I had complained at the time that this diction is monstrous. I mean, it is surreal to have Democrats discussing whether it is appropriate for the US to "totally obliterate" another country. It would be one thing if she had threatened the Iranian military. Targeting civilians, who would be included in the "total" obliteration, is a war crime.

Clinton stood by her remarks: "I don't think it's time to equivocate. [Iran has] to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in." The premise that "they" only understand the language of massive violence is in fact a rightwing premise more characteristic of W. and Ariel Sharon than of the Democratic Party tradition.

Clinton's remarks would not be unusual if she had confined herself to saying that the US would forcefully retaliate for any WMD attack on Israel (though the US has no treaty obligations that would require such a response, unlike in the case of NATO). It was the "totally obliterate" phrase that that was objectionable, insofar as it implied the commission of a crime against humanity.

Source: juancole.com

I had complained at the time that this diction is monstrous. I mean, it is surreal to have Democrats discussing whether it is appropriate for the US to "totally obliterate" another country. It would be one thing if she had threatened the Iranian military. Targeting civilians, who would be included in the "total" obliteration, is a war crime.

Clinton stood by her remarks: "I don't think it's time to equivocate. [Iran has] to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in." The premise that "they" only understand the language of massive violence is in fact a rightwing premise more characteristic of W. and Ariel Sharon than of the Democratic Party tradition.

Source: juancole.com