Now Barack is fumbling the nuclear weapons ball (no pun intended):
“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, “involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”
Is it just me – or does this sound like someone way over his head?
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
It’s not just you.
Obama sounds like some kid running for high school student council president…and who’s going to lose.
I doubt Obama has the intellect to understand that when a president, any president, is asked about nuclear weapons, it is imperative (despite his internal qualms) that he state that the use of nuclear weapons is one of the options available to his administration. To do otherwise is to preemptively surrender his ace in the hole in the deadly high stakes poker game of international power politics.
Obama is way over his head. He’s a freshman Senator in a part that hasn’t been serious about security for some time now, and he has no administrative experience. He seems to be Hollywood’s alternative to Hillery Clinton.
Well, he hasn’t had a “Breck Girl” moment yet. By which I mean a moment that seals a label on him for his not-ready-for-prime-time status, after which he’s just going to be a joke.
I think that happened with Edwards when Kerry joked “And we have better hair”. Unfortunately for Edwards, people realized that better hair really was all Edwards had to recommend him for the VP slot.
And if our AQ buddies nuke us first?
Roger,
Though we all complain, and with some justice, of this seemingly interminable primary process, especially this time around, Obama’s gaffe reminds us that it is very important for these candidates to get plenty of time to expose us all to their “thinking.”
Jamie Irons
There is a further wrinkle to Obama’s comments on his proposed invasion of Pakistan that I haven’t so far seen anyone take note of, namely, the oddity that he criticizes Bush for not talking with dictatorial regimes who are our enemies (Iran, North Korea, et alia), but proposes invading a dictatorial regime who is our ally (Pakistan, however ambivalent such an ally may be).
Jamie Irons
“Let me scratch that.”
The mere fact that he thinks that can happen shows he’s out of depth.
The Barack girl would be out of his depth in the Sahara
Anyway, i thought the lefties had decided back in 2003 that only a combat veteran should be allowed to invade another country.
Barak Obama is the “I will vote for him to prove that I’m not a racist” candidate. He is very shallow and would not be seriously considered were he not a black man. Many well meaning whites are looking for any excuse to cast their ballot on his behalf.
This guy is a joke. A bad joke. But be prepared to refer to him as Vice President Obama.
Well, he needs to think long and hard about being a VP under a Clinton. The last one ended up insane.
Democrats tend to argue that we need not worry overmuch about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons because “deterrence” will keep that country from using them.
Obama has just negated the effectiveness of deterrence in any administration he might head.
Not that I think deterrence necessarily represents a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Iran.
Mr Larsen
“The last one ended up insane”
Too funny………..
Perhaps the Dems have now lost their sense of irony, having lost most of their other senses some time ago. By saying, he wouldn’t use nukes under any circumstances, Obama actually increases the chances that, if elected, he would have to. The threat of use has prevented their use to a large degree. Good job, Obama, embolden the Iranians to actually shoot something off. Or inadvertently topple Musharraf and watch extreme Islamists with their fingers on the button as President Obama reassures America that it will be safe via the audacity of hope….aka a wish and a prayer.
Wretchard has an analysis of this, mostly from the security viewpoint.
How likely is it that such a pledge would ever have to be considered? A President Obama would be in office from 2008 to perhaps 2016. Over that time frame, most analysts would regard the possibility of al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons as almost nil, unless of course it could seize Pakistani atomic weapons. But the odds that al-Qaeda can mount a radiological, chemical or biological attack are substantially higher. One expert I listened to says the use of radiological bombs against Western targets is a definite possibility. A radiological attack planned or mounted from Afghanistan or Pakistan within the 2008-2016 time frame is not to be discounted. While the proper response to such an attack may not include nuclear weapons (because effective conventional ripostes are available) Hillary Clinton is right in saying that categorically taking the option off the table merely simplifies al-Qaeda’s planning by telling them in advance what they need not fear. One might even argue that it signals what they may attempt with relative impunity.
This is especially dangerous because biological weapons may eventually come to rival, if not exceed the lethality of nukes. And one of the grey areas which was never fully explored during the Cold War is whether a sufficiently lethal non-nuclear attack would cross a threshold which would provoke an American nuclear retaliation. But because it was a grey area, no foe using such weapons could ever be sure that US national command authority would consider the threshold crossed. To Obama at least, the area is not grey. Insofar as the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan are concerned, the answer is crystal clear. “His position could not be more clear,” said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki. “He would not consider using nuclear weapons to fight terror targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
… And my guess is that Obama’s stance is being articulated for political advantage by casting himself as a “war fighting” President yet one who will fight it on terms his political base will approve of. Here’s a man who will attack Pakistan if need be, with a scale of forces that has excited derision it’s true, but who will never go too far and use nuclear weapons. Obama is legitimately fleshing out what a liberal War on Terror would look like. And while one might criticize it as being dangerous, stupid or whatever, he has at least mapped out an alternative to the Bush strategy. And in so doing Obama has distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton who while more tentative than Obama in criticizing the Bush strategy, has not herself articulated a positive program for fighting the War on Terror, apart from looking wise and sage. And that’s fair enough. Whether or not one disagrees with Obama’s strategy (and I do) he has at least set it forth. If the Counterterrorism Blog is correct, then we are beginning to see the shape of a Democrat strategy in fighting the War on Terror.
“Let me scratch that.”
“His entire testimony must be stricken from the record. You shouldn’t have heard it, but you did. Now, that was my mistake… and you must strike it from your minds, give it no weight.”
The verdict (1982)
By scratching the nukes, Obama may have unwittingly scratched himself off the starting lineup.