Clinton disagrees with Obama’s ‘no nukes’ comment:

[Tellurian]

August 02, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Thursday that she disagrees with her closest rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), on the possible use of nuclear weapons.

Obama, according to an Associated Press story, had said earlier that he would not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. He added that he opposes the use of the weapons if civilians are involved and then said, “Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.”

When asked about the comment, Clinton said she does not believe “that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

She added that presidents should “be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,” and argued that the threat of using those weapons has been used as a “deterrence to keep the peace.”

After an amicable beginning of the campaign season, in which the top Democratic candidates all pointed to the overall strength of the field, things have begun to heat up in the past two weeks, beginning with Obama’s assertion that Clinton was “Bush-Cheney lite.”

In addition, several of the candidates have lashed out at the Illinois senator for saying he was willing to hold talks with rogue regimes.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-disagrees-with-obamas-no-nukes-comment-2007-08-02.html

[Tellurian]

1. Obama plays the Kermit card...

Oh, how Obama must hate being "green"!

[lvx35]

2. Sounds like more semantic bickering.

I'm sure Obama didn't mean he wouldn't use nuclear weapons if they were launched against us, which seems to be what Hillary is implying.

[Ethelk2044]

4. No he didn't however the smear machine is at work tonight.

[William769]

8. Yes it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3423167

[ripple]

3. So much for non-proliferation.

And to think, Obama had the audacity to imply that she's Bush-Cheney light.

[Ethelk2044]

5. So that Mean Hillary is going to take us to WAR using Nuclear Weapons

:scared:

[ncabot22]

7. As a Canadian, I'm worried

What if we do something she doesn't like? Yikes. :) Just kidding. I hope she isn't elected. I'd rather the president of the US say they wouldn't use nukes rather than someone saying "maybe". Pretty scary.

[sandnsea]

6. A nuke with Osama's name on it?

Is ANY city off limits? Or is the entire planet now a nuke strike if it means getting Bin Laden?

[Mojambo]

9. I'm FAR more likely to support a candidate that takes the use of nukes off the table. n/t

[Tellurian]

12. I'm far more likely to support a candidate that doesn't lean on Republicans...

for Foreign Policy advice!

[William769]

10. That is the same reason that Kucinich will never be President.

I hope Obama follows his lead like he does everyone else's.

[OHdem10]

11. Jonathon Alter, MSNBC gave a good explanation this evening

on KO I believe.

Boiled down to its essence, Obama did nothing wrong. Hilary
insists on following the cautious stance of Washington Insiders.

The Gop spread Obama's comments as usual leaving out key points.
Obama said he would not nuke Terrorists(Cells)even if he had
informations serious leaders were in the cell.

I certainly hope the Gop and Hilary do not plan to go around
nuking terror cells. (Even if they work secretly)

[Tellurian]

13. Obama, Clinton in new flap, over nuclear weapons

By Steve Holland


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama found himself embroiled in a new foreign policy flap with rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday, this time over the use of nuclear weapons.

Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table, and extending their feud over whether Obama has enough experience to be elected president in November 2008.

Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, told a reporter after a Capitol Hill event that he would not use nuclear weapons in those countries, an aide said.

“His position could not be more clear,” said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki. “He would not consider using nuclear weapons to fight terror targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

That position came a day after Obama vowed he would be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Obama struck the tough tone after Clinton accused him of being naive and irresponsible for saying in a debate last week he would be willing to meet without preconditions the leaders of hostile nations Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela in his first year in office.

Clinton’s position was that she would only meet those leaders after careful lower-level diplomacy bore fruit. Obama said she represented conventional thinking in line with that of the Bush administration and would not bring the fundamental change Americans need.

The New York senator and former first lady quickly pounced on Obama’s remark about nuclear weapons at a Capitol Hill news conference.

“I think presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use, or non-use, of nuclear weapons,” she said.

“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,” she said.

The sharpest disputes of the Democratic race have come as Obama, aiming to become the first black U.S. president, struggles to close a big polling gap on Clinton.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center said Clinton now holds a nearly two-to-one lead over Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, with the support of 40 percent of Democrats to 21 percent for Obama.

Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, also criticized Obama, saying that over the last several days, “Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”

“We are facing a dangerous and complicated world. The next president will require a level of understanding and judgment unprecedented in American history to address these challenges,” Dodd said.

Nuclear deterrence has been a tenet of American foreign policy since the Cold War.

Obama, outlining his foreign policy ideas in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, said the United States and Russia should work together to “de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons,” and avoid rushing to produce a new generation of atomic weapons, while still “maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent.”

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)

[Bullet1987]

14. Let's see if Clinton gets attacked for saying she'll use nukes in Pakistan

and Afghanistan...the same way Obama was attacked. Methinks...no.

[Tellurian]

17. Obama's problem is he's confused... he's unable to think for himself

How can he? His advisors are from the Bush/Cheney team.

We know who Sen Clinton's advisor is- He's a democrat with 8 yrs of peace and prosperity experience.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Okay, here's a new word: "Obamination"

If Mr. Obama had said that he would not use nukes as a first strike, that would mean one thing, but to say that he wouldn't use them in any circumstance is quite another and dangerous sloppiness regardless of what he meant. When you talk about thermonuclear devices, you should be VERY careful and very specific.

What if the baddies get their hands on one of Pakistan's bombs, use it on Kabul and we know where they're keeping the other ones? Do we want those baddies thinking he won't use nukes to take the rest of their nukes out? If they were wavering on whether they should nuke Kabul in the first place and thought (even if mistakenly) that we wouldn't nuke in return, would they be more inclined to push the button?

To make a sweeping statement in a seemingly blythe way is breathtaking. To then backpedal with the qualifier about civilians makes it sound like a first strike against a presumably purely military target might just be an option. (Think SERIOUSLY about that, folks: I wouldn't nuke no matter what...well, maybe if there weren't any civillians around...) To then try to erase the whole thing with a "scratch that" shows a muddled approach in general.

Get sloppy when someone asks you what your favorite song is or whether you wear boxers or briefs, but when someone asks you about your policy for using nukes, either answer VERY specifically and carefully or not at all. The latter option is what he finally arrived at in this particular encounter, which gives me some hope for his sense and poise, but this was a disastrous exchange.

He will now have to clarify this a few more times and journalists will construct ever more thorny hypotheticals on the subject, and THEY'D DO IT FOR ANYONE. To hear some of his supporters complain that he's being singled out is tiresome. Quite a few of his supporters have come out and been very frank with their concern over this, and that's to their credit. The building dynamic here is that he has to reclarify his clarification of clarifications on his snap answers a couple of times a week.

Hey, at least it's fun to watch Hillary squirm a bit: it's tough to constantly disagree with someone whose stances on the same issues "evolve" so much; to her credit though, she seems to do just fine...

This is nuts, though: threatening "friendly" foreign governments is tricky at best and nukes are decidedly untidy little things.

Nobody's "Deaning" him; he's Deaning himself on a seemingly daily basis. What becomes the overall dynamic is his constantly having to explain himself. Mercifully, he's said these things himself in public, so he can't repeat the mistake of blaming subordinates.

The talking-with-hostile-leaders tiff worked out fairly well for him, but he stumbled pretty seriously with the we-may-just-have-to-go-in-and-get-him bit and the I'm-not-really-sure-when-if-where-or-how-I'd-use-nukes answer is going to really hurt him. The second of these two may hurt the country in short order; howls are already coming from Pakistan about this. The last thing Musharraf needs when trying to hold onto power is the rumor that he's befriending the infidels who plan to attack the country.

(Edited for bad conjugation)

[laugle]

16. Well I guess now we can

call him "OBOMBA" lol, lol

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Unless there are civilians, in which case he's NOBOMBA

Hillary is, of course, against this...

[killbotfactory]

18. Are you fucking kidding me?

We SHOULDN'T rule out nuclear weapons when it comes to attacking terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

[TeamJordan23]

19. But you think that our thousands of other bombs can't kill terrorists? nm

[beastieboy]

20. His advisors are clueless, in this day and age you at least have to fake it.

Even if you are against nukes, if you come out and say you won't use them, you will make the left happy, but you'll lose the other 2/3 of the country who want us to do whatever it takes. I bet everything I have Hillary would never use a nuke under any circumstances, but she's not going to ever say that.

[Ethelk2044]

21. This is bull shit

[Tellurian]

22. The result of Obomba's loose lipped pronouncements can be summed up in this quote:

"The only thing Obama accomplished with his wild-eyed pistol-waving yesterday was to make his primary opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, sound like a serious wartime leader." NYPost 8.3.07'

[beastieboy]

23. So much for boy wonder.

I watched the speech yesterday, he was reading straight off the teleprompter, no charisma, nothing. When it comes to stuff he knows nothing about (foreign policy, etc) he comes off as stiff and not very confident.

[dionysus]

24. quoting the bird cage lining NY Post... Classy

[MadHound]

26. Actually I like it that a candidate is committing to not using nukes

And the fact that HIllary is ruling isn't ruling such use out is simply another strike against her. Of course this comes as no suprise coming from a Senator who enabled and supported an illegal, immoral war, against the will of the people.