On 8/7/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He said he would not use them in any case "involving civilians" then he > retracted it > and the noble Hillary jumped on him.
Here's the story, from "the Moderate Voice" (http://themoderatevoice.com/category/places/): By Joe Gandelman 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. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
