After defending him yesterday, I’m not sure what the heck Sen. Obama is talking about today.
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.”
Of course we don’t want to use nuclear weapons, but quite simply you never take any options off the table as president. That’s part of the big stick you have backing up your words in the position. Is Obama saying he would never ever use nukes? Because that’s not a promise any president should make. Senator Edwards was right when he said all options were on the table, and any president worth his or her salt is going to echo that.
Context:
Obama was asked about using nukes to deal with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not about using nukes under any circumstances against any enemy ever.
In that context, it makes perfect sense to say “we’re not going to nuke Al Qaeda”.
The question posed:
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-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
In that context, Mr. Obama is correct. It would be a grave mistake to use nukes against countries we count as allies.
Especially when they, themselves, have nukes.
Lord help us if we pick our next president based on his/her response to stupid hypothetical questions.
Here we go again with the conventional wisdom. This time, it’s “quite simply you never take any options off the table as president.” Why not? Even something as nonsensical as a nuclear first strike? Obama is completely right once again and I don’t care if the so-called experts disagree.
Especially when they, themselves, have nukes.
Al Qaeda has nukes now? News to me. Quick, call Jack Bauer!
Have people learned fucking nothing from the “I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it” debacle? Obama should know that his answers will be twisted and used against him. There is no nuance in politics. He screwed up big time.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to take some options off the table, particularly suicidal options that will solve absolutely nothing.
Have people learned fucking nothing from the “I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it” debacle? Obama should know that his answers will be twisted and used against him. There is no nuance in politics.
My goodness.
By that standard, Mr. Obama will have very little to say. Without this “nuance” that troubles you so, he’d be reduced to slinging jingoistic, half-wit slogans.
I fully support never ever using nukes in any circumstance.
Quaker in a Basement,
Are you stupid? Seriously. Nuance doesn’t trouble me. It’s half wits like you who want the world to think when in fact the world works at the gut level. We will continue to lose until we play politics like the right does, i.e. the half wit slogans which you deride. I for one would rather win.
Duros, your reading skills never cease to amaze me.
I was referring to the Pakistanis, BTW.
Without this “nuance” that troubles you so, he’d be reduced to slinging jingoistic, half-wit slogans.
Do you want a Democrat in the White House? Get used to slogans.
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
“The people not the powerful.”
Are you stupid? Seriously.
Probably.
Nuance doesn’t trouble me.
Sure it does. You said so yourself at 6:33 and 58 seconds.
It’s half wits like you who want the world to think when in fact the world works at the gut level.
Reason? Intellect? Logic? Nosiree! We’ll have none, thank you.
We will continue to lose until we play politics like the right does, i.e. the half wit slogans which you deride.
And if we win with half-wit slogans, then will we turn back to actual policy?
I for one would rather win.
And I would like to know what our prospective leaders actually plan to do. Second-guessing the reactions of the press and the right-wing attack dogs is a sucker’s game.
Go ahead. Rewrite Mr. Obama’s response for him–but make sure you give him an answer to the question that doesn’t leave him open to the predictable attacks from all the usual suspects.
I sez you can’t.
OW:
Do you want a Democrat in the White House? Get used to slogans.
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
“The people not the powerful.”
As I recall, these “slogans” weren’t answers to questions, but summarizations of the legendary wonkery of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore. Both were backed up with a couple of boxcars full of nuance.
Same challenge for you as for Vic–rewrite Mr. Obama’s answer. Give him a “slogan” that fits and doesn’t leave him vulnerable to attack.
Quaker is right (seems like that should just be a macro on the keyboard). If Obama said that nukes are on the table, he would have been derided as a wild-eyed dangerous n- person by the right. If he equivocated, he would have been called indecisive. Though this wasn’t Obama’s finest moment, now the impression some voters following Obama have is that OBAMA WANTS TO CATCH BIN LADEN. Not like the terrorists appeasers on the right.
Are you stupid? Seriously.
Probably.
Self deprecation, even humorous, is a rare and refreshing thing on this board. Ironic that it comes a ‘hit and runner’ against Quaker.
O-Dub, are you serious?!? Obama made a completely reasonable statement to not use nukes. The nuclear option is really only a strategic defensive weapon which is good as a deterrent against other states. The repercussions would be too severe if we used nukes to attack a terrorist camp, especially, when conventional weapons work just as well.
Maybe some people have forgotten what all happened to Mr. Gore in 1999 and 2000. He made innocuous, reasonable, and accurate statements only to see reporters from big news orgs turn them into proof! by golly! that he was a nut and a liar.
The mistake comes in thinking that the inside-the-beltway press listens first, then makes up a tale to fit what the candidate said. In fact, it’s just the opposite: the press corps defines its script and shapes the facts to fit.
I was referring to the Pakistanis, BTW.
Ya, I got that. Still stupid.
I understand what you’re saying, but I have to respectfully disagree. “All options are on the table” makes good copy, but some options shouldn’t even be anywhere near the table, let alone on it.
I have to give Mike Gravel credit for being one of the few politicians who calls bullshit on having all options on the table.
logeum dysuric cozier renegade bewimple outbond erythrodermia facewise
10
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/16.html
2
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/13.html
5
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/11.html
8
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/9.html
18
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/6.html
3
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/17.html
7
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html
12
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/10.html
18
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/14.html
2
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/16.html