Which is what I fundamenatally don’t understand about the question to begin with. Israel is fully capable of protecting itself so why do we have to do anything?
Because part of the point is to make it so that neither Iran nor Israel act.
Domestic politics. Saying nasty bellicose things about uppity Muslim countries who get too ambitious in the region is a fairly risk-free way of trying to prove you’re more pro-Israel than the next guy, which is important for energizing portions of both the Dem. and Rep. electorate. Conversely, if asked a question that involves Israel or its perceived enemies, most candidates will find it safest to figure out what the most over-the-top response is, and then give it, lest they create an opportunity for an opponent to paint them as insufficiently zealous or to attract condemnation from the lobbying groups, who closely monitor the finest nuances of statements on these topics.
Compared to what Iranian politicians casually say, HRC’s statement is downright tepid.
First use of nuclear weapons has been American and NATO policy since Hillary Clinton was in first grade. Her reiteration of that stance is about as newsworthy as her saying that the sun rises in the East.
>about as newsworthy as her saying that the sun rises in the East
Dunno about that. Starting a thread by saying the sun rises in the east probably wouldn’t have gotten 43 replies, counting yours or not.
Besides, I understand the sun is very pro-nuke.
It would if many self identified liberals and conservatives had viewpoints on whether or not the sun should rise in the east. 