Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-22-08 05:49 PMOriginal message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5624150"Hillary didn't mean she'd nuke Iran when she said we'd give them "a nuclear response""... Advertisements [?]Edited on Tue Apr-22-08 06:01 PM by BlooInBloohttp://www.americablog.com/2008/04/3rd-hillary-staffer-... "Well, we now have a third denial from the senior levels of the Clinton campaign that Hillary did not mean nuclear weapons when she referred to giving Iran a "nuclear response from the United States" should they nuke Israel. Then what did she mean by "a nuclear response"? Here is what Hillary said just last night on Keith Olbermann's show:"heir use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."Two senior Hillary aides denied last night that Hillary meant nukes when she repeatedly implied over the past weekthat she'd nuke Iran, and when she explicitly said just that last night. And today I find out that Clinton campaign senior adviser Ann Lewis also said last night that Hillary didn't mean "nuclear weapons" when said we'd give Iran a "nuclear response.Then what did she mean? We'd sprinkle them with nuclear fairy dust? This story is now a total mess. I wrote more extensively about this earlier, but it sure is pretty peculiar having Hillary running around suggesting that we start nuking the Middle East, only for her staff to turn around and say she never said it. What are our enemies to think? What are our friends?"I suppose it all depends on what the meaning of "nuclear" is.LIARS!EDIT: The typo hunt begins...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3rd Hillary staffer: Hillary didn't mean she'd nuke Iran when she said we'd give them "a nuclear response" by John Aravosis (DC) · 4/22/2008 05:30:00 PM ET · LinkDiscuss this post here: 8 Comments · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It! Well, we now have a third denial from the senior levels of the Clinton campaign that Hillary did not mean nuclear weapons when she referred to giving Iran a "nuclear response from the United States" should they nuke Israel. Then what did she mean by "a nuclear response"? Here is what Hillary said just last night on Keith Olbermann's show:"[T]heir use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."Two senior Hillary aides denied last night that Hillary meant nukes when she repeatedly implied over the past weekthat she'd nuke Iran, and when she explicitly said just that last night. And today I find out that Clinton campaign senior adviser Ann Lewis also said last night that Hillary didn't mean "nuclear weapons" when said we'd give Iran a "nuclear response."Then what did she mean? We'd sprinkle them with nuclear fairy dust? This story is now a total mess. I wrote more extensively about this earlier, but it sure is pretty peculiar having Hillary running around suggesting that we start nuking the Middle East, only for her staff to turn around and say she never said it. What are our enemies to think? What are our friends?
I don't think I could stomach another 4 years with a president that can't tell their own lies from the truth anymore. I think she could easily be declared insane or delusional at this point. Someone needs to sit down with her, hold her hand, and walk her through the very simple math to show her that unless she takes all remaining primaries by no less than 60% and gets 60% of the superdelegates she's not going to be the nominee - then slam her head into the wall, repeat until it takes.
John forget what our enemies think ...what about our friends ? Israel already is set up to respond to a Nuclear attack on its own ...Ho[w] nice of Hillary to support Israel after a genocide ...shes got class
Well DU, what should the response be to such a scenario? Send Saint Jimmuh over and hold a few more "talks"?