Talk:Hillary Clinton threatens to 'totally obliterate' Iran if it attacks Israel

Is Hillary's quote in any way doctored or missing context that might stop it sounding like she's planning to attack Iran if elected as opposed to if they attack Israel? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so but I can't be certain.209.66.200.45 17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

She did say - if they attack Israel we would "be able to totally obliterate" them. It wasn't a left-field threat, the context was that retaliation should be expected. Read the sources linked from the article,, you can find this stuff out for yourself. 198.49.180.40 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• While I did not watch the interview as broadcast, I think I am relying on quite reputable sources for this. I did not distort or take anything out of context (sofar as they were in context in the sources). It is all predicated on an attack by Iran on Israel. We also have all of this ...

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," Clinton said. "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

... which includes everything she said leading up to, and what she said immediately after, the controversial words "totally obliterate". That I think is sufficient context. --SVTCobra 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The title for this article is a bit misleading, as the 'threat' is predicated on a threat from Iran to Israel - it is not a blanket statement/threat in and of itself saying she is threatening to attack Iran. Cirt - (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Point taken, I'll add "...if it attacks Israel" to title. --SVTCobra 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, that probably works. Cirt - (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, did you make sure that the article was reeeeeeeeeealy free of vandalism before you locked it? There's still a link saying "last lady" instead of "First lady" in the article. --89.234.101.252 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and something like Obama's smoking habit makes headlines while this and McCain's "100 years" rant go unnoticed? Unbelievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.147.142 (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)