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.<\/p>\n
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<\/a>, 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<\/em>] regard to use or nonuse.”<\/p>\n Her comments became more noteworthy today<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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. […]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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. 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 -\u2013 tactical nuclear weapons. Should those options be on the table when it comes to Iran?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.”<\/p>\n
\n
\nFor the sake of clarity, here’s exactly what Clinton said<\/a> about Iran and nukes in April 2006:<\/p>\n