Barack Obama’s Nuclear Stumblerama
Just one day after he dominated political discussion in several segments of the media and the political class by making a get-tough speech on terrorism, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama was stricken with a bout of political foot-in-mouth disease:
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.
What a difference a day makes.
Obama’s earlier speech had seemed the work of a highly thoughtful candidate — staking out political ground to short-circuit his party’s opponents and the Republicans’ likely line that he is too inexperienced and not tough enough to be President. But this statement is a major gaffe:
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf earlier this week that he would use U.S. military force in Pakistan even without Musharraf’s permission if necessary to root out terrorists.
However, when asked by The Associated Press after a breakfast with constituents whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Obama replied
«There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss.When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.
For Obama, the timing could not be worse.
Firstly, Pakistan had just reacted to his comments and this new flap wipes away reaction that would have underscored the toughness of his speech on terrorism:
“Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance,” Pakistan’s Minister of State for Information, Tariq Azeem, told AFP. “They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan.
And the nuclear comments were quickly seized upon by Obama’s chief rival, Senator Hillary Clinton:
In another broadside indicating the increasingly heated race for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., implied Thursday that comments made by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., were careless and unpresidential.
Sen. Clinton was referring to Obama’s statement earlier in the day that he had ruled out using nuclear weapons against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Clinton also suggested Obama’s high-profile speech earlier in the week in which he said would be willing to invade Pakistan to attack high-profile al Qaeda targets, given actionable intelligence, was inappropriate, further evidence that she is painting her challenger as unprepared for the job of commander in chief.
….Clinton, asked about his remarks Thursday afternoon, took issue with them.
“Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,” Clinton 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 nonuse of nuclear weapons.”
A more seasoned politician would have not fallen into the trap. In terms of imagery — even if press reports oversimplified his position as some convincingly argue — the message that was sent out pretty much negated the get-tough message of the day before.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Barack Obama’s Nuclear Stumblerama”
I like Obama for lots of reasons, and perhaps one day he’ll make a good president. I think however, that day is not here yet.
Well Joe, it’s time for you to do your part and not blame Obama. It doesn’t make sense to use nuclear weapons against small enclaves of terrorists. Nuclear weapons are for destroying large groups of people (cities).
Set the record straight and blame the MSM for following the Clinton campaign lead by taking Obama’s words out of context.
====
Also, this fetish we have with the ‘nuclear option’ is disgusting. Most of the world, including a majority of our population, believes that we shouldn’t have and should never use nukes. Only in the MSM and Washington is it unthinkable to come out against nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex.
Clinton calls Obama’s comments “careless.”
Hmm…are they are careless as say—oh I don’t know—voting to authorize an unnecessary war based on false intelligence that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraq civilians, killed more than 3600 American soldiers, and consumed nearly a half trillion dollars?
That kind of careless, Ms. Clinton?
Still, Obama’s is doing himself no favor’s with his “shooting from the hip†strategy on discussion foreign policy. He had a tremendous advantage over Clinton and Edwards in that he opposed the Iraq War from the start. However, with some of his more hawkish rhetoric, it’s as if he’s making up his foreign policy positions as he goes along.
There’s something to be said for having a consistent position on foreign policy. Democrats have got to learn to present a principled foreign policy position and not take whatever position seems politically advantageous at the moment or present a broad argument that attempts to be all things to all people.
Since when is the use of nukes on a civilian population justified because of terrorist attacks. While the 2 bombs dropped on Japan can be (?) justified. How is the use of WMD’s (nukes) against third world powers an example of the US moral highground? I applauded Obama for his comment. Our precision weapons aren’t turning out to be so precise.
In short, Obama is right that we should not use nuclear weapons to defeat terror both for moral reasons and for practical ones — it’s hard to think of a scenario in which nuking parts of the world would help our cause — but the responsible thing to do as a possible President is to pretend that we would use nuclear weapons since the nuclear deterrent has been so successful in recent years against terrorist organizations.
Right, got it.
Ooh, ooh. I was borderline snarky there. I’m never snarky.
With the proviso that I haven’t read Obama’s full earlier speech or this latest statement and that I’ve fallen too many times for the out-context-quotes in news reports, I ask myself this question:
>Is it better to keep threatening the world that we are keeping evrything ,including nukes, open as an option and then be backed into a corner where we either have to put up or shut up, or
>is it better to highlight that we have no intention of using nukes, and then change our minds if an absoulety existential threat arises which can’t be handled any other way
?
I vote for Obama’s framing of the issue, in this case.
To say it in a less snarky way, I don’t see the use of a nuclear deterrent in preventing terrorism that comes in the form of 11 guys with box cutters or a group of 5 smuggling in a single dirty bomb. A nuclear arsenal is only of use to prevent massive conventional warfare between states – the very sort of threat that is extremely remote at this post-Cold War point. There is no conventional arsenal that is a genuine threat to the U.S. If this is true, then there is no real gaffe in letting down the deterrent facade for a moment when everyone knows the deterrent deters no actual, current threats.
«I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,»
Right! What’s not like with that?
Really, what do the critics want to hear from a candidate? Apraise for the positive aspects of the use of nuclear weapons? Or that he/she simply stays mum on the subject?
Regarding the currebt hyperbole surrounding Obama’s recent remarks, it seems most would prefer the latter option. Yeah, that’s a great way to make up your mind about the right choice for the primary. Drop a load of shit over every honest stance, twist the words, invent meanings that never have been said until no front runner dares to say anything of importance and then go into the booth wondering why you know next to nothing about the choices on the ballot. Of course, under such circumstances you’re likely to end up not with the best alternative, but with the candidate who’s been best in lying and deceiving his true intentions. That’s the best way to chose another George W. Bush, indeed.
=:-|
“While the 2 bombs dropped on Japan can be (?) justified.”
Hmmm. That’s not a fact, but a serious question indeed, Rudi. While I think the ‘nuclear option’ really saved hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides, the civilian cost of lives has been much too high. Let’s be honest, the second drop had been totally unnecessary and was only conducted to test ‘fat man’. And so far nobody could give me a proper explanation why ‘little boy’ had to be dropped over an industrial center instead of an area with probably lower ‘casual damage’. The devastation caused by the bomb would still have been big enough to force the japanese government to surrender.
A lot of Joe’s posts today are foreshadowing the fight for the soul of the ’08 Dems. “Strong on defense” is something they know they still have to contend with, especially once the general electorate no longer allows them to simply run against the record of George Bush.
Thanks to that YouTuber who has put the monkey into their court…….it is likely to continue to get legs.
Bull. Go look at the polls at pollingreport.com and marvel at how the general population trusts the Democrats more on defense than the Republicans.
This is a controversy fabricated by elites for the benefit of elites.
I’m astonished by the near universal belief among journalists that Obama’s comment that he isn’t going to drop the bomb on an allied country is somehow a huge mistake on his part.
“Foot in Mouth disease”? Are you serious? Unless OBL is at a known location, dropping the bomb on Pakistan will do no good. And if OBL is in a known location, Barack is completely justified in saying that American conventional forces can take care of him.
I really think you should think through the implications of your comments and explain why you think Hillary’s strategy is the wiser one. Today’s conventional wisdom would’ve seemed insane just 6 years ago.
If advocating diplomacy without preconditions and keeping nukes on the table is the sign of a pragmatic and strong foreign policy, then we’re in for a very long, costly and bloody decade.