Comments on: Barack Obama’s Nuclear Stumblerama

By: Mikef

Mikef — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:46:26 +0000

A more seasoned politician would have not fallen into the trap.

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:22:00 +0000

â€œStrong on defenseâ€ is something they know they still have to contend with

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.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:51:45 +0000

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.

By: Gray

Gray — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:07:42 +0000

“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.

By: Gray

Gray — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:00:43 +0000

Â«I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,Â»
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.
=:-|

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:17:54 +0000

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.

By: domajot

domajot — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:14:41 +0000

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.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:39:06 +0000

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.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:57:09 +0000

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.

By: Nick Rivera

Nick Rivera — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:46:17 +0000

Clinton calls Obama’s comments “careless.”

Hmm…are they are careless as sayâ€”oh I donâ€™t knowâ€”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, Obamaâ€™s is doing himself no favorâ€™s with his â€œshooting from the hipâ€ 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, itâ€™s as if heâ€™s making up his foreign policy positions as he goes along.

Thereâ€™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.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:24:16 +0000

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.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:18:51 +0000

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.