3rd Hillary staffer: Hillary didn’t mean she’d nuke Iran when she said we’d give them “a nuclear response”




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.”

Kind of obvious what she meant. But two senior Hillary aides denied last night that Hillary meant nukes when she repeatedly implied over the past week that 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?


CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS