Flashback: Hillary Said She'd Take Nukes Off The Table Last Year

[jefferson_dem]

Flashback: Hillary Said She'd Take Nukes Off The Table Last Year
By Greg Sargent | bio

Hillary recently chided Obama for ruling out the use of nukes against terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but here's what she had to say about nukes in an interview with Bloomberg News last year, according to a story just moved by the Associated Press:

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006...

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

Hillary recently chided Obama as follows: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Nonetheless, Hillary spokesman Phil Singer is claiming no contradiction. "She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."

Still, it does appear that she made a "blanket statement" about nukes at that time, even if it was in a different context. As soon as I have the full transcript of her interview, I'll share it with you.

A footnote: The Washington Times pointed out this same 2006 quote from Hillary back on August 3.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/09/flashback_hillary_said_shed_take_nukes_off_the_table_last_year

[AtomicKitten]

1. as the worm turns

[ProSense]

2. So Obama wasn't first?

The slippery slope of discussing stupid hypothetical wars.

Get back to talking about getting out of Iraq.

[rinsd]

3. I see little contradiction in the statements themselves though...

...I think you have her on the blanket statement issue.

[ellacott]

4. funny n/t

[zulchzulu]

5. Yeah, but that was last year!

It's different this week. Next week could be different...

:crazy:

[bigdarryl]

6. Why didn't Obamas camp know that he should have seized on that during the debate...

it shows how inexperience the Obama camp is.

[Connie_Corleone]

7. Most people have no idea a debate took place Tuesday night.

Compare that to how many people will hear about this now that it's news.

Maybe that's why it's news, because the Obama camp found out about it (probably this week, maybe even after the debate) and brought it to the attention of the media.

[Alamom]

8. Timing is everything - Saber Rattling by B*sh & Ch*ney -

The author of this article made it very clear that when this was said, it was appropriate, it was said due to this administration's Saber Rattling and Sen. Clinton was not a presidential candidate.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006...
"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/08/clinton_discussed_use_of_nukes.php

"She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."

Do some research if you've forgotten.....we were discussing whether or not the idiots would actually nuke another country.


http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/04/00_wittner_nuclear-gambit.htm

Bush's Latest Nuclear Gambit
By Lawrence S. Wittner, April, 2006

In 2005, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, recognizing that the Bush administration's favorite new nuclear weapon--the "Bunker Buster"--was on the road to defeat in Congress, told its leading antagonist, U.S. Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio): "You may win this year, but we'll be back."

And, now, like malaria or perhaps merely a bad cold, they are.

The Bush administration's latest nuclear brainchild is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). According to an April 6, 2006 article in the Los Angeles Times (Ralph Vartabedian, "U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan"), the RRW, originally depicted as an item that would update existing nuclear weapons and ensure their reliability, "now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in design competition."

Moreover, as the Times story reported, the RRW was part of a much larger Bush administration plan, announced the previous day, "for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War." The plan called for a modern U.S. nuclear complex that would design a new nuclear bomb and have it ready within four years, as well as accelerate the production of plutonium "pits," the triggers for the explosion of H-bombs.

Although administration officials justify the RRW by claiming that it will guarantee the reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and reduce the need for nuclear testing, arms control and disarmament advocates are quite critical of these claims. Citing studies by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers, they argue that U.S. nuclear weapons will be reliable for decades longer than U.S. officials contend. Furthermore, according to Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell and former U.S. Ambassador James Goodby: "It takes an extraordinary flight of imagination to postulate a modern new arsenal composed of such untested designs that would be more reliable, safe and effective than the current U.S. arsenal based on more than 1,000 tests since 1945." Thus, if new nuclear weapons were built, they would lead inevitably to the resumption of U.S. nuclear testing and, thereby, to the collapse of the moratorium on nuclear testing by the major nuclear powers and to the final destruction of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Most worrisome for nuclear critics, however, is the prospect that the administration will use the RRW program to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, remains convinced that the replacement process initiated by the RRW program could serve as a back door to such development. Peace Action, the nation's largest peace and disarmament organization, maintains that "the weapons labs and the Department of Defense will be the ones to decide the real scope" of the RRW program.



http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html



The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006

Summary: For four decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been shaped by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction. But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small, the era of MAD is ending -- and the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun.

4 pages/good read