Clinton defended her promise to deliver a “massive retaliation” against Iran last night by insisting that Iran has a “continuing goal of nuclear weapons”. This, of course, is entirely false. Hillary Clinton must be unaware of the NIE from December of last year, which stated that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and that the time required for Iran to build a nuclear bomb, if it were to revive the program, was double that of earlier estimates. So either Senator Clinton is entirely ignorant of the NIE, or she is shamelessly spreading a lie about the Iranian “military threat” for the sheer sake of pandering to the pro-war crowd, the Zionists, and your typical garden variety Armageddon enthusiast. None of these groups are what you’d consider liberal or even sane, but they do get out and vote.

Aside from the NIE, there is the international expert opinion of the head of the IAEA, who has repeatedly insisted that there is no evidence Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Yet Mrs. Clinton ignores all of this in favor of perpetuating a lie which has previously been used by Neocons to justify their threats towards a non-threatening nation. You’ll notice that people like Clinton, who claim Iran is a threat, are unable to back up her claims with evidence. Hillary, cite us a source which covers more than just convenient mistranslations of Ahmadinejad wanting to “wipe Israel off the map”.

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and thus has the right to develop nuclear energy. However, Clinton states that if Iran were to become a “nuclear power” (which could mean a variety of things to Hillary) that it would set off an “arms race” which would destabilize the region. Um, excuse me? There is already a nuclear arms race, a reason why Iran initially began a weapons program at all, and it’s due entirely to the aggressive actions of the only two nuclear powers in the Middle East, the US and Israel. These countries are the sole source of destabilization, yet Clinton’s solution for nations which might feel intimidated enough to seek a nuclear weapons program is to increase the threat of American might in the region.

Clinton went further to claim that Iran is not only seeking a nuclear weapon, but that they intend to actually attack Israel with it rather than simply use it as a deterrent against American and Israeli strikes. She stated that this non-existent nuclear aggression “against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.” Its reckless statements like that which put Clinton in clear violation of the UN Charter, which is a treaty of the United States. Threatening Iran with military action is a “crime against peace”. Tough talk about nuclear warfare is simply unacceptable, and we can not tolerate it any further. Have we learned nothing from the “WMD” lie?

This “umbrella” threat of Clinton’s is far more aggressive than anything Bush has ever suggested. Defending her use of Osama bin Laden to scare people into voting for her, Hillary says we need to “get real” about the challenges the next president will face. Fair enough. Being realistic means acknowledging that Iran is not, never has been, and definitely will not be a threat in the near future. In fact, if Iran had nuclear weapons it still wouldn’t be a threat, and that’s according to the realistic assessments of General Abizaid and former French President Jacques Chirac. If we’re going to get real Hillary then lets base our policy off of facts for once, preferably provided by someone whose name isn’t John Bolton.