AP revises article after first reporting Obama would not use nukes "'in any circumstance"

[sabra]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/02/302006.aspx

<snip>

On a day without much political news, this AP article set off political shockwaves: "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance.'"

"'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.'"

The story made the usual political rounds -- it was posted on Drudge and news blogs. The news? That Obama would NEVER use nuclear weapons as president. The problem, though, was that the story wasn't entirely correct. It left out the fact that Obama was talking about his speech yesterday about Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Here's how the AP revised its piece: "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday 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,' 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.'"

[Mojorabbit]

1. What has happened

to this country when talk of nukes and ivading are paramount in campaigns? Dennis' dept of peace is looking better every day to me.

[sharp_stick]

2. Why do "journalists" in this country

insist on using idiotic gotcha questions. No President can say that they would _never_ use nuclear weapons. The word never implies a lot more than it sounds like on first read.