Is General Ripper complaining about the water again too? Or was that just Ron Stephens again?
Obama (Ill.) was responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance in which he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and bin Laden.
“There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons, and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss,” Obama said. When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.
By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. “Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons,” she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.
Bullshit. Carter gave very simple hypothetical where the US would use nuclear weapons:
This new policy is the administration’s first instruction to the Pentagon addressing the increasingly worrisome concern that a “rogue state” might turn biological or chemical weapons against U.S. troops. A senior Clinton advisor claims that the policy conforms with earlier White House statements and longstanding policy on nuclear weapons, including support for bombers, land- based missiles, and missile submarines, and reliance on nuclear weapons as a mainstay of national security.
The directive increases the list of possible potential targets that could be attacked in China, in the unlikely event of nuclear war with that country,but abandons the concept of a possible plan for a protracted, so-called”winnable” nuclear war.
Worries about full-scale nuclear war have been replaced by fears about use of chemical or biological weapons: the directive discusses responses that the U.S should have available in far greater detail than earlier directives.
It “requires a wide range of nuclear retaliatory options, from a limited strike to a more general nuclear exchange.” said a senior national security official.
In 1978 President Carter pledged that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, unless those states fought in concert with a nuclear power or defied the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was Iraq’s suspected violation of that treaty that allowed the Bush administration to threaten massive retaliation, if necessary, during the Gulf war.
And Bill Clinton reverified that policy. Hillary Clinton apparently is dangerously out of touch with US defense policy. And the press corps let her skate on it because the Obama is green story is too convenient. He got it right–and in fact, his quick mention of nukes not being considered was a bit of slip, but only to realign with actual US policy.
Now, on the one hand of those complaining about Barack’s stances in the last few days we have those that say he is crazy to attack a country harboring terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans, 3,000 of them in New York. On the other hand, it’s perfectly reasonable to nuke them. Sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here with Iraq.
The right war was against Al Qaeda and those who allow them to exist in their territories. The wrong war is Iraq. All Barack is doing is pointing out that this administration has been shamefully complicit in allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven and that US policy is and should continue to be that if you harbor those terrorists who attack Americans you are subject to attack. What’s the problem?.
It’s amazingly obtuse for those conservatives who claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq might get a sanctuary if we leave Iraq while the Sunnis are already fighting them, yet in Pakistan we see a negotiated policy with tribes that are protecting Al Qaeda to not bother them. Which is more dangerous?
On nuclear weapons, is the suggestion that we should utilize nukes to attack terrorist sites even if the government of that country are not actively promoting them? Are we going to nuke the tribal lands of Pakistan? Seriously? What are we going to nuke? Is there a glass shortage I’m unaware of? Because producing glass is about all it would do.
Samantha Powers writes a stirring defense of Obama’s points and it’s about time that someone takes on the DC mindset of how to run a foreign policy. I’ve been fighting this silly nonsense since the debates over how best to supply death squads in Central America in the 1980s. It’s about time someone pointed out the emperors of the foreign policy establishment are silly, silly people. It’s the same damned fearmongering that only gives our true enemies more power. You support El Salvadoran death squads, you strengthen the FMLN. You support the rape and torture of literacy workers in Nicaragua, you support the Sandinistas. You support monsters like rios Montt, you support the ability of actual communists to recruit people to their cause.
You support Dr. Strangelove like policy completely devoid of reality and debate when the use of nuclear weapons might be okay against a civilian population in the war on terror and you look like a bloodthirsty dumb ass that enables Al Qaeda recruiting. Same shit, different decade.
I bought into the silly arguments in the lead-up to the Iraq War, but the whining of the Washington elite over perceived inexperience of Obama whom has shown far better judgment than I or certainly them needs to end. I admitted I was stupid and wrong, you’d think the very serious people could.
Every once in a while I’ll see Obama slip and do something that makes me think he’s not as different as I perceive. He’s not perfect and I don’t expect it. That said, he is laying out an argument for foreign policy that is different and a break from the conventional wisdom of Washington that is far greater than any recent viable Presidential candidate.
the biggest problem for Obama is the msm. They decided a long time ago that Hillary was going to be inevitable no matter what the people wanted.
They sweep anything resembling less than flattering stories about Hillary under the rug or spin it in her favor. They decide who wins the debates long before they even occur. they have given her a totally free pass along with daily cheerleading.
Senator obama is portrayed as a bumbling idiot. They dismiss him and everything he does is laughed at. this is intended to Dean him.
They keep the obama is Dean story going for months. They began their attacks about the time Obama was catching Hillary in the polling. Since then it has been a total take down.
I doubt none of the press even listened to Obama’s speech, which is readily available on cspan site. If they did they would be ashamed of how they have pegged obama.
this was one of the best speeches and very thoughtful, new ideas and an amazing policy that is just what it should be and would do much for our country.
Today I heard some on msnbc manage to spin the disaster of the Yearly Kos performance of Hillary’s into her being oh so wonderful.
there has been alot of push back by the people but, the msm just ignores it. They refuse to acknowledge our anger.
And a funny thing. One of Hillary’s biggest donors is GE, who owns NBC
Wow. I really respect that you can say this.
We clearly need a new foreign policy regime in Washington. I think Obama is very aware of this, but he’s trying to be careful while attempting to establish a new frame. One of his responses during the YearlyKos debate seemed like he was taking too much care not to say the wrong thing politically, but that he wanted to say that we need to fundamentally change our approach. Or it could just be me.
I’d like to add that I think Governor Richardson MAY be the kind of guy that could establish a new direction for foreign policy, as the Secretary of State. His breakout speech on his experiences dealing with dictators was pretty phenomenal, and he made both Hillary and Obama look rather…childish in their sniping, or at least it exposed the childishness of the media coverage of the sniping. Best summed up with this quote: “Look, I’ve ALREADY met with 3 of the 4 people that were mentioned!”
Oh, and I’d like to add that the entire concept that Pakistan isn’t doing enough is ludicrous. Pakistan has captured as many, if not more, Al Queda leaders than we have since our invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan has something like 100,000 soldiers in the western provinces seeking out Al Queda strongholds.
The big problem in Pakistan is that Musharraf is very unpopular, as one might expect when an autocratic dictator usurps power from a democratically elected government. The big question, imo, should be how best to pressure Musharraf to restore Democracy in Pakistan. A democratic government would effectively marginalize the extremist elements in Pakistani society, rather than push the average Pakistani to support extremists who wish to topple Pakistan. Plus, should Musharraf be toppled by an extremist group, the world will be a much more dangerous place overnight…
Sorry about the early formatting problems–something in what was copied and pasted.
__Wow. I really respect that you can say this.
I’ve said pretty similar things before. I’m in the Al Franken camp of I am fully willing to be an idiot. As Austin Mayor pointed out after the Bush administration not only got us into an unnecessary war, but then proceeded to screw up the execution, they hadn’t shown any competence whatsoever so even if the intelligence was right, the outcome was going to be bad. They couldn’t even get the intelligence right though.
===Oh, and I’d like to add that the entire concept that Pakistan isn’t doing enough is ludicrous.
But the also made a truce deal with the tribes. That appears to have crumbled after the Red Mosque and if so, great. But the situation of having a truce with the tribes that were protecting Al Qaeda is unacceptable.
Certainly I don’t want this administration to do anything in Pakistan because they have proven they can be trusted to do one thing and one thing only: fuck up.
quite frankly, the pakistani government — and especially the isi, which backed (and apparently still backs) the taliban — has been opaque. we don’t know whether pakistan is doing everything it can. we don’t have a clue. what we do know is that the american military, and perhaps the administration, continues to push pakistan to do more, and the boots on the ground, at least, aren’t satisfied with pakistan’s progress in the fight against terrorists…