Clinton and Obama on Nukes
09 August 2007 4:16 pm by Taylor Marsh
 |
Taking Obama to task for not leaving nukes on the table in the (ahem) “war
on terror,” Clinton is now taking some criticism in comparison for what
she said last year on Iran. Via the AP:
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. … ..
As the article states, Clnton was talking about Iran.
Her campaign responds that Clinton’s remarks were different from Obama’s.
“‘She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney
administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it
refused to engage diplomatically,’ [spokesman Phil Singer] said. ‘She wasn’t
talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential
candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House
at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report
and call it the wrong policy.’”
Iran and terrorists are two different things. There is no evidence that Iran
— I can’t believe I’m about to write this statement – should be nuked,
considered for such action, or that this is even a plausible way of dealing
with Iran. But that’s not the easy part. Looking at Iraq, do you honestly believe
nuking Iran helps us? What about our military in Iraq? There is no circumstance
where nuking Iran is in our interests, none. Unless, of course, they
unload on Detroit. Next we come to Israel, which does not benefit from the U.S.
nuking Iran. So, yes, nuclear weapons should be off the table vis-Ã -vis
Iran. That is, unless Democrats have decided to channel the foreign policy fantasies
of Dick Cheney.
As for nuking terrorists, think about it for one minute. How would that work,
exactly? Bomb London? Germany? Terrorists often hide amidst large cities. I
can’t wait for someone to make that case. Or are we talking about nuking a terrorist
stronghold that is about to strike us, our troops in Iraq, or has nukes? When
we’re in that situation, ask me.
But then again, you simply don’t or should not talk about using nuclear weapons. It’s irresponsible
in the extreme. We’ve got them, plus tactical nukes. That’s no surprise. In addition, I don’t think anyone can say unequivocally what he or she will do in any
circumstance that hasn’t happened yet. It’s different when the situation
is playing out in real time.
However, again, talking about hypothetical nuclear exchanges is insane. The dialogue makes the issue acceptable and the philosophy behind it plausible, which in the 21st century it should
not be. To channel a dumb blonde bimbo for a second, mutually assured destruction
is way 20th century. A-kay?
