Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Obama: A New Position on Nuclear?
Clearly - wait, scratch that - puzzlingly, no wait - predictably? Yes, predictably.
Predictably, the bumbler (heard any of his press conferences while abroad?) Barack Obama has changed his public opinion on yet another matter of foreign policy import - the proposed use of nuclear weapons. On August 2, 2007, Obama had this to say about the use of the American nuclear arsenal
But when asked by The Associated Press after a Capitol Hill breakfast with constituents whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama replied that “There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss.”
When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.
Now, the flaccid senator from Illinois has apparently changed his mind
Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take “no options off the table” in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.
“A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama told reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.
Unless, of course, his understanding of what a table actually constitutes is something different than the commonly used metaphor implies. Does he even know what he believes?
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Obama never said that nukes were off the table in that quote, he simply said he wasn’t going to discuss it, and he didn’t discuss it at his press conference in Israel either.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Sean, from the article Nathan linked:
“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Mr. 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.”
July 24th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Right, and he immediately clarified his statements.
Regardless, just because “all options are on the table” doesn’t inherently mean that includes Nuclear Weapons. If that were the case, chemical warfare, civilian death squads, rape, and the Neutron Bomb would have to be included in the statement “no options off the table.”
July 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
No, he realized that he accidently let the mask slip.
To have nuclear weapons as a potential deterence option is not something you should have to think about off the top of your head.
To hum and haw about it is a bit disconcerting.
And your second paragraph is just silly.