Obama's "nuclear answer" in a debate would have instantly destroyed his chances

[Herman Munster]

It was a horrible, inane answer. He basically says no nuclear weapons ever at first. Then the next second later he says well maybe as long as their are no civilians killed, nuclear weapons are maybe OK. Ever heard of radioactive fallout Obama? Then he says some bullshit triangulation answer of there has never been any "discussion" of nuclear weapons. So he was against nuclear weapons before he was fore it and then against it again all within 10 seconds?

If he had said this during a debate, Giuliani or Thompson would have made him look like a fucking idiot.

-----------

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/obama-says-use-of-nuclear-weapons-off-the-table/

In an interview with the Associated Press today, Barack Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance” to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Mr. 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.”

[Mass]

1. SO, why does it bother so much Hillary's supporters?

[Clintonista2]

50. Are you kidding? I'm loving it.

Another major gaffe by the Obama camp. What does this make? 3-4 in the past 2 weeks?

[tularetom]

2. And if he had said he'd use nukes

they would have jumped right in the middle of his shit and called him a warmonger.

He's gotten under Hillary's skin. I don't know if this is good or bad but it tells me more about Hillary's readiness for prime time than it does about Obama's. If she can't handle this disagreement how will she react when the repubs start cutting her to pieces. I don't think it will be pretty.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Big damn deal; there are MANY bad answers to a question like this

There are also a few good ones. He could have said "we do not foresee a first strike use of nuclear weapons" or "not in the likely scenarios we see developing" or something like that.

It's not just Hillary supporters or supporters of other candidates who take issue with this kind of slapdash bungling, it's DANGEROUS to have a potential president speaking in such a casual and blythe way about thermonuclear war. Being an ardent Edwards supporter, I'm sure I'm just as easily dismissable for partisanship, but I guarantee you had Edwards said something like this I'd have admitted it was a grave mistake and I'd be seriously reconsidering my choice. Did you get that? I'd be SERIOUSLY expecting clarification and considering a new candidate, and I've been a vocal and active supporter since '01. This is EXTREMELY serious, and to hear so many Obama supporters bellyache that it's just another case of their guy being picked on is revolting.

To their credit, quite a few Obama partisans have expressed dismay over this and the Pakistan "intervention or whatever" statement that came just before it. I'm actually quite heartened by the overall response of many of his supporters on this, but that from the others is deplorable.

Obama sloppily answered the debate question about negotiation, but was on the right side of the issue. Hillary blundered by trying to make hay out of it and not knowing when to stop. He didn't know when to stop either, but generally turned this around to his favor. (Look it up; I predicted this, as did many others.) The problem is that he then turned right around and made two shocking blunders in the space of a couple of days that are far more injurious to him AND TO THIS COUNTRY than the issue of talking with hostile foreign powers.

Just reading the actual words from his mouth are scary enough; he'd better hire Rapunzel as a flak with all the spinning he needs to do right now.

To wail that he's made no or only very inconsequential missteps here is either oblivious or deliberately deceptive. It only takes a misplaced word or two to light the fires; look at what Junior's idiotic use of the word "crusade" did.

[sandnsea]

3. It indicates a disreputable reporter

Scratch that, strike that - is supposed to indicate a different response. Somebody intentionally leaked this to smear him. This is evidence of the kind of politics that some campaign would bring to the country for the next 8 years. I'm sick of it.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. A president is ALWAYS on the record

You don't think out loud unless you're perfectly happy sharing those thoughts.

The fact that he's willing to make a glib and flip answer so quickly to such a loaded and dangerous question throws his judgment into doubt in a big way. To immediately qualify it in a sloppy way with a mitigation about civilians that makes it sound like he would contemplate a first strike is another egregious blunder, and to then back away from that immediately just sounds muddled and indecisive.

He has no cosmic right to be able to tell reporters what they can and can't report from their observations; this was a public encounter. Much as the question was sandbagging, it was prompted by his vague references to "battlefields in Afghanistan and Pakistan" and such and he needs to be careful with this habit of letting his mouth get ahead of his brain.

Life is not like sound editing in a movie: you can't "unhear" something.

Presidents are always being asked leading and loaded questions and perceived weaknesses will be preyed upon. Whoever gets the reins needs to be REALLY GOOD at not hanging him/herself with words.

[sandnsea]

28. He stood by his remarks - will the scum?

Will whoever is behind these scummy smear tactics admit what they're doing?

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Okay, it's getting to be a cliche on the subject of Obama, but please clarify.

Which particular scummy smear tactics do you wish retracted, and by whom?

Also, which remarks has he stood by?

[SaveElmer]

4. It's like he had never even thought about it before.....

Making up an answer on the fly, deciding which one would sound the best rather than what was correct...

[OHdem10]

5. Does this mean Conventional Washington Insiders

will use Nukes on Terrorists?????Throwing these Nukes around
trying to sound tough is what has gotten us into trouble.

In the end, this is a tempest in the teapot. Obama and Edwards
have to expect every word they utter to be twisted. Stay cool
and keep going.

[Herman Munster]

6. for the obama staffers taking notes

this is how the big boys and girls answer the nuclear question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html?hpid=topnews

By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

[Bullet1987]

7. The majority of the American people disagree with using nukes

Most see it as a worse-case scenario type of thing. Sort of like a Hail Mary pass in football. Obama answered the question right, what kind of a fucking sick country do we live in where taking nukes off the table is WRONG???

[Herman Munster]

10. that's not the point

Obama DID NOT take nukes off the table. What he did was change his position twice within 10 seconds and failed to inspire confidence on probably the greatest power a president has, access to the nuclear playbook and codes.

[Bullet1987]

18. That's not the way it's being spun in the media...

it's being spun as Obama saying he wouldn't use nukes to take out terrorists in Pakistan. So, it's like WTF? He gets attacked for saying he would send in Special Ops (since he didn't say invasion) to take out terrorists...and attacked again for saying he wouldn't use nukes!! It's like which was does the fucking media want to have it? It just makes them look contradictory.

[Tellurian]

11. Obama changed his mind 3X within a minute... because

he's unsure of how to respond because the correct answers haven't had time to sink in . When he is with Bushes advisers, he's programmed with one answer. When with his own advisers it's another, and his public answer is still yet another.

>>>"what kind of a fucking sick country do we live in where taking nukes off the table is WRONG???"<<<

You give this response off the top of your head and you are not a presidential candidate. Can you imagine what is going through Obama's head? He doesn't know up from down, why from why-not, plausible from implausible... He's following a script thats been handed to him. He hasn't had the time to think of all the aspects and ramifications of each response played out to conclusion. Or which response is appropriate with what venue. The short answer is, although you may not want to hear it is... he doesn't have the experience!

[beastieboy]

13. He's fine as long as he has the teleprompter.

His staff should rig him up some teleprompter goggles to wear when he is speaking.

[Tellurian]

16. Well, there you go!

same as Bush!

[dionysus]

32. ah yes, obama is in with bush, it's clear to me now.

thats so low and pathetic. par for the course i guess

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. I think Tellurian was referring to Colin Powell (R-war crimes) advising Obama nt

[Tellurian]

S'ok, dmc...the dunderheads are always right,..

let's not wake them from their Obamacoma...

[dionysus]

48. typical blather from you.

[Tellurian]

40. I suppose you're denying Powell too! ok!

[BeyondGeography]

8. Notice how she always gets to go second?

Come back to me when she actually gets the answer "right" before anyone else.

[Tellurian]

15. Why should she give the right answer first?

Did your professor give you the "right" answers before a test?

[BeyondGeography]

17. It's especially bad when she goes second and she gives the wrong answer

like she did this time. Good that Obama cued it up for her on Pakistan, however.

[Tellurian]

23. can't ever play it straight, can you?

always have to invent some steaming pile to feed the faithful.

[BeyondGeography]

37. He's just trying to be helpful...eventually, even you might learn

<U.S. officials rarely rule out nuclear attacks as a matter of diplomacy, preferring to keep the threat as a deterrent. Yet several foreign policy experts said Obama was essentially right: It would be unwise to target an individual or a small group with nuclear weapons that could kill civilians and worsen the United States' image around the world.

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."

"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html?nav=hcmodule

[Tellurian]

39. LOL...

when you give all 3 multiple choice answers, one of them is bound to be right...

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

30. Finals exam

If the professor's answer is:

A) We should continue to play footsy with a Pakistani government sheltering terrorists.
B) Everybody should know, we can nuke you whenever we fucking want.

then

C) The professor probably shouldn't be president.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

26. Wow

No, this is how useless throwbacks, terrified of being perceived as weak, answer the nuclear question.

What role, exactly, do nuclear weapons play as a deterrent? Are we going to go all Tancredo in this bitch, and start wildly making threats of attacks on holy sites? How exactly are nuclear weapons a deterrent to a terrorist organization who would love nothing more than for the US to use one?

Obama had the guts to bring the dialog forward, and step back from this outdated, Cold War nonsense. This pseudo-Thatcher, cautious hawk bullshit is so grating.

[Tellurian]

43. LOL...

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

45. ENDLESSLY CLEVER RESPONSE

You sure showed me, internet guy. LOL indeed.

[dionysus]

49. you just pwned Tellurian...

[jillan]

9. "Let me scratch that".

I like Obama, but I think he needs to change the subject. Maybe talk more about healthcare or rebuilding the infrastructure.

He flipped his position in one sentence on nukes.
You really think the Gop didn't notice?
Ouch.

[beastieboy]

14. You may not scratch that, I just met you.

[jillan]

19. --------

:rofl:

[sandnsea]

29. No he didn't

He stands by his nuclear comment, he will not consider a nuclear attack to go after terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

He didn't flip his position at all, he simply decided to just not respond.

The irresposible candidates are the ones who are willing to inflame international tensions by distorting his words - including Joe Biden.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

20. mother of fucking fuck

We're not going to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan is a controversial statement? What, pray tell, would we be using them on, given that we're fighting a guerrilla war? Would it be too glaring a lack of realpolitik to mention we probably won't use them on Canada either?

Obama iterated what most sane people in this country have wanted to hear for years: we'll use appropriate means to kill/capture Al Qaeda leaders in whatever country they take refuge in, without asinine threats of region wide conflict or mass retaliation. If the Pakistani government is so unstable that we have to allow them to give quiet refuge to the people who actually plotted 9/11 to keep them stable, then perhaps we should be reassessing how much we want to continue arming and financing them.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

21. fucking fuck, cont.

It was, however, a poor answer that pretty much smashed his totally reasonable position.

[paparush]

46. So that we can bomb them back to the Stick Age....

we currently have them in the Stone Age.

[Capn Sunshine]

22. disagree totally.

Eye of the beholder.

Inside the beltway<-------------> outside the beltway.

Fantasy world<---------------------> Reality

Obama Bashers<------------------>posters with something to say

please stop<------------------------>post something worthwhile about your own candidate

[Tellurian]

25. can't even get that right.!

[Politicub]

27. I agree with Obama here

and I'm glad he said it. A lot of us think the same thing, but at least he has the wherewithall to say what he thinks.

I support Hillary, too, but I don't like how she used this as an opportunity to attack Obama. I know that they're all jockeying for the nom, but it seems like a low blow to me.

[sandnsea]

31. Obama leads in Iowa

I agree with you. The people who are paying attention want to hear a new direction. We've had enough of this blustering cowboy bullshit. Say what you mean and mean what you say. We can't tell others they can't use nukes while we hold nuclear disaster over everybody's head.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. Good point. Ghouliani or Romney would have eaten him alive over this in a debate

And in that brief moment all the work he would have done for months to overcome the "inexperienced" perception would come crashing down. That said, this does not disqualify him for being president but it shoots another hole into the Obama is the most electable argument.

[democratsin08]

35. he seems stupid to me

and he is also ripping apart the dem party with his attacks.

[Grandrose]

47. Hyperbole..... much!

What seems stupid is the post!:eyes:

[Scriptor Ignotus]

36. looks like he got caught off guard

not one of his finer moments, I concede.

[killbotfactory]

38. Should we use nukes against drug-runners? The mafia?

According to Clinton, this should never be ruled out.

That's fucking crazy.

[Skip Intro]

42. They repukes would have hit him worse on talking to adversaries

without precondition, that is.


They would have savaged him.


Doesn't matter how good a candidate is if he/she can't deal with the coming slime, much less leave himself/herself open to attacks with careless language.


You can only clarify the next day so many times until you look like you don't know what the hell you're doing.

[Forkboy]

44. The only people Giuliani and Thompson can make look like idiots is themselves.

Obama would eat either of them alive,and I say that as someone who doesn't even like him.