Whose Irresponsible Now?

Hillary Clinton never ceases to amaze me. I would never have thought that a Democrat could've been equally or more hawkish on war than John McCain. The perfect example was the debate last week on ABC regarding a question on Iran. Barack Obama said that he would take necessary action against Iran if they were to attack Israel. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, said that she would respond with a "massive retaliation" against Iran if they were to attack Israel. And I just read this on ABC News:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

Now I have to ask this question: Which one is worse, McCain saying that we should stay in Iraq for 50-100 years, or Clinton saying to "obliterate" Iran of they attacked Israel?

Both statements are highly irresponsible, but Clinton's statement (from the debate and the interview on ABC News) is truly shocking coming from a Democrat. At least Obama's stance on Iran is less hawkish than Clinton's. Clinton's statements would just inflame the already starined tensions between Tehran and Washington. What we need to do is to engage Tehran, along with surrounding countries in the region, into diplomacy. What we need is another conflict in the Middle East. The more we irritate Iran, the more they will likely enrich uranium and the higher possibility of them attacking Israel. The only reason I see Iran attacking Israel is to draw the United States into a larger conflict in the region. They know our military is already stretched. It would be foolish for them to attack us directly, so their only option is to attack our allies. We don't need any more enemies in the Middle East. We need stability and the only way to do that is through diplomacy and deterrence.