HC is reported to have said "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president…(and they ) might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Ok, we know that politicians give all sorts of undertakings that they have no intention of keeping . ( & we should note she says “we would be ABLE” rather than simply “we would” ) but this was a bit of a –wild pitch. Especially when set against the more reserved response of Obama.

What are we to suppose that HC would do if that red phone rang in the middle of the night with the news that Ahmadinejad had scored a homer by taking out Tel Aviv.
1) Nuke Teheran ? .
Not likely .Since Dresden , Nagasaki & Hiroshima the West has painted itself into a corner .“Collective punishment’ is now considered fowl play –especially amongst HCs reference groups .
2) Forcibly remove the ruling strata of mullahs ?
After the outcome in Iraq ,not likely.

She would most likely bomb a few military installations –and make a lot of moralistic noises –and that would be full extent of her retribution ( ala Bills attempt to hit Osama with a rocket attack on his camp in Afghanistan)

Which just might make it an attractive proposition for an overly pious Ahmadinajad .
Who sees himself batting for team Islam . And who would know that any such act he committed, even if it results in sizable Palestinian ‘ collateral damage’, would have him written up in the history books, of at least in a third of the world, as a modern day Saladin .

HC should not be pitcher for the Democrat because she hasn’t got the balls to strike out Ahmadinajad–and she hasn’t the skills to control her own bellicosity.

I can relate to your analysis of Hilary Clinton. I understand why you might think that she is all bark and no bite.

I think she has far more “balls” than the spineless husband.

I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t nuke Tehran, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tactically nuked all of Iran’s military infrastructure and carpet bombed the presidential palace.

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be the best way to go. Unfortunately its looking like an Obama-Clinton ticket at the moment. Anyway, my point is that Obama is bound to be worse than Clinton.

He just is not the person to hand the commander in chiefs hat when America is fighting on two fronts. His relationship with Jeremiah Wright is a pointer to the type of man he is. His immaturity and inexperience in dealing with matter of state was highlighted by the Canadian debacle.

And his position on Iraq is just crazy. After all the hard work that has been done, the moment he is elected, Iraq will be on the path to a failed state. nd worse, A failed state where enemies of the west can train to kill innocent civilians without fear of retribution.

Anyone who thinks that the war in Iraq is purely a local issue is deluded. A loss in Iraq will encourage every single Islamic resistance movement that you don’t need to beat America, you only need to outlast it. The defeat will come from within. This will undoubtedly embolden those fundamentalists who see great possibilities through armed action. We’ll see more fighting, not less.

Have a read of Mark Steyn. He may not always be right but he’s almost always funny.
http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogcategory/34/110/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/09/19/do1902.xml

I think the Americans will decide for themselves who their next President will be.

It is not for us to criticise the nominees / contenders for the role any more than it is up to the YAnks tro decide the PRime Minister of Australia.

However, if you think HC "has far more “balls” than the spineless husband."

Then it would not be a bad thing...

A reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, I am almost salavating at the thought...

Paul.L: << A loss in Iraq will encourage every single Islamic resistance movement that you don’t need to beat America, you only need to outlast it. >>

Which is precisely what some of us were saying five years ago when America and its toadies were preparing to invade Iraq on the pretext of fictitious "weapons of mass destruction". The war was based on a lie, and has succeeded only in replacing an odious regime with almost complete civil disorder - not to mention the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Col Rouge: << A reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, I am almost salavating (sic) at the thought... >>

I think I'm going to be sick. Hang on, does that mean she's dead?

Col, you dirty old man you!

CJ, I get so sick of this "fictitious weapons of mass distruction" bit.

Saddam was pushing the WMD bit, & managed to fool everybody, the US, & particularly Iran. He was terrified of Iran, after loosing most of his military capicity, & his WMD myth was his last line of defense.

I can't believe that the US is left with such a lousy lot to choose from, & I mean all three.

Still, if you look around here, both Oz, & NZ have managed to do even worse.

Hilary Rodham Clinton came of age during a time of tumultuous social and political change in America. As I wrote in another post, like many women of her generation, she grew up with choices and opportunities unknown to her mother or grandmother. She charted her own course through unexplored terrain - responding to the changing times and her own internal compass - and became an emblem for some and a lightning tod for others. Wife, mother, lawyer, advocate, and international icon, she has lived through America's great political wars, from Watergate to Whitewater.

She is the only First Lady to play a major role in shaping domestic legislation: she traveled tirelessly around the country to champion health care, expand economic opportunity and promote the needs of children and families, and she criss-crossed the globe on behalf of human rights and democracy. She redefined the position of First Lady, and helped save the presidency from an unconstitutional, politically motivated impeachment.

To me she's one of the most remarkable women of our time , and a formidable figure in American politics.

However, I do agree in part that she should now resign and exit gracefully because I don't think that she will win the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. I'm still hopeful that she may accept the Vice-Presidency (if offered it). But I feel that her run for the Presidency is all but over. Not because she doesn't deserve it, but because her opponent has proven to be a better "People's choice."