Clinton Criticized Obama For Saying "It would be profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons"

[DrFunkenstein]

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew another distinction between herself and Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clinton's comments came in response to Obama's remarks earlier in the day that nuclear weapons are "not on the table" in dealing with ungoverned territories in the two countries, and they continued a steady tug of war among the Democratic presidential candidates over foreign policy.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. He then added that he would not use such weapons in situations "involving civilians."

...


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.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

...

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."

"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288_pf.html

Democrat Hillary Clinton, under fire from rivals for a muscular attitude toward Iran, said on Monday "all options must remain on the table" if Tehran does not comply with nuclear nonproliferation requirements.

"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Clinton wrote.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/15/clinton_on_iran_all_options_must_remain_on_table/

Dennis Kucinich: I think that that single comment by Sen. Clinton raises questions about her fitness for the presidency. In a week in which we observe the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, any American presidential candidate who rattles the nuclear saber must be viewed with the greatest amount of skepticism. Given Sen. Clinton’s commitment to the neocon doctrines of pre-emption, unilateralism and first strike, all Americans should be very concerned about how she would use the power of the presidency.

There’s another question here, and that is: Is she unaware of the fragility of conditions on the Asian subcontinent with respect to nuclear parity and first-strike concerns? Does she really mean what she says, and is she ready to take responsibility for potentially catalyzing a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan? Has she really thought this through? This really raises questions about whether she has the thoughtfulness to be able to lead the nation.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20070811_kucinich_throws_down_the_gauntlet/

Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

In a speech at DePaul University in Chicago, Mr. Obama will add his voice to a plan endorsed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the cold war era who say the United States must begin building a global consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons that have become “increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”

Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday, also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html?ex=1348977600&en=794a57e1bab027c8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[MidwestTransplant]

1. That's different. She was winning then. Now she will say anything to win.

[nebula]

58. She belongs on a ticket with McNutcase.

[jody]

2. BO's statement is naive. He should be forgiven because of his lack of experience in military affairs

[XemaSab]

3. And her experience is...?

:shrug:

[jody]

4. None in uniform but she is a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. n/t

[AdHocSolver]

19. The Senate: the group that gave us the Iraq War Resolution and Kyl-Lieberman. n/t

[DearAbby]

5. She was under pretend sniperfire once....

that experience? :shrug:

[DJ13]

7. sniper fire

[PoliticalAmazon]

36. Bill got a BJ from a WAV once. n/t

[SoxFan]

71. She took out that sniper nest in Tuzla, right?

[SunsetDreams]

9. naive?

It is in no way naive, it is cautious, as a President should be!

Hillary is unelectable!

[jody]

10. Whether HC is electable is not the issue. Please support your statement that BO is not naive re

military strategy and tactics.

My goodness, he knows nothing about firearms except what he may have seen in the movies and you want me to believe he's an expert on the use of nuclear weapons in combat? :rofl:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. So you think "military affairs" isn't much more than...

understanding armaments??

Maybe the person who understands that the "military option" is always the last option employed, and the "nuke option" is the ultimate non-option except under the most extraordinary circumstances, circumstances I can't even think of now, is the most is the most qualified to be making those minds of decisions?

Lord knows I'm not comfortable with someone who says they are willing to obliterate a country.

[jody]

27. See #23 n/

[cali]

15. *snicker* you just pwned yourself.

pathetic. the use of firearms has jackshit to do with the uses of nukes, hillbot.

[jody]

26. See #23 n/t

[RichardRay]

16. Is it naive to think that we don't need a nuclear weapon to

attack Waziristan, the NW Frontier Province or other parts of th FATA? Go find some basic texts on tactics and strategy and tell me just how big a bomb we'd have to drop there to actually make a dent. (Hint - the mountains are really tall, and quite wide). People seem to think that dropping a nuclear weapon on a place is precise. It's not. As frightfully powerful as a nuclear explosion is, it's just an explosion. Drop it on a big flat city like Hiroshima and it does a lot of damage. Drop it in a 5,000' deep mountain valley and you get a really sterile valley and not much other blast damage. Make it a big enough weapon to cover a lot of ground, and detonate it up in the air to avoid the confinement of the mountains and you'll get a much large kill zone. Unfortunately, you'll also deal with an exponentially bigger problem from fall out and collateral damage.

OTOH, an effective conventional campaign, while very difficult, can be carried out in that terrain, especially if it's focused on a military objective. Senator Obama has said that, given an adequately compelling military objective, he would consider a conventional attack on such regions. He's also said that he doesn't consider a nuclear attack an option.

Senator Clinton is saber rattling if she's talking about reserving the option to order a nuclear strike against those kinds of places.

I'm an I.T. guy in Wyoming whose military service was over 30 years ago. I know that much. It's doesn't take experience on the Joint Chiefs to get to there, just some brains. I don't think Senator Clinton lacks the brains to know that stuff, I just think she's playing some very old-fashioned political games.

[jody]

25. Was your experience 30 years ago limited to E1 duties? n/t

[RichardRay]

33. Nope. And, yes, it did include working with nuclear weapons.

And since then a lot of work with explosives until 9/11. After that my past caught up with me and I could no longer pass a BI, so no explosives handling for me. Luckily I don't need them much to write code and administer networks :-).

(on edit - As long as we're checking on credentials, what are your's to have such strong opinions on matters of geopolitcs and nuclear strategy in the post Cold War era? I subscribe to a couple for 'for pay' geopolitics forums that keep track of that kind of stuff and publish regular reports and analyses, so I do try to keep up.)

[jody]

44. Good experience working with nukes but did that include targeting strategy? That's the issue a

president must deal with, not repairing nukes or loading them on aircraft or missiles.

Have a nice evening. :hi:

[RichardRay]

62. Nope, that part comes from reading and participating in C/E

on the subject. Currently I subscribe to and read regularly a number of good in depth analysis sites. Most are somewhat conservative politically, but solidly in the 'realist' school in geopolitics.

I did attend schools on targeting considerations while in the military - certainly not to decide who to attack, but material on how to successfully attack a target once it's supplied, mostly via sea based weapons systems. Based on that it seems to me that talking about a successful nuclear attack on tactical targets in regions like Waziristan is a questionable pursuit. I'm certain that tracking and guidance is much better now than it was then, but current intelligence also suggests that the facilities in the FATA are pretty well dug in and have sophisticated defenses; it would take much more than a nuclear equivalent to a really big conventional bomb to penetrate. Thus Senator Obama's reluctance to engage in a nuclear attack there, but his willingness to utilize effective conventional means if the target were sufficiently compelling.

So, no deep, current credentials, but some knowledge. How about you? I suspect that if you're in a position to know what's current in these areas you're also in a position to get you ass severely slung for posting on a public forum at all, on any topic remotely connected to your area of expertise. (In that case we'll just forget we ever spoke.)

If you've got really good search skills and access to the right obscure databases and nothing better to do with your time (like sleeping) you could discover that, yes, I was an E-1 at time of discharge, but that was after the court martial. My departure from military service was under prejudice :-). Hell, after my discharge I couldn't even get a job as a substitute rural mail carrier at Christmas time, I applied and was rejected due to 'security concerns', in 1975!

[jody]

76. If you are as current on military strategy as you claim, then you know the OP quote from BO

"profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance' in Afghanistan or Pakistan" is a stupid statement.

Have a peaceful evening.

[RichardRay]

77. And a good night to you, too. n/t

[AdHocSolver]

18. So, you are comparing a rifle to a nuclear bomb??? What does that say about YOUR expertise??? n/t

[jody]

23. Your post suggests you also know little about military strategy and tactics. n/t

[AdHocSolver]

47. You're the one claiming expertise. One need not be a general to know that a rifle and a nuke...

call for different strategies in their use.

[jody]

72. Good, you understand my point that BO knows zero about strategy and tactics for rifles or nukes. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

34. Hillary Clinton is no longer electable in a general election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/hillarys-new-inevitabilit_b_98145.html

[PoliticalAmazon]

35. She can't win. Never could win.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5280301&mesg_id=5281280

[cali]

13. i'm no fan of o'hanlon's but he certainly knows more than you

he's pretty hawkish for a dem but he said Obama was absolutely correct. And anyone who's thoughtful and concerned about the use of nukes should know this too.

[jody]

29. See #23 n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

39. See #37

[cali]

42. bwahahaha. you are full of s**t, dear.

good grief. you think that said anything meaningful. How utterly pathetic.

[blogslut]

17. So, using nuclear weapons is good how?

Do tell.

[jody]

28. See #23 n/t

[NewHampshireDem]

38. I'll see your #23 and raise you

one fuck you.

What the fuck kind of democrat are you?

Scratch that.

What the fuck kind of HUMAN BEING are you?

None, that's what kind.

[jody]

75. Have a peaceful evening. n/t

[blm]

30. Kerry has been for eliminating nukes for decades - guess his experience is no match. Neither is Sam

Nunn who has been using his post-senate career to corral numclear proliferation this past decade. Or Gary Hart who wrote the Hart-Rudman report on Global Terror.

They all pale in comparison to Hillary Bush-Clinton's expertise.

[jody]

73. OP quoted BO "profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or

Pakistan".

That's a stupid statement.

[blm]

81. To you, maybe it is.

.

[walldude]

32. What's naive is dropping a fucking nuke and thinking that

there won't be repercussions. Let me ask a question. If Iraq got a hold of a nuclear weapon and dropped it on us do you think that would be ok? We invaded their country, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, they had no WMD's and were no threat to us. They had no involvement in 9/11 and were in no position to do anything to us. Yet we have killed innocent women and children in our quest to "bring them Democracy". So are they in their right to retaliate by dropping a nuke on us?

[stillcool]

41. And Bill Clinton's military experience?

Obama's policy team loaded with all-stars
By Mike Dorning

Washington Bureau

September 17, 2007


Barack Obama's presidential bid may have a well-cultivated insurgent feel, as the candidate both benefits and suffers politically from a relatively thin record of experience in Washington.

But the swelling team of policy advisers who have joined his campaign shows a politician grounded in his party's intellectual mainstream and well-connected within the capital's Democratic establishment.

As Obama rapidly transitioned from a senator with less than three years in office to a presidential candidate who has delivered detailed policy speeches, he has assembled a personal think tank that easily outsizes any of the established Washington policy institutes that provide intellectual fodder for the political war of ideas.

On foreign policy alone, some 200 experts are providing the Obama campaign with assistance of some sort, arranged into 20 subgroups. On the domestic front, more than 500 policy experts are contributing ideas, campaign aides said. Veterans of previous election campaigns say the scale of the policy operation resembles the full-blown effort candidates typically undertake for a general election campaign rather than the more stripped-down versions common for the primary season.

Senior advisers include heavy hitters from the administration of President Bill Clinton, husband of Obama's primary rival.

Anthony Lake, Clinton's original national security adviser, is helping coordinate foreign policy. So is Susan Rice, a Clinton assistant secretary of state and protege of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Eric Holder, a former deputy attorney general, is among those providing expertise on legal policy.

"These are not outsiders trying to tear down the temple," said Philip Zelikow, a former senior Bush administration foreign policy official and executive director of the Sept. 11 commission.

"If you guess that he's surrounded himself with people who are highly ideological, left-wing or dovish, you would guess wrong," added Zelikow, now a history professor at the University of Virginia. "These folks cannot easily be typecast by ideology."

Please..please...read more..
www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-obama_mon_nusep17,0,3844054.story
chicagotribune.com

[Danger Mouse]

50. why the fuck would we need to NUKE Osama's cave?

do the words 'fallout' and 'international outrage' mean absolutely nothing to you?

[madrchsod]

61. really?

interesting....

[Donna Zen]

67. Just so you know

Joseph Cirincione, an expert in the field of nuclear proliferation. chose to join Obama's campaign who he felt knew more than the other candidates.

We are wrong, no matter which candidate we support, to assume that these candidates are dumb. These are people who perform in life at a high level--well, not McCain---and thus I give them their due.

I do not agree with Senator Clinton about her readiness to use nukes; however, I see that as function and in agreement with her foreign policy team. She does hang with the hawks. Actually, I see their differences as less a compare and contrast between hawks and doves, and rather a move beyond old and new thinking among the various schools of foreign policy. Obama is stressing "spreading dignity" as an important component. At the same time Obama has a rather agressive approach to the bad guys.

[sandnsea]

6. Peace

Will we ever have a peace oriented country. Ever? What is so horrifying about admitting the obvious, we aren't going to use nukes to get a terrorist. Hillary is going to make the world worse, not challenge Americans to stop being dickheads so we can make the world better.

[dana_b]

52. a voice of reason. thanks. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Preach it, Dennis!

That man speaks the truth!

[JTFrog]

11. Fucking Hypocritical Sleezebag. n/t

[C_U_L8R]

12. Hillary sez; OBEY THE GODDESS OF WAR

pfffffft.

[ShortnFiery]

21. The Iron Maiden? ... Maggie Thatcher, "The Iron Lady," is HRC's stated heroine.

:crazy: :nuke:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29977-2003Jul8.html

[David__77]

20. "All options?" "Table?"

Genocide? Summary executions of villagers? Kidnapping of relatives? Public torture? "All options" indeed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Maybe she should take up quail hungitng to prove her toughness and invite Obama.

Whoops!!

[BootinUp]

24. His position is no different than hers despite your lame attempt

to spin this.

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Which Part of "Massive Retaliation" and "Totally Obliterate" Didn't You Understand?

There is a deep, deep threshold over which humanity must cross before even entertaining the thought of using nuclear weapons again. That threshold should never be taken lightly, or bandied about for the sake of political theater.

[BootinUp]

45. The part where you twist her words

into a pro war position.

She is simply saying to Iran and to Americans that question her national security policies that she will continue a long standing policy of not stating clearly whether nukes would be used or not in response just that we have the capability to use them in a response. This is a proven policy of deterence to any states with nukes that might think about using them.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

55. You seem to be kinda...bitter...about her words being twisted, Jim. nt

[stillcool]

43. Well then why is she criticizing him?

Obama's policy team loaded with all-stars
By Mike Dorning

Washington Bureau

September 17, 2007


Barack Obama's presidential bid may have a well-cultivated insurgent feel, as the candidate both benefits and suffers politically from a relatively thin record of experience in Washington.

But the swelling team of policy advisers who have joined his campaign shows a politician grounded in his party's intellectual mainstream and well-connected within the capital's Democratic establishment.

As Obama rapidly transitioned from a senator with less than three years in office to a presidential candidate who has delivered detailed policy speeches, he has assembled a personal think tank that easily outsizes any of the established Washington policy institutes that provide intellectual fodder for the political war of ideas.

On foreign policy alone, some 200 experts are providing the Obama campaign with assistance of some sort, arranged into 20 subgroups. On the domestic front, more than 500 policy experts are contributing ideas, campaign aides said. Veterans of previous election campaigns say the scale of the policy operation resembles the full-blown effort candidates typically undertake for a general election campaign rather than the more stripped-down versions common for the primary season.

Senior advisers include heavy hitters from the administration of President Bill Clinton, husband of Obama's primary rival.

Anthony Lake, Clinton's original national security adviser, is helping coordinate foreign policy. So is Susan Rice, a Clinton assistant secretary of state and protege of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Eric Holder, a former deputy attorney general, is among those providing expertise on legal policy.

"These are not outsiders trying to tear down the temple," said Philip Zelikow, a former senior Bush administration foreign policy official and executive director of the Sept. 11 commission.

"If you guess that he's surrounded himself with people who are highly ideological, left-wing or dovish, you would guess wrong," added Zelikow, now a history professor at the University of Virginia. "These folks cannot easily be typecast by ideology."

Please..please...read more..
www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-obama_mon_nusep17,0,3844054.story
chicagotribune.com

[BootinUp]

46. Because this is a political race?

you think?

[stillcool]

48. you just said there is no difference...

so she is actually criticizing herself? Does truth have no place in a political race? Or does that only apply to Mrs. Clinton?

[BootinUp]

49. I think you are just playing dumb, I don't have time for that really. nt

[stillcool]

51. typical. no answer..

cat got your tongue?

[Forkboy]

59. Two questions, if you have the time...

What does that say about her that she'd use something like this as a political tool?

And does that mean that any of Obama's tactics are acceptable because it is, after all, a "political race"?

[BootinUp]

63. Use what? A long standing policy of our government? Shocking I tell ya!

No I do not consider everything acceptable, but I have yet to see Hillary do anything I object to.

[Forkboy]

64. It's not the policy itself that I have issue with, per se.

It's the terribly undiplomatic language she used. In diplomacy EVERY word carries a special import, and one doesn't use words like "obliterate". This is a dangerous, dangerous game, and her lack of diplomatic skill and willingness to use this as a mere political ploy to gain votes in the US without regard for their effect on the world in which many countries see her a potential leader they will have to deal with is both naive and dangerous. If you don't have a problem with this you damn well should, regardless of who says it.

[BootinUp]

65. Just to recount what I believe was said

Hillary did not say she would obliterate anyone. She did say we "could" obliterate them in response to a nuclear attack. I see NOTHING objectionable there, its common sense 101. I am sure we could find something Obama has said that would shock you too based on your standard as I understand it.

[walldude]

70. Actually she said she would. She said she hoped it would be a

deterrent but she would be willing to obliterate them if they attacked Israel. There are videos all over the web.

[Forkboy]

83. Oh, I KNOW we could find comments from Obama as well.

Trust me, there's a reason these two were the bottom of my list.

But Hillary's language is still wrong, common sense or not (and anyone finding any sense in using nukes for any reason may need their head examined). It has nothing to do with Obama. I'd be just as bothered if Kucinich said this.

This is where vast chunks of every candidate's supporters lose me. When people defend things that any Dem/Liberal should be truly bothered by because it came from the mouth of one they like is a sad statement on how loosely they hold to their ideals in favor of winning. Hillary supporters are far from being alone in this, as I've seen it from every quarter in every election since I've been paying attention. And it always bothers me. There are some things I wouldn't defend my candidate on.

[walldude]

68. You don't have a problem with the policy per se?

Then could you please answer the question in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5654389

Here's the post in case you don't want to switch threads:


If Iraq were to somehow get a nuclear weapon tomorrow, they would have every right to drop it on the U.S. Is that correct? We invaded their country, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, they had no WMD's, no ties to 9/11 and were not a threat to the U.S. Yet we invaded and are occupying their country.
Hillary claimed if Iran attacked Israel we would be within our rights to "obliterate" them with nukes. Using that logic I would have to assume the Hillary supporters who back up her statement would be in support of Iraq obliterating the U.S. if they were somehow able to get a hold of a nuke. Or can you explain how we would be within our rights but Iraq would not.

[Forkboy]

82. Well, I do have a problem with it, but it was tangential to the point I was going for.

If I had my way the damn things wouldn't even exist.

By the logic our country has employed for decades, yes, Iraq would have that right.

The specific policy I was talking about in my other post was our response to an attack on Israel. Like it or not, every President has held that position. I don't like it, but there it is, and it won't change under any of the three candidates running, or 99% of any candidates who have run in the past, or will run in the future.

[JVS]

56. Pandering to people who want nuclear war is now acceptable?

[BootinUp]

57. Ridiculous charge, I'm wasting my time clearly. nt

[madrchsod]

69. it seems it is

it`s the neo-con way...

[Why Syzygy]

31. huh . "thoughtfulness" Yes, she has none. She only knows reactionism.

[aaroh]

40. Can't see how Kucinich can endorse HIllary now

[NorthCarolina]

74. I don't believe Dennis will endorse either candidate

because neither has publicly denounced the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy, which is a requirement for his endorsement as stated in one of the early Democratic primaries in which the media allowed him to participate. He will no doubt support the ultimate nominee, but I really don't foresee any public endorsement.

[Orsino]

53. If I believed her, I would be more upset.

I believe that that was simply a misguided attempt to pander to her blue-collar support. She thinks the little people dig that tough talk, so she gave 'em a truckload on the eve of the primary.

I still think she has the sense not to use nukes, but her using the threat so casually lessens her in my eyes.

[JVS]

54. !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg

[Zhade]

60. She WON'T rule out nuking civilians?

She's fucking insane.

[madrchsod]

66. she has`t heard of moab?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm
GBU-43/B / "Mother Of All Bombs" / Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/030311-d-9085m-004.mpg
030311-d-9085m-004.mpg (video/mpeg Object)

ya she`s ready from day one...to fuck up worse than .....

[Umbram]

78. Sad what supporting Clinton does to otherwise proud progressives.

Who thought they'd lower themselves to glowing with pride that their candidate wants to remind the world that nukes are always on the table.

Pathetic and sad. Both of these candidates are corporatist and centrist - we as supporters don't have to stoop so low in adopting their BS by supporting them when they are completely fucking wrong.

[ecstatic]

79. I am full of rage after reading this

It's time for me to take a step back. I just CANNOT F*CKING BELIEVE that any "liberals" are supporting this warmongering, fearmongering, gas-price raising, lying liar. I'm done. :puke: :mad:

[EndElectoral]

80. Sounds like Republican rhetoric. Afraid she needs to appear tough, so she pulls out the nuke option.

She really needs to look at those Hiroshima and Nagasaki pics again.

It might not be a bad idea to look at the myth of Pandora's Box again.

Also could someone ask her if this allows Putin to use nukes against Chechnya rebels as well, or China agaisnt Tibetan extremists they view as terrorists.

She's a loose canon like GW, and her inflammatory comments about Iran lately and now this make me realize she may be Bush lite.