Clinton, Obama, and nukes … oh my

August 9, 2007

Last week, Barack Obama caused an unexpected (and largely unwarranted) stir when he said he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons to attack terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His critics (from both parties) didn’t disagree with his policy position, but they blasted him for making the comments publicly.

It was irresponsible, critics said, for a would-be president to talk about nuclear options in a hypothetical scenario. In particular, Hillary Clinton chided Obama, saying, “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 [sic] regard to use or nonuse.”

Her comments became more noteworthy today.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago. “I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” she said in April 2006.

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. […]

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.” But that’s exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006.

This is a mild embarrassment for the Clinton campaign, but I’d argue that the entire flap has been one bit of silliness followed by another.

For the sake of clarity, here’s exactly what Clinton said about Iran and nukes in April 2006:

HUNT: Senator, you sit in the Armed Services Committee. There were reports this weekend, the “Washington Post” and elsewhere, that the United States is considering a military option against Iran if it won’t relinquish any ambitions to nuclear weapons. The “New Yorker” even said that we’re considering using nuclear -– tactical nuclear weapons. Should those options be on the table when it comes to Iran?

CLINTON: Well, I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And 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.

Phil Singer, Clinton’s campaign spokesperson, said Clinton’s remarks are qualitatively different because she “wasn’t talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate.”

Maybe. Frankly, the differences between Clinton’s comments and Obama’s are minimal, and more importantly, their policies are practically indistinguishable. As Greg Sargent explained, “Hillary was clearly ruling out nukes in a very specific situation: Whether to use them against Iran. On the other hand, Obama was ruling them out in a specific situation, if a hypothetical one: Whether he’d use them against terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So what we now have here is this: One candidate (Obama) ruled out nukes in a specific but hypothetical situation; the other (Hillary) ruled them out in a specific but more or less non-hypothetical one.”

Let’s see if I have all the silliness straight. An AP reporter asked Obama a silly question about nuking terrorists. The media then offered silly coverage of an obvious and non-silly response. Clinton was silly to attack Obama over this, as were the silly GOP candidates who tried to make hay of this. Another silly story appears today about Clinton’s apparent contradiction, which, if it came from the Obama campaign, would be silly.

What’s the bottom line? Obama and Clinton believe the same thing about the same issue, and have stated the same, non-controversial policy publicly. And yet, it’s been a huge point of contention for a week … for reasons that I still don’t fully understand.

i think what troubles me the most about this and so much of what is going on in washington today is secrecy. yeah, i know, there are some things that probably do need to be kept secret, but damn it, i want to know more about what my government is doing (in my name) and i think there is too much being done behind closed doors. we have confidential portions of appropriations bills, confidential discussions of secret programs. it drives me nuts sometimes.

  • I don’t think that Clinton can be called a flip-flopper- that was then, this is now; in one qyestion, the situation asked about is more specific, in the other, it’s more “blanket”; one statement deals with more a hypothetical than the other; they have to do with different countries.

    It’s childish to call her a hypocrite.

  • OK to me Obama’s statement last week and his defense of it at Tuesday’s debate made emminent sense. So did Clinton’s statement about not nuking Iran. They both also had valid points when Obama said these things should be discussed publicly with the American people and not just by DC insiders, and when Clinton said Presidential candidates needed to be careful in public discussions because the world has ears. And we can argue all day about the relative merits of each statement.

    But Clinton picked this fight to show how Obama is inexperienced. She is trying to get him to back down, which will go a long way in her narrative that she’s the only strong candidate unwilling to give up a fight. And by not backing down, Obama is showing that her easy meme isn’t going to work on him. And I say, good on him.

  • Actually, I think Obama’s position (no nukes on terrorists) is significantly different than Clinton’s (no nukes on Iran). While reasonable people could disagree, using nuclear weapons against a state government based on its perceived misbehavior seems slightly more defensible, ethically, than using them on a rogue group of individuals within the larger population. [Note: I am not suggesting that I would find that ethical, just that I can see a basis for the argument].
    Moreover, on a tactical level, at least, there are some practical justifications for using nukes on Iran (going after hardened sites far underground) that don’t seem to be applicable to using them on terrorists (unless we have reliable intelligence that Osama is holed up in a cave far underground).
    In short, I think Obama had the better of this argument even before Clinton’s prior comments came to light; now, she just looks like she was trying to score points without any principled basis, which is dangerously close to the stereotype she already has.

  • “I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

    Clinton/Tancredo 2008.

    Here’s a radical idea Sen. Clinton; Maybe Sen. Obama was trying to reassure all of the other people who would get fried when a nuke detonated in their backyards that he didn’t want to slaughter them just to kill bin Laden.

    Is she really, truly (on the anniversary of Hiroshima/Nagasaki no less) calmly discussing the wholesale destruction of countless people in the hopes of getting at a few thugs holed up in caves? Maybe if someone explained to the Senator from New York what it is a nuke actually does she would reconsider.

    Why are we even having this conversation and where the fuck does it lead us? Terrorists don’t obligingly sit in one distinct place, are we going to consider nuking every place they are known to be active? I guess that would be a final and fitting turd on the pile of shit we’ve heaped on the people of Iraq.

    This is fucking crazy and I really don’t care what she said in 2006. This “Me tough on terror, me nuke bad guys,” bullshit chest beating has got to stop. I find it even more disturbing than the ReThug candidates getting woodies over Double Gitmo and torture.

    [/rant]

  • That these topics are even considered as proper for discussion and debate shows how far down the road to destruction Bush has brought this country and the world. Throughout the Cold War we faced a nuclear armed Soviet Union (and to a lesser extent China) that had the capability of ending the existence of the United States. Our nuclear arsenal was the deterrent to this possibility because they also knew that we could equally destroy them. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) was considered true madness by some, but it did work. But even at the height of the Cold War, arguably the Cuban Missle Crisis, it was the stated policy of the United States that we would never use nuclear weapons FIRST. If we were attacked with nuclear weapons, the gloves came off and we would strike back in kind. Only under Cheney/Bush has the possibility been raised that the US would use nuclear weapons first.

    Can anyone really tell me that they feel safer now that discussions of the first use of nuclear weapons is just another campaign debating point? The current administration needs to rot in hell — all of them.

  • “What’s the bottom line? Obama and Clinton believe the same thing about the same issue, and have stated the same, non-controversial policy publicly. And yet, it’s been a huge point of contention for a week … for reasons that I still don’t fully understand.”

    Because both of them need and want a bit of distance from each other to shake up the polls and create a bit of excitement?
    To encourage a semblance (and nothing more) of deep and serious disagreement?

    Oh, yes, I know…
    Obama and Clinton are, like, totally opposite,
    and only one can save the republic!

    Clintonians point to her important numbers,
    Obama-ramas boast about his honesty and charisma.
    And Edwards has emerged as, yes, a losing candidate,
    but at least he’s sorta moving left.

    And I’m glad I ain’t American.
    If I were, though, yeah, I’d vote Democrat…
    But it’s not like it would be a hard choice.
    The Republicans have seen to that.
    But the Democrats seem hellbound
    to prove that they ARE indeed weak.

    The Democrats seem to be the ultimate cowardly lions.
    They’ve gained a shitload of power,
    but are afraid to actually, you know, USE it.

  • “And yet, it’s been a huge point of contention for a week … for reasons that I still don’t fully understand.”

    Just seems to me that Clinton’s campaign has been trying to score some cheapo points against Obama. Calculating is what they say she and looks like we’re seeing it in motion.

    Is it just me or does this cheap tactic remind anyone else about how the GOP flakes have attacked the Dems for quite a while? Is Clinton’s campaign borrowing a page out of their playbook?

  • I think CR’s SILLINESS label is right on target. Any reasonable adult in this world understands that the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. is always possible. That possibility is an inherent part of the deterrence effect. The fact that Obama answered a reporter’s question about the hypothetical use of nukes in a certain situation by saying he doesn’t think the situation would warrant use of nukes should be taken for what it is. It’s his view of a limited hypothetical, based on assumptions and conditions today. Anyone who thinks a statement like that removes all possibility of using nukes no matter what happens is an idiot. And this would be true even if the statement came from a sitting President of the United States. People (press corps and everyone else) need to get real!

  • he primaries are still so far away that I wish these candidates would really quit using any little bickering to get national attention. It takes the focus off the real present day issues abounding all around us. Who cares about all this futuristic pandering and what ifs.
    We should be focused on oversight and accountability of the present regime. We should be focused on ending funding for the occupation, on getting our DoJ back and getting rid of Gonzales; on preventing this president from attacking Iran; or allowing a terrorist attack; on why the only two people in the legislature who could prevent the Patriot Act from moving through congress were the only two to get anthrax in the mail when they attempted to do just that; focus on making sure we have fair and honest elections in ’08 by getting rid of the voting machines and producing a paper ballot. Instead the news is Obama mis speaking, Hillary mis blaming do dah do dah. Kucinich’s suit, Edwards hair, Obama blackness, Hillary’s cleavage …somebody stop me. Our country is currently being run into the ground by the corporate government led by BUSH/CHENEY/ROVE/GONZALES…Focus Hillary…Focus Obama…focus on NOW!

  • Nuke used to always, be off the table. No responsible person would have said nukes are on the table. It’s only with chickenhawks that the emphasis has been that nukes are on the table. Hillary sounds like all the Republicans who think the President should lie to the American people in order to lie to the “enemy”. I give Obama points for openness.

  • 10. On August 9th, 2007 at 5:38 pm, bjobotts said:
    he primaries are still so far away that I wish these candidates would really quit using any little bickering to get national attention. It takes the focus off the real present day issues abounding all around us. Who cares about all this futuristic pandering and what ifs.

    I’m with bjobotts on this. The candidates should all be attacking the Republicans instead of each other at least until the real primary season comes.

  • Just seems to me that Clinton’s campaign has been trying to score some cheapo points against Obama. –Kv, @8

    Yep, this had been my impression too; could’t resist a spot of “gotcha”, to get a bit more ahead of Obama. Hoist on her own petard an’ all, now that her quote from ’06 has come to light.

  • Basically, all this shows is that Clinton’s criticism, which seemed misguided from the start, was wholly disingenuous and designed to repudiate very sane foreign policy positions in the name of scoring political points. Awesome.

    From the candidate who has the nerve to say in a debate that she doesn’t want to fight other Dems. Yeah, I don’t want to fight, only take cheap shots based on vacuous crap.

    Of course, this should be no surprise, given the pretzel logic of that criticism and the one on Pakistan (basically, that Obama shouldn’t publicly discuss using conventional arms on Pakistani soil, but he should be willing to discuss publicly using nuclear arms on Pakistani soil)

  • When considering how “unpresidential” these gaffes supposedly cause Obama to look, one might consider that the standard for presidentiality is pretty frickin’ low.

    I just wish Hillary would spend as much time and energy tearing into Bush over Bush’s demonstrably false and needlessly provocative claims as she does trying to score points on Obama.

  • What? No big headline? Hillary Clinton isn’t a flip-flopper…she is a liar. She is being coddled by the media, and she has yet to explain her Iraq vote. She hasn’t apologized…so I assume she believes she made the right decision. Think about that…she is unable to admit a mistake for political reasons. Just like she voted to authorize this war for political reasons. What is her supposed campaign slogan “change”??? LOL.

    This revelation is quite hilarious. I have not heard one peep of it on broadcast news. Nothing on the cable shows that comes close to the almost rhetorical lynching of Obama…even when the AP fabricated the story…that didn’t get attention either. The media is at it again. The same media that sold the Iraq war is now selling Hillary Clinton as a competent leader. As phoney as WMDs in Iraq, I find Hillary Clinton as a competent leader more of a stretch.

  • Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago. “I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” she said in April 2006.

    Taking nukes off the table???
    That’s it. Hilary is just too soft and womanly to be president. The Rooskies will be all over us in a minute if she’s elected. Whar’s mah beer?

  • So neither of them will nuke an innocent population to strike a few baddies. Good.

    Only one of them will attack the other Fox News style to score cheap points with an electorate she hopes is only mildly paying attention.

    The Clinton mantra is ‘say whatever it takes to get elected,’ and that’s too much like the GOP for me.

  • The answer is orange said:
    “I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”
    Clinton/Tancredo 2008.

    Nailed it.

    • Comments are closed.