At one point, responding to a question, she referred to using the “nuclear option” against Iran — usually interpreted as using a nuclear weapon — before her attention was caught by a prominent member of the audience, Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court.
“Oh, the military option, thank you, Justice Breyer. He’s a careful listener,” Mrs. Clinton said, reiterating that she meant a military option to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It was a rare moment: a sitting member of the court rescuing a political candidate from a mistaken comment.
७ डिसेंबर, २०१५
Hillary Clinton referred to using the "nuclear option" against Iran... and it was Justice Breyer — of all people — who called her attention to the slip.
This was yesterday the Saban Forum (a Brookings Institution event focused on Israel).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३५ टिप्पण्या:
They are both on the same side politically, so it is not surprising.
Wow. Just wow.
There no longer is "a military option to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon."
The risk is too great of provoking a nuclear war with Russia, or even a conventional war with Iran and Russia (and God knows who else before that gets done).
It was a gaffe, defined as a true statement by a politician who did not intend to reveal the truth.
I think there will be nuclear war in the next decade,
Of course, the media will let her get away with this.
It's okay - we're on the same team
Now she gets to have it both ways.
Iran wants a nuclear option. And the Aayatolah will not be corrected by a Leftist lawyer.
What does one expect? Gaffes occur when people are old, tired and/or senile.
Michael K said...
It was a gaffe,
It was a miswording, a (Kinsley) gaffe is accidentally saying something true and we aren't going to use nuke's against Iran. It does reveal a certain misplaced priority since we use the greater as hyperbole for the lesser. This shows she considers the political version of greater concern.
Note the difference between this and Bush's "Crusade" comment though. It's very similar, both used a word correctly but in a context where their alternate usage was inappropriate. Bush was pilloried with the media pretending people might actually be confused with the standard usage. But since Hillary spoke in this case they will claim anyone noting anything other than a minor PR impact on already crazy people is overreacting.
Drunk or stroke or both?
Iran will be using the real nuclear option on us thanks to Barack and Hillary.
"It was a rare moment: a sitting member of the court rescuing a political candidate from a mistaken comment." Rare only because they usually wrap their rescue, of more than just "comments," in somewhat more obfuscatory legal mumbo-jumbo. You are going to need a granny/senility tag before long.
Can she pronounce Hamas?
Justice Breyer is in the front row for Secretary Clinton' speech?
Interesting that the "nuclear option" now is possibly more associated with Senate procedure. She was thinking some combination of the nuclear treaty, military option, senatorial procedure, and that her husband is a serial sexual abuser that she has enabled for nearly four score and 7 years.
It must have been the fog in her head. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2015/12/07/hillary-likens-her-experience-of-benghazi-to-the-fog-of-war-n2090192
"It was a rare moment: a sitting member of the court rescuing a political candidate from a mistaken comment."
I dunno, Roberts rescued Obama when he said "It's not a tax"
A few more accidentally on purpose slips of the tongue like that and we might have ourselves a real deterrent.
Ok, she said "nuclear option." Imagine the uproar if she had said "nucular."
"Michael K said...
I think there will be nuclear war in the next decade"
I'm more worried about the next year. You have a weak, brittle man in the White House. Who is being made to look the fool every day. Scary.
I find it interesting that any sentient person thinks Hillary can win in 2016.
I woul have much preferred Hillary saying "It's a real pleasure to be sitting here at the Sybian Forum."
"we aren't going to use nuke's against Iran."
I didn't say that. What she said is probably not true although I'm not certain. I do think there will be a nuclear war, however. Possibly between Iran and Israel but Israel will not go down without a fight and I suspect the scenario outlined by Tony Corpsman in 2007 will still occur.
He sets the time as 2010. He estimates Israeli casualties at “between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead.” Iranian casuaties would be far higher at “some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days.” His analysis of the outcome ?
“It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term,” Cordesman notes. The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.”
That was a few years ago but I think Iran has the bomb and intends to use it. Netanyahu is not Obama and remember that Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 on warning, not after an attack. The rest of Cordesman's analysis is sobering.
“Walker concludes that Cordesman’s analysis spells out “the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.”
Egypt might ally itself with Israel and even the Saudis may do so out of a sense of self preservation in the age of Obama but Israel may not trust them enough.
Therefore, Justice Breyer is the Candy Crowley of the judicial branch.
The effects of her concussion linger. This is yet another reason why she is unfit for the office of POTUS.
Aren't nukes the easiest way to obliterate them?
A nuclear device on a large bunkerbuster is about the only way other than sabotage on the ground to take out a buried nuclear installation.
Hillary must be madder than we will ever know at Valerie Jarrett. Nuclear is actually merciful since its over in a flash of light at 17,540 degrees F.
Look, HRC wasn't saying "nuclear option" as in "Let's nuke Iran"; she was saying "nuclear option" as in "Let's hogtie the Senate." Of course, she was utterly confused about the Senate, who controls it, who actually has the "nuclear option"; but I think that's probably what she meant.
H: Nuclear? Like with a bomb?
That was Tony Cordesman. Auto correct plus moderation = fuckup.
Some day we'll find out that the whole stroke story was cover for Hillary's time in detox and rehab. Doesn't look like it worked.
Huma did say Hillary is easily confused.
Michael K said...
"we aren't going to use nuke's against Iran."
I didn't say that.
That point wasn't in response to your position on nuclear war. It was noting Clinton's statement isn't a Kinsley Gaffe because the statement under consideration isn't true.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा