Berkeley Bubble

The Boston Globe has an excellent editorial observing why the U.S. cannot afford to elect a candidate like Hillary Clinton who talks so cavalierly about using nuclear weapons against other countries. The Globe notes how little coverage Clinton’s reckless statements have received.

The editorial also notes the reactions of leaders worldwide at Clinton’s reckless statements. Here’s the British reaction:

Responding with understatement to a question in the British House of Lords, the foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, said of Clinton’s implication of a mushroom cloud over Iran: “While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably not prudent in today’s world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country.”

And here’s the Saudi reaction–note the comparison between Hillary and George W. Bush here:

The Saudi paper called Clinton’s nuclear threat “the foreign politics of the madhouse,” saying, “it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations.”

In concluding, here’s what the Globe concluded about Clinton’s candidacy in light of her statement that she would totally “obliterate” Iran:

While Clinton has hammered Obama for supporting military strikes in Pakistan, her comments on Iran are much more far-reaching. She seems not to realize that she undermined Iranian reformists and pragmatists. The Iranian people have been more favorable to America than any other in the Gulf region or the Middle East.

A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.