Do As I Say, v2.0
The naivete sweepstakes continue in the Democratic presidential primary campaign. Hillary Clinton rightly scolded Barack Obama for effectively negating our nuclear deterrent by proclaiming them "off the table" earlier this month. While the Hillary campaign used that to show how inept Obama is at foreign policy, Fox News did a little digging (via Hot Air):
Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan."There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he said.
Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
Hilary is exactly correct on that point. In fact, she's so on point that she should chastise every candidate who issues blanket stand-downs like Obama's. She should start, however, with herself:
But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention — possibly even a nuclear strike — to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program."I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."
Her excuse? Obama was talking about a "broad hypothetical". Hillary was asked about a specific situation involving Iran.
Oh, I get it. If we're not talking about a specific and real enemy for which we need a nuclear deterrent, then we should never give that deterrent away. If, on the other hand, we're talking about a country that has conducting a low-level war against us, sponsored terrorism around the world, and is currently trying to produce nuclear weapons -- then it's OK to eliminate our nuclear deterrent.
Yeah, that's just the kind of thinking we need in the White House! I thought Barack Obama had the Naivete Sweepstakes sewn up, but Hillary's extra dollop of hypocrisy may have put her ahead by a nose -- or the other end of the horse.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on August 9, 2007 3:45 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (9)
Posted by Teresa | August 9, 2007 4:15 PM
Call me crazy (and I know you will), but I kind of think that nukes out to be off the table re Pakistan and that we should say so. None of the threats from Islamic terrorists that we are currently facing would be helped by using them (Tom Tancredo's desire to bomb Mecca aside). All of the terrorists forces are deeply imbedded within civilian societies. We all know they are NOT going to be used, the terrorists know they won't be used, so who are we fooling?
It would be as if Britain threatened to nuke Northern Ireland when all the IRA bombings were going on in the 70's. Terrorism is so deadly effective because they can blend in with the civilian population.
Obama had a point, I thought, the other night when he said that Washington insiders should not be the only ones who "know what is going on" when all these code words and phrases are thrown around.
As far as a politician being hypocritical, color me shocked.
Posted by Adjoran | August 9, 2007 5:47 PM
There is a reason Presidents never take any options off the table. It is in our interests to keep our enemies guessing.
If we are going to "take nukes off the table" in various cases, the question will be raised in every case. It's guaranteed.
From there, also "will you take cluster bombs off the table?" "Fire bombs?" "Cruise missiles?" "Anti-personnel rockets?" "Scary looking automatic weapons?" & etc. . .
There is no end. Don't start down that path in the first place.
The fact that Hillary isn't qualified either doesn't make Obama any less unqualified. Just say "NO" to Democrats.
Posted by lexhamfox | August 9, 2007 6:41 PM
Adjoran, I did not realize that Afghanistan and Pakistan were our enemies.... just the other day I heard a Republican President call them allies.
It's pathetic that this is an issue. No wonder countries feel a need to have their own nuclear capability to bring to the 'table.'
Posted by cv | August 9, 2007 6:55 PM
So your against the possible use of tactical nukes?
Posted by docjim505 | August 9, 2007 7:35 PM
Why take anything off the table? Of course you don't threaten allies with nukes, or really with much of anything other than the odd trade sanction or tariff. But you also don't go into ANY negotiation with a list of things you WON'T do. And if you're dealing with hostile nations like Iran or North Korea? Only an idiot would take nukes "off the table". To borrow from the novel Piece of Cake: the world is divided up into bastards and suckers. Decide now which you're going to be.
I'm not in favor of saber rattling or nuclear bullying, but nations hostile to the United States or our allies need to understand that we've got a big stick, we've used it before, and we'll use it again if we have to.
Posted by swabjockey05 | August 10, 2007 5:32 AM
It's all a game to these dhimmicrat twits...color me shocked.
You're just as dead if you get burned up by a tactical nuke, carpet bombed by a couple BUFs....or hit in the noggin with a .30 cal w/full metal jacket.
But it's soooo much fun to play politics, isn't it? Which country should we threaten with nukes...which country should we not threaten with nukes? Maybe we should just take the moral high ground and claim to want to disassemble all our nukes. We'd never actually “do” that though...but let's discuss it. We need to babble about what we should or should not "have on the table". You call us hypocrites? No, that's just part of the game. You do it too. We dhimmis have these discussions to make ourselves feel so much like adults. "Important" adults.
Posted by Immolate | August 10, 2007 6:20 AM
I'm not above a little gratuitous Hillary bashing, but when some dumbass reporter is grilling you about what you'd consider doing to Iran to compel them to behave and drops the N word, I'm not surprised that Hillary or anyone else would say "no, that's not an option I'd consider." If she'd said "I wouldn't nuke Iran even if they nuked us or an ally," that'd be different, but that wasn't the context. Trying to equate her statement to Obama's is just as pigheaded and obnoxious as the kind of stuff the Dems and liberals do on a daily basis--it is willfully casting a statement in an inaccurate light in the hopes that people won't bother digging deep enough to get context. It is establishing a "meme".
You don't have to dig two inches into the things that Hillary has said in the past two years to find multiple, glaring contradictions and bona fide flip-flops. Why sacrifice honesty to do it on this one?
Posted by swabjockey05 | August 10, 2007 6:58 AM
Good point immolate. But if you “take nukes off the table” in ref to Iran, wouldn't that include a theoretical quid pro quo counter attack? Are they off the table or not?
In either event, my gratuitous bashing was aimed at the dhimmi posters this time, not the dhimmi candidates.
Posted by swabjockey05 | August 10, 2007 7:00 AM
Also, there are plenty of dhimmicrats who would argue against a nuclear counter attack...ESPECIALLY if "we" could "prove" it was Iran who nuked us...