HILLARY CLINTON'S INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE ON "OBLITERATING IRAN"

Is it necessary for Hillary Clinton to state today that the United States would "obliterate" Iran in the event of a nuclear attack by Iran against Israel? These bellicose words are not necessary. They are provocative and intemperate.

Clinton is merely adopting the foreign policy of Bush, Cheney and Rice when she uses U.S. military power to threaten and bully other countries.

It is clear Iran has no intention of using atomic weapons against Israel. In fact, there has been no serious threat made by Iran against Israel. Yes, president Ahmadinejad's talk has allowed Israel to talk as if Iran were a serious threat, but in fact it is not. Juan Cole says that Ahmadinejad's comments were actually mistranslated when he was quoting Ayatollah Homeini in saying that the Israeli regime should disappear off the face of the earth. Just like I hope the Bush administration disappears.

Clinton would have been better advised to downplay any talk of Iran attacking Israel, perhaps adding that it would be foolish for any elements in the Iranian government to do so. Furthermore, Clinton could have stressed diplomacy if she were to be president.

Clinton decided to show how tough she was, perhaps appealing to some of the more neo-con elements in American society who have it in for Iran. One thing for sure, I will never vote for another anti-Iranian war monger for president, and that certainly includes Hillary Clinton.