made clear that they are not Iranian patriots but global Islamic revolutionaries. Given their millenarian, apocalyptic view of their country's purpose in world affairs, there is good reason to believe that a strategy based on some form of mutually assured destruction would have only marginal impact on Iran's decision-makers.

Clinton's idea sounds good, but it is canned and does not take into account the context of the country and culture she is talking about.

Crossoposted at Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Hillary.