Obama: Nukes 'not on the table'

[ProSense]

Obama: Nukes 'not on the table'

By DENNIS CONRAD, Associated Press Writer
29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, drawing criticism from Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democratic rivals.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Obama was responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

"There's been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss," Obama said after a Capitol Hill breakfast with constituents.

more

Obama's Nuke Gaffe

Hillary Again Hits Obama Over Foreign Policy

They need to get off the dumb discussion train: leave the war talk behind.

[PurityOfEssence]

1. Self delete

Should have read more thoroughly.

[killbotfactory]

3. How will it hurt Obama?

By showing that he's not insane?

[Mass]

4. Because some dems are more neocons than the neocons themselves, I guess.

[maximusveritas]

5. Man, you just made me waste my time looking up the poll numbers on this

I'll post it anyway since I found it.

66% of those polled in a 2005 AP poll agreed that "No countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
In a 2004 poll, only 18% thought nuclear weapons should be used in any situation other than us having suffered a nuclear attack.

[Mass]

2. He seems better and better every day.

[closeupready]

7. Yeah, I like his stand on nukes here.

n/t

[ProSense]

8. He needs to stop talking about hypothetical war and saying things like this:

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians."

Involving civilians?

[Mass]

10. Your pb with that being? For once where we have a candidate who answers

honestly rather than following his consultants, we should be happy.

He was answering to a question from AP, and foreign policy is really important to me. I wished candidates actually explained how they are different from a well-managed Bush policy (Bush policy being both wrong and poorly managed). I am beginning to see that with Obama, not so much with others -- Kucinich excepted, of course --

[ProSense]

13. Honestly?

Which Democrat (or who for that matter) is considering using nuclear weapons in situations "involving civilians" or any friggin situation?

[Mass]

15. HRC, I guess, as she disagreed with Obama's statement.

[ProSense]

18. It's a stupid question with

two stupid responses. Stop talking about stupid hypothetical wars.

[Mass]

20. What hypothetical wars? Don't we have troops in Afghanistan and are there not Al Quaeda people

in Pakistan. We are clearly at war in Afghanistan, so the question is totally relevant. And I am more than happy that Obama made clear what his policy would be, when asked by AP.

Too bad Hillary was too chicken to do the same.

[ProSense]

24. Hypothetical nuclear wars!

So he ruled out nuking al-Qaeda?

[Mass]

26. Hopefully he did! How do you nuke Al Qaeda without nuking everybody who is around...

(that is, if you even can consider the idea of nuking somewhere).

[ProSense]

28. That was his caveat

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians."

It was obviously a gaffe. Stop talking about stupid hypothetical nuclear wars.

[Mass]

31. I am not sure I see your point. Obama's answer to AP was perfectly fine for me.

Apparently, it does not satisfy your standard.

BTW, what should he have answered to AP question: an hell yes or a hell no?

[Grandrose]

6. K&R

Sounds good to me!:kick:

[jefferson_dem]

9. This was a fumble by Obama.

Never ever rule out any type of military action. Ever. Even if you know something is "off the table", conceding such is not smart...politically at least. Sounds like Obama realized that as soon as the sentence left his mouth.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. We went the entire Cold War without using nuclear weapons

I honestly don't see how we will be using them in the near future or even threatening to use them for leverage.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Yes, but we used the threat of using them to achieve our aims several times nt

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Yes, to persuade governments to do things

Obama was talking about catching terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda isn't persuaded by threats of using nuclear weapons.

[SaveElmer]

14. I agree...

It's kind of like preannouncing in a poker game under which situations you will and will not raise...

Why give your opponents the certainty?

[Mass]

17. In this case, this is exactly what Hillary did in a fundraiser a couple week ago,

saying she would not intervene in Pakistan without the Pakistani government agreeing. Is it not announcing your game ahead of time?

[SaveElmer]

25. Not exactly...

She said...

At a fund-raising dinner arranged for her by the National Association of Pakistani-Americans, she rejected the suggestion by some US officials and lawmakers that the United States should conduct unilateral military operations in the tribal region to destroy alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens.

Attacking safe havens would require a far larger military operation than a missile strike to take out one person...

Having said that, I don't think she should have even said this much...though it might have some benefit to Musharref in his effort to control Pakistani militants...

[Chulanowa]

40. 'Cause what we need in foreign policy...

Is a bunch of countries wondering if we're going to throw a nuclear weapon at them. I'm sure it would really strengthen our international position to tell the rest of the world "Y'know we might incinerate a few tens of thousands of your population and leave millions more in your neighbors and your neighboring nations to suffer the effects of these weapons, but we won't tell you how or why until we decide to, military secrecy you know"

On second thought, that actually sounds pretty fucking stupid. Using the threat of mass murder over at least three generations in order to force other countries to bend to your will doesn't really strike me as an "American" thing to do.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. I agree, and kudos for being honest enough to admit it when your guy is wrong nt

[jefferson_dem]

35. Howdy, DMC.

Just calling 'em like I see 'em... :hi:

[BrightKnight]

39. bad politics, reckless an unnecessary

No reasonable person is actually going to use nukes. Even Chimpy hasn't reached for the button. Most of the people that lived through the cold war are going to have a problem with this statement. There was no reason for him to make it. It just enforces the Democrats are weak on defense stereotype. He may have gained a few Friends on the far left but he lost middle America and hurt the party. I am going to have to join Senator Clinton in questioning his judgment.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. So wait... Hillary accuses Obama of wanting to unilaterally invade Pakistan

But then says that she would be willing to use nuclear weapons in Pakistan. I somehow don't think that Musharraf would approve of us nuking his country under any circumstances.

[SaveElmer]

16. She did not say that...

She said...

"I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

In other words, even if you know you would not take a certain action, you don't tell your enemies that...why give them the certainty...?

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Nuclear deterrence isn't used to deter or catch terrorists

It is used to deter governments. Obama said that we would never use nuclear weapons to catch terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan. If the question was about North Korea, I imagine the answer would have been different.

[SaveElmer]

33. And if terrorists got their hands on a nuclear weapon...

Which is not outside the realm of possibility?

Hillary's point is a general one, and is valid...there is no strategic benefit whatsoever in revealing what options you are and are not willing to take...

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Terrorists with the technology to launch said weapon into the US is not possible

Even if Al Qaeda could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they can't get a long range missile to launch it. There are no circumstances under which the President is going to get on the phone and play chicken with Bin Laden like we did during the Cold War. We are fighting a different enemy now and nuclear deterrence is a useless weapon in this particular fight.

[democratsin08]

19. does obama know what he is talking about?

no one that i know of has suggested using nukes against terrorists. i guess it nice to know that at least obama isnt going to go around nuking everyone.

[Mass]

21. AP asked the question? He answered...

[maximusveritas]

23. He was asked the question

and he responded to it. Did you even read the article?

[Skip Intro]

22. "Let me scratch that" - could be his new campaign slogan.

:rofl:


"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."


ok, Obama, as long as you're sure...


no, I'm not for nuking any one or any place, period. I can say that without pausing or clarifying, tho...

[ProSense]

36. A debate

that would make the wingnuts proud.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

37. Well, good for that. Now about the little business of the country's health both physical and

infrastructure.

Please. MKJ

[Tom Joad]

38. Every politician should say this. It's only a promise not to destroy the earth.

Is that too much to ask these days?