The Progressive becomes a cesspool and strayed so far from journalism that little surprises us these days. So imagine our surprise at being shocked that Matthew Rothschild waived through this lie by Little Timmy Shorrock in "Hawks Behind the Dove: Who Makes Obama’s Foreign Policy?" (July, 2008):
When Clinton vowed to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, Obama sharply criticized her comment, saying that's "not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush."
That is not an error, it is a lie. To selectively quote Hillary Clinton, he had to go to the original statements by her.
Did Hillary Clinton "vow" she would "totally obliterate" Iran?
No, she did not.
2008 has certainly taught everyone just how much and how freely Panhandle Media can and will lie. Even now, they can't stop lying -- while wanting to be seen as the alternative to corporate media.
Note the title of David Morgan's "Clinton says U.S. could 'totally obliterate' Iran" (Reuters). The headline alone is your first clue that Little Timmy found a fellow liar in Matthew Rothschild. From the article:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
She vowed that, if president, an Iranian attack on Israel would lead to the US attacking Iran. That's all she "vowed." "Totally obliterate" comes in the statement where she says "we would be able to totally obliterate them" which is why Reuters (a real news media outlet) used "could" in the headline. She did not vow to "totally obliterate" them. She said it could happen and Iran should be aware of it.
If it's still not clear to you, check out the time line. "The next ten years." Presidential terms run four years. Presidents are limited to two terms. Do the math. She did not vow, she talked of what could happen. Had she been elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, she'd still have left office before ten years had elapsed.
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." She wasn't making a vow -- and couldn't vow for ten years. She was speaking of what the US abilities were.
Only liars resort to selectively quote in order to misconstrue meaning. Only liars would read a statement (not shocking -- the nuclear freeze movement has long warned against the 'power' of the US due to the continued possession of nuclear weapons) about ability and turn it into a vow.
Little Timmy's a liar now. Makes you question everything he's ever written. Again, it's not an error. He selectively quoted her. He found the quote, he assembled it to say what he wanted to say as opposed to what she actually said. That's lying.
The Progressive wants to play at journalism. If Matthew Rothschild's confused, the follow-up action he needs to take immediately is called a "correction." After that he either needs to not run Little Timmy's articles or else Rothschild needs to ensure they are fact checking. The world is watching, Rothschild, as you ruin the magazine.