If Obama had said the opposite of what he did, the headline would have been: "Obama says he will nuke Pakistan! He's krazier than Rudy!"

I can't see why Clinton is going after Obama so hard on this, what with the polling data discussed earlier today.

Unless internal polls are painting a different story?

In any event, it's not making the Clinton campaign more favorable in my eyes.

Obama says X about foreign policy. The Clinton campaign says "anybody who says X" is naive and lacks experience, or, the Clinton campaign says "not X" and by saying "not X", we're demonstrating the experience, and judgment, of our candidate.

Obama was out front on both the foreign policy dustups. The first time, because the questioner wanted his response. Yesterday, because of the speech. The Clinton campaign seems to be doing more "gotcha" work than actually leading the discussion--

When it comes to foreign policy, this debate should center on two facts. Hillary fully endorsed the worst mistake the United States has made in 50 years. Obama did not. Barack shouldn’t be on the defensive.

This will be interesting... if the polls are any indication, Hillary has made out rather well by attacking Obama on foreign policy grounds.

But she can take it too far and I think this might be an example. As I read this I thought to myself, "Well, I don't think it's a good idea to use nuclear weapons against terrorists either." I can't be alone in thinking that.

Heck, even people who are hawks would say that using a nuclear weapon against a terrorist cell would be a bit of an overkill.

Hillary's scored some points but she'd better be careful. She keeps talking like this and she's going to overstep and seem bloodthirsty.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I can't see why Clinton is going after Obama so hard on this, what with the polling data discussed earlier today.

She has him on the ropes. He's cut over both eyes. And, she's going for the knockout ("naive" in Presidential race is the equivalent of hitting the canvas for the 10-count).

She's going to keep punching him until the referree stops the fight.

Have people forgotten that "Nuke 'em" Hillary was a Goldwater Girl?

For any youngsters here, Goldwater suggested using "tactical" nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

Best, Terry

well, on the other hand, Hillary was responding directly to a question which did accurately reflect Obama's comments. Here's the fuller transcript:

QUESTION: Senator Clinton, Senator Obama today said that the use
of nuclear weapons would be off the table in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
I'm wondering if you agree with that.

CLINTON: Well, I'm not going to answer hypotheticals. But let's
find Osama bin Laden and his leadership first.

And I think that presidents should be very careful at all times
in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents,
since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace.
And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket
statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.

But I think we'll leave it at that, because I don't know the
circumstances in which he was responding.

so my read is, she's saying very directly that it was wrong to rule out using nukes in any situation, including in afghanistan and pakistan. not saying I agree, just saying that I think she was responding to the actual comments...

wait, i thought obama was naive for wanting to talk to bad guys, then he was a warmonger cause he would take out al qaeda in pakistan (as everyone else says they would), now he's weak cause he won't make a first nuclear strike. in mutt romney working for hillary now?

The Rasmussen poll showed that Dems agreed with Obama regarding conducting diplomacy with foreign leaders without precondition, 55%-22%, so I doubt any movement in the polls has much to do with that.

Keeping nukes on the table for use against terrorist cells seems pretty stupid to me. It's far different that keeping them on the table against Iran or something like that.

It's VERY likely to lead to a new nuclear arms race involving tactical nukes (i.e. smaller, more easily deployable ones). More tactical nukes means a more dangerous world, including more danger of these types of nukes falling into the wrong hands.

Hillary's team is going for the easy soundbite answer b/c they think people give her more credit on foreign policy than they do Obama (overcrediting "experience" and undercrediting judgment), so she is seeking to exploit that perceived (and probably polled and focus grouped) advantage.

However, she is breathtakingly, stunningly just dead wrong on the policy. It really is a Bush-Cheney policy. It is. It's that simple. She seems pretty sure that it won't stick, but she really seems to be working overtime to earn the Bush-Cheney lite label.

dupe

I am not a Hillary supporter, and if I had to vote right now in my state's primary, I would vote for Edwards. Having said that, however, you have to keep in mind this is a political campaign and both sides want to win. They are going to use any advantage they have, which includes attacking the other candidate. In this case each campaign believes that it has an advantage in pushing the foreign policy angle, so it will continue.

Mrgavel

J. McCutchen

First thing that came to my mind

See Link below - the Daisy Girl

haha, yeah, its at the point where the attacks don't even get me angry anymore. No matter what Obama says, Hillary will say something different and say Obama's answer was naive, and then Dodd and Biden will try to out-do each other in saying "hell yeah!" in the hopes of getting the VP nod should Hillary win. Its kinda funny at this point.

Reporter: Senator Obama, do you put on both socks before putting on either shoe, or do you put on one sock, then shoe, other sock, other shoe?

Obama: that's a bit of a silly question, no? I don't really have a method

Clinton: That goes to show how naive and inexperienced Barack is when it comes to foreign policy. When I got a call at 1 am from the War Room about an imminent threat to the United States, I'm not going to have to waste a single second fumbling with my shoes, because I have a clear plan to get my shoes on quickly and without any difficulty. I won't be discussing that plan here because that would be so un-Presidential.

Dodd: Yeah, Barack, you shouldn't even be discussing that question!

Biden: I don't even take my shoes off! That way I'm always ready! What a naif that Barack is.

J. McCutchen

So you say. I'd say Hillary's on the run. She's lost it

Shown her true colors

Who in God's name does she think she is? Brunehilde?

Er, the question wasn't about policy with Pakistan.

From that USA Today AP article:
"There's been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss," Obama said after a Capitol Hill breakfast with constituents.

He should have stuck with that.

Now here is a pro:
"Asked about the notion of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership: 'How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons.'"
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/obama-nukes-wou.html

That's how it's done. Yeah it was Hillary. She nailed it. Maybe she would completely blow the actual act of destroying terrorists. But having been a first lady for 8 years that was absolutely hounded by the "liberal media" with one dumb question after another she knows how to handle those idiots. After a long day, first thing in the morning, at the end of the week, in her sleep she can handle the press. That’s a problem for all the other candidates.

Thanks for the laugh---

This is silly. I mean, gimme a break.

First, what he said is a corollary to saying yesterday that he would go after terrorists in Pakistan if Musharraf refuses to act, as Musharraf did in 2005. He said that he's not going to use nukes against terrorists hiding in Pakistan, i.e. in Waziristan or wherever.

If the need arises to use them against Pakistan as a whole, he has not taken them off the table, but seriously, what difference does it make? There is no scenario involving us nuking Pakistan.

India is a nuclear power as well. Do we need to keep nukes on the table in our dealings with them? France? Does Canada have nukes?

J. McCutchen

Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President of the US. Martin van Creveld explained the matter beautifully:

In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old – even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife – will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces – whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on – things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.

In other words, he who fights against the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat; if U.S troops in Iraq have not yet started fragging their officers, the suicide rate among them is already exceptionally high. That is why the present adventure will almost certainly end as the previous one did. Namely, with the last US troops fleeing the country while hanging on to their helicopters’ skids.

Well, I'd put it this way... if I had to pick some one I'd like to have a beer with in a bar where a fight might break out, I'd pick Hillary over Bush or Cheney.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Of course our nuclear deterence is on the table. Nuclear deterence is the most fundamental tenet of our national security policy against all nuclear states.

Nuclear deterence is what kept us and the Russians from blowing each other to smithereens during the entirely of the cold war.

Now, we can discuss whether that doctrine should be revised, accompanied by a total dismantling of nuclear arsenals. That's an interesting discussion. But, the campaign trail is no place for that kind of decision-making.

The number one job of a US President is to fully understand nuclear deterence. The President's finger is on the button.

Hillary's answer was garbage. Obama wasn't speaking as president. He was speaking as a candidate for president. Hillary was doing her usual hedging, and it's so obvious that she doesn't want to take a position that might risk letting people know who she really is or what she really thinks. Does she mean to imply that, if elected, Obama would spend his days shooting his mouth off about military actions that were about to take place? Because that's crap. Obviously he wouldn't.

I hope for Hillary's sake she doesn't plan to spend the rest of the campaign sniping at Obama from the sidelines.

She is saying you never know, so I guess that means she might.

And this is a positive for Hillary?

Let's just forget about trying to rid the world of nukes. No one can have nukes and threaten people with them except for us. We are the only bully in town.

Nuclear rhetoric is what makes countries want to get nukes.

What a ridiculous argument she is making. As if we don't have enough conventional bombs to put us back into the Stone Ages.

Which is why an intelligent President or Presidential candidate would simply say that they would leave all options on the table, and be done with it.

It's not hard, but it seems to be real hard for Obama and his followers.

Presidential candidate would simply say that they would leave all options on the table, and be done with it.

And 12 minutes after saying that, the other campaigns would issue a flurry of press releases saying "it's naive and inexperienced to talk about options, tables, or options on tables..."

Obama is getting hammered for being too aggressive and not aggressive enough, all in the span of 48 hours. I think it's interesting to watch.

"Obama wasn't speaking as president. He was speaking as a candidate for president."

Is that another one of those things everybody just knows except for us simpletons. Like the diplospeak thing? Yeah I bet it is.

Pakistan's foreign minister:
Update at 4:10 p.m. ET: There's video here of Pakistan's foreign minister saying it was "irresponsible" of Obama to talk about attacking his country.

Scroll down:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/obama-nukes-wou.html

Since she didn't know the context, why don't you email her camp with the question Obama was asked in context and see what they say.

She either leaves tactical nukes on the table against terrorists in Pakistan or she doesn't.

And the foreign minister has every right to call it irresponsible when Obama talks about attacking his country. The only problem, however, is that Obama was talking about attacking terrorists.

And secondly, if the foreign minister is dismayed at Obama's speech yesterday, then it's a good bet he must be equally worried about Clinton's interview in which she said virtually the same thing as Obama about attacking terrorists.

So we are in the midst of a Cold War with Pakistan and every other country with nukes now, and mutually assured destruction is what is keeping us from blowing each other up?

Regardless, he hasn't taken them off the table in our dealings with any nuclear state, including Pakistan.

Your keycaps is sticking. Or is that customary in your dimension? [whisper] Here in this dimension only the crazies do that.

Oh and here in this dimension Hillary didn’t “talk about using nukes ANYWHERE”

What if the terrorists themselves possess a nuke?

And even if we don't really intend to use nukes against them, how can it be anything but counterproductive to make them completely secure that we won't use nukes under any circumstances?

That's why experienced foreign policy hands simply refuse to make commitments one way or the other about which military options they might use.

Why can't Obama or his followers grasp such an incredibly simple point?

Destroying your own nukes is one thing. Destroying ALL the nukes is quite something else. Until there's a verifiable multinational agreement between all the nuclear powers to destroy all the nuclear weapons, the question of nukes is, sadly, going to be on the table.

No nuclear power on Earth can afford to be the first one to completely disarm. Horrible as it may be, mutual assured destruction keeps the peace.

And by the way, I am not a believer in nuclear weapons. If it were up to me, removing nukes from the planet and from the discussion would be a high priority. It's just not something we can afford to commit to unilaterally.

My keycaps were not sticking. I can not believe that anyone can calmly talk about using nukes (okay, keeping the threat on the table--small difference).

For the record, I'm not calling for unilateral disarmament. But giving nukes to India is a bad idea. The US must show leadership and move to limit nukes. Hold a conference, negotiate a treaty, uphold the treaty. There you have it.

How about if space ninjas from Mars attack Green Bay?

IMO, Senator Clinton is the/a front-runner today largely because the right-wing media has been declaring her a front-runner for years now.

The GOP has ALWAYS wanted Clinton to run. This makes perfect sense:

*They hope her negatives are high enough that people will turn out in droves to vote against her.

*If that doesn't work, and Clinton wins, no biggie - they still get a conservative in the WH.

you can't be serious! no, this was not an occasion for "all options on the table". its profoundly morally wrong for Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd to suggest that there is any need what so ever to NUKE anyone! anyone in the whole world right now.

good for you, Barack Obama. its too bad that people keep foisting these STUPID, ignorant attacks against him, but he keeps looking more and more cool & collected, so who knows?

hilarious. you are joking, right?

do you think anyone in the US would thinking nuking afghanistan or pakistan is a good idea??

I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS! Just yesterday, these same people were running around with their hair on fire saying "Obama is starting a nuclear war with Pakistan!!!" which of course he wasn't. NOW these SAME PEOPLE are saying he's 'foolish' for ruling out nuking people he never said anything about nuking in the first place.

Hillary followers, are you stupid, disingenuous to the highest degree, or both? How can you defend this BULLSHIT???

he should simply be refusing to make any commitments on these points.

Maybe not:

Do we want still another guy in the WH who just shoots off his mouth and then apparently won't take it back?

I don't want someone who refuses to disclose what they would or wouldn't do, camouflaging under the guise of diplomacy, who is essentially saying "trust me". So the "he should refuse to make any commitments" doesn't seem a reasonable approach.

And I don't want someone who says "I would have voted differently" but I'm not sorry for my vote--in other words, someone who won't take back what they've done, either.

I don't think Obama has been shooting off his mouth as much as you obviously--so we're never going to come to agreement on that.

The "Trust me" method of governing.

That's really gotten us to a good place, hasn't it?

"she's saying very directly that it was wrong to rule out using nukes in any situation"

In any situation? Any?

In context she mentioned the fact that "Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace"

Are you saying that Presidents, since the Cold War weren't ruling out nukes in any situation?

"Negative Security Assurances and Nonproliferation

The United States first formally made nuclear non-use pledges, also termed "negative security assurances," in 1978. On April 5, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced a slightly revised policy, which was most recently repeated on February 22, 2002 by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher:

The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon state-parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state toward which it has a security commitment carried out, or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.
...
Strategic Ambiguity

Despite the "negative security assurances" pledge, senior U.S. officials in several administrations have refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in response to attacks with chemical or biological weapons. In his February 22 statement, Boucher addressed this issue, saying:

Furthermore, the policy says that we will do whatever is necessary to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its allies, and its interests. If a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of military response."
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/negsec.asp

Now in that context, which I'm sure you are familiar with, the very same context in which Hillary answered the question you come up with: "in any situation"

I can only ask: Why?

someone should ask her weird ass that very question. and then they should ask her what on god's green Earth she is talking about!!??

this series of attacks she's attempted has no logical, cohesive center to it. it adds up to nothing, and its over nothing. basically she's saying Obama is inexperienced, and we know this because he wants to 1) talk to potentially hostile regimes without demanding Bush/Cheney-style concessions first and 2) he won't launch first-strike nuclear attacks against them either.

and this is supposed to make people LIKE Hillary? seriously, has she gone mad? this is literally insane. as if Pervez Musharraf was worried we were about to nuke Pakistan. Hillary is fast approaching serious wingnut territory.

oh you poor Hillary supporters.

I would be very, very surprised if Hillary ever gave a comprehensive policy speech like the one Obama delivered. She hasn't really proposed one single policy idea yet, has she? I don't know if she's got any. Other than reserving the right to launch first-strike nuclear attacks!!! Which is one of the main positions anyone who wants MY vote had better not take!

My answer to this post can be found here

But in short, suggesting nuclear deterrence is a viable strategy against stateless actors that regularly employ suicide bombing is incoherent. It fundamentally misunderstands the way deterrence works, or the way terrorists work.

They're not even in the ring yet.

She either leaves tactical nukes on the table against terrorists in Pakistan or she doesn't.

That's not necessarily the issue here. I have to admit, while undecided, I lean in favor of Obama over Hillary. However, she is correct in this instance about Obama making a rookie mistake. Obviously, no democrat is going to use nuclear weapons, especially against a terror cell or 'ally' such as Pakistan. The point of having nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War world is for deterrence. If you admit in a blanket statement that you are not going to use them, even if you (hopefully) never plan to, you effectively negate any deterrence they could have provided. It truly is a rookie mistake. Hillary understands this, Obama doesn't. The nuances of foreign policy are much finer than domestic policy. My fear is that Obama is much better at the latter than he is at the former, which could be dangerous in the post-Bush world.

Wait! Your forgot: Bill Richardson claims to have met with and negotiated with the space ninjas decades ago.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

However, she is breathtakingly, stunningly just dead wrong on the policy. It really is a Bush-Cheney policy. It is. It's that simple.

I also think you're 100% correct on this. We'll see if Obama takes the opening and runs with it.

To me, and contrary to popular opinion around here, I think Hillary and Obama, on paper, are exactly the same. Same votes all along, and the fact that Obama "talked" about not voting for the war back in the day does not at all address what he would have done as a Senator. His job wasn't the same, his pressures, his constituents, his influences - all not the same as someone in the Senate. 

So, Obama here now has an opportunity to differentiate himself in a real way -- on the same level playing field as Clinton. Not "here's what I would have done if I was in the Senate like Clinton was at the time," but a here and now difference.

And he has the luxury of her position being basically word for word the same as Bush's. I'm sure you can find a transcript somewhere about "keeping things on the table."

Like I said, let's see if he takes it.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Fair enough, Greg, and exactly right, CT.

I, for one, am perfectly happy to have a candidate who will rule out using tactical nukes in such a way, thereby fomenting a tactical nuke arms race.

A sad oversight.

Mike Gravel said he and his space ninajas would never do that.

Best, Terry

Deterrence is incoherent when the people you're trying to deter are stateless actors that employ suicide bombing. That is, when the self-destruction is a necessary component of their plan with their nukes, threatening them with destruction is not a deterrent.

It's a good point. About the most it can do is deter states from helping stateless entities get their hands on WMD. And even that's a tenuous deterrent since proving that a state helped a group of terrorists is no easy matter. Heck, with the current bunch in charge we'd wind up bombing Niger.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Obama really shouldn't speak without a teleprompter or prepared text.

Today he proved just how not ready for prime time the Junior Senator from Illinois is. As he demonstrated during the debates, Obama just can't seem to help stepping into a big pile of his own making.

His latest flailing of I-won't-use-nukes-with-citizens-wait-scr atch-that-I'm-not discussing-nukes debacle illustrates that he is as clueless about how a Commander-In-Chief should address the most potent weapon in his military arsenal as he is about how to respond to a terrorist attack or about Presidential diplomacy.

The American electorate doesn't seem to like what Obama is stepping in, either.

The three most recent national polls, taken after the debate, show Clinton trending up and ahead by double-double digits over her nearest rival. As of today, Clinton trounces Obama 43(38) to 21(25) Rasmussen; 43(39) to 22(25) NBC/WSJ, and 40(34) to 21(24) Pew.

Standing in front of a teleprompter and reading a speech written by Richard Clark isn't a terribly difficult thing to do. Unfortunately for Obama, the American electorate knows that we live in serious times and require more from their President than a dramatic reading from a prepared text.

You flip-flop mid-comment on the teleprompter.

Hillary will never give a speech like that with policy details. Instead, we will be faced with another "Just Shut Up and Trust Us, We Know What is Best" presidency.

And getting worked up about leading the polls in August? Ask Howard Dean what those are worth.

Obama will come out on top in this one. Clinton sounds shrill and defensive, while Obama sounds reasonable (both anti-terrorist and anti-nuke).

More over Obama is pro actively leading the debate; Clinton is reactive, sniping from the sidelines.

Ultimately Americans are looking for leadership and character and after the Kerry debacle, I think Dems are going to think long and hard about this one.

That's a good for Obama. Bad for Hillary.

This idea that you can't anticipate any scenario so you should always consider every possible action is exactly how we got into this goatscrew in Iraq. We couldn't absolutely know they did not have WMD's or connections to al Qaeda, which greased the skids to this idiotic war.

That was the reasoning HRC used in voting for the AUMF, and it is beyond depressing to see she hasn't learned a damn thing.

Anyone with an above average level of reasoning knows there are things you can absolutely rule out if you think it through. Using a nuclear weapon against Pakistan is one of them.

If you think the war in Iraq has been a living recruiting poster for al Qaeda's jihad against the US and the west, what the hell do you think a mushroom cloud rising over Warziristan and thousands of dead civilians would do? Even if the mission "succeeds" and destroys an imminent threat, the destruction and symbolism of a nuclear attack would fuel a war against the US that would last for generations.

And on a tactical level, what do you or HRC see that would demand a nuclear strike? If you want to say it might be necessary, you better have some good reasons why. If you know what you're talking about, you would already know that there is no feasible scenario involving a terrorist group that would demand a nuclear strike. None. There is no target that can be destroyed with the smallest tactical nuke that can not be destroyed with conventional weapons, and no plausible terrorist threat that would meet the criteria for a larger tactical nuke that had been created to wipe out a Soviet division on the battlefield.

Using a nuke against Pakistan would be an especially dumb idea because they are the only predominantly Muslim state that has a nuclear arsenal. They have proven warheads right now. If we make a nuclear attack on Pakistan do you think they will retaliate directly against the US? Or would they open their arsenal and let AQ or the Taliban take away warheads and controllers in shipping containers, for delivery to the US ports?

The old rhetoric has gotten us to this point. We need to be smart in how we fight this war. Unfortunately, that's a lesson HRC still hasn't learned.

I was commenting on Greg's comment.

Greg:
"she's saying very directly that it was wrong to rule out using nukes in any situation"

Hillary clip Greg had in a comment upthread:

"QUESTION: Senator Clinton, Senator Obama today said that the use
of nuclear weapons would be off the table in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
I'm wondering if you agree with that.

CLINTON: Well, I'm not going to answer hypotheticals. But let's
find Osama bin Laden and his leadership first.

And I think that presidents should be very careful at all times
in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents,
since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace.
And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket
statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.

But I think we'll leave it at that, because I don't know the
circumstances in which he was responding."

To me she is not saying "it was wrong to rule out using nukes in any situation" as Greg commented that she was. In the of context "Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace." That context is not "it was wrong to rule out using nukes in any situation." There are rules. I posted some of them and a link to more above. I think Greg is/should be familiar with them. So my question was why would Greg say: "she's saying very directly that it was wrong to rule out using nukes in any situation"

She's going to keep punching him until the referree stops the fight.

Then Senator Obama will whisper to Mrs. Clinton, as Muhammad Ali did to George Foreman. "Hey Hillary is that all you got."

She can keep swinging, while he is laying on the ropes, doing the rope-a-dope. When she gets tried, as Howard Cosell said, about Joe Frazier, "down goes Clinton! Down goes Clinton!"

Is my face red! I've been persuaded by my interlocutors that a nuclear assault on Pakistan's tribal areas is appropriate behavior but that UPPER CASING on line is not. We surely have our priorities straight. So while we keep nukes on the table and peace in our pants, why not think bigger. Nukes are just one method for fighting terror with terror, and not a wholly appropriate one in relatively underpopulated NW Pakistan, unlike Hiroshima, where hundreds of thousands died in a matter of hours. During WW1, combatants had some success with poison gas, and we can learn from them. Ditto Saddam's use of gas against the Kurds, or employing yellow rain in Cambodia. Too bad the "rain" turned out to be bee droppings, but a girl can dream, can't she. And hooray for Hillary and feminism. She proves that a woman can have the largest johnson in a room full of A-type-personality males.

India does have nukes, but they certainly do not need more. The proposed agreement will give them the opportunity to develop more. Promoting nuclear power is an accident just waiting to happen. Anyone remember 3 Mile Island?

"So, Hillary Clinton will not commit to not using nuclear weapons if she is president."

I would agree with that. In the context she setup nicely in her comment there is more to it than that. Somebody here used the example of driving on the golf cousre and driving on the road. Context matters. Hillary setup the context nicely. She didn't have to restate the whole US policy on using nukes. She used context. I have the full Hillary quote and a link to US policy above.

Any candidate who sanctions the use of nuclear weapons is ipso facto insane. Period. There really is no justification to use nukes. Nukes are bad. Nuclear weapons can cause the end of our species. Therefore if a candidate gets elected who supports the use of nuclear weapons, you now have an insane President. That's comforting. Of course, we've had such Presidents for many years now so we're used to it.

What enemy exists today that requires the storage/build up/use of nuclear weapons? None. Terrorists may get a nuclear weapon and may use it but are we to respond by blowing up a terrorist cell with nuclear weapons? We shouldn't because that would be a gross overreaching of our intended target--eliminating the group responsible, not a large portion of a nation, plus all the countries affected by the fallout, etc.

A policy that advocates blowing up a Nation due to the fact that a terrorist operates from it is equally insane. Take for instance an example of a thief. He robs a bank and runs into a crowd. The police using this type of policy believe they should use any means possible to capture/kill the thief. They shoot into the crowd killing scores of pedestrians all of whom are guilty of being collateral damage. But the police feel righteous in getting their man and their perfidy is lost because the Newspeak obscures their crimes against humanity.

The "War against Terrorism" is a ridiculous label. Terrorists are defeated by two things: 1. treating them as criminals, finding and prosecuting them and 2. actively making the world a more livable place and pursuing policies which contribute to and enhance human rights. Promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would go a long way in forwarding this goal.

The first is a no-brainer. The second eliminates the environment that breeds hate for the other.

Blowing up portions of the planet only makes the State into a purveyor of terrorist policies which go far beyond what a terrorist group can achieve and, in fact, only contributes to the goals of terrorists. Take Iraq as a prima facie example.

Obama was correct, though equivocal. Clinton was plain wrong.

Looks like the commenter below...beat you to the punch!

Ba-dum-dum.

Dennis Kucinich married a tall, hot, space ninja.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Yeah, there are ReThugs: They've been touting bunkerbusters for quite some time now.

Question: If you use a bunkerbuster on an Al Qaeda camp is this using it on civilians?

By shooting from the hip, Obama leaves himself open to all sorts of interpretations and misinterpretations: some in good faith and some not.

Hillary followers can see the reception in Pakistan of Obama's remarks: the claim was not that he would nuke the place but that he would act on Pakistani soil over Pakistani objections. Which is precisely what he said.

Not quick enough. He ran his mouth before he realized he needed to say scratch that.

We have two candidates sparring. Let's not read too much into their comments at this stage of the game. No reasonable person expects either one to commit absolutely to a strategy for running the country before they are in office and need to deal with situations that are not hypothetical.

BTW, inferring and implying that Hillary is in Bush's league for delusions of infallibility because she doesn't beg our forgiveness for a vote that she obviously took in good faith, but would not take in hindsight, seems a bit bush league to me.

You don't get it. Deterrence means an enemy never knows, so they better be real careful about what they say and do. The relationship is mutual and reciprocal, by the way

The enemy we're talking about here doesn't care if we use nukes to blow them up. They're not a state, they don't have missile silos or any capability to deliver a nuclear payload. If they ever were to actually use a nuclear weapon, it would involve them blowing themselves up. Threatening to blow them up isn't much of a threat.

Think about what you're saying here. You're talking about deterring suicide bombing by threatening to bomb them. Its totally incoherent.

Little known fact: space ninjas love leprechauns!

No its not. Some of these people may not value their own life, but many I would bet would not be willing to have their whole world destroyed.

Clinton said I don't think that candidates should be discussing how nukes should or should not be used. This thread has convinced itself that this means she thinks it's okay to bomb Pakistan. I think all she meant was that she wasn't going to play 20 questions with the press when good tactics call for keeping the enemey guessing and that she thought Obama was a fool for being at once overly broad and overly specific.

If I were parsing Obama with the same imputation of malice from him, I would argue that by specifically taking the use of nukes against civilians off the table he was specifically leaving the use of nukes against terrorists on the table and intended to do so.

I think neither of them would use nukes in an irresponsible way: I don't think that either of them would consider bunker-busters either desirable nor necessary.

Keep it real. By implying or speculating that some of the Democrats do take this position and are irresponsible about nukes, more cover is given to the Rethugs who in fact take such positions. For example, Tancredo's approach.

franklo,

This is another example of how "experienced foreign policy hands" continue to think about the threat of terrorism using the same logic they applied to Cold War.

These two types of conflicts are not in any way similar. If terrorists hit us with nuclear weapons, there's no specific territory for us to nuke back. Who the hell do you think you're going to nuke in retaliation?

At the same time, winning the war of hearts and minds to deny terrorists recruitment possibilities is far more important.

What's irresponsible is suggesting that we'd be willing to respond to a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons -- a sentiment that only reinforces the increasing worldwide view of us a dangerous, rogue nation?

Why can't you understand this simple point?

I have always been a strong opponent of nuclear power, but lately I have begun to have a change of heart. It's an extremely painful point to come to, but I have lately been forced to the conclusion that the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths our oil lust has caused could not easily be rivaled by the risks of nuclear power. There is NO clean energy source on the planet, and oil is just about as dirty as it gets.

Alternatives to oil and nuclear, while attractive, are simply not currently viable. A good friend of mine (a financial wiz and a guy who make his living doing data analysis for huge corporations) and I have crunched the numbers on every available alternative we can come up with. The conclusion we've reached is that all petroleum alternatives fail when applied at the scale required. There simply isn't enough arable land on the planet to support plant-based ethanol, for instance (see Brazil's current Pantanal wetlands problem for an example). And there isn't the space for wind power or the technology for solar or clean coal.

Of course we should all remember Three Mile Island. And Chernobyl too (still the worst nuclear accident in history). But we should also remember that the deaths caused by both accidents combined do not begin to approach the deaths caused by George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq or Bill Clinton's disastrous oil-for-food program.

Nuclear power is most definitely NOT the answer in its present state. And without aggressive oversight and research, it will never be more than a stopgap measure. But what are the viable alternatives at this point in time?

Remember Three Mile Island. Remember Chernobyl. But while you're remembering, don't forget to remember the Torrey Canyon, and the Argo Merchant, and the Ekofisk blowout, and the Ixtoc blowout, and the Piper Alpha, and the Exxon Valdez and the Kharg-5. And don't forget the assault on the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

The fact is, if we want this planet to survive, we're going to need to come to terms with its limits. The human population is currently at something just over 6 billion. By 2050, it will be well over 9 billion. I believe we are quickly reaching the limits of what our planet can support. Nuclear power may just be our best worst option.

This argument sounds very similar to the I dont believe in the death penalty but it should be on the table....

The Death Penalty is wrong, and so are nuclear weapons.

Hype... There are no stories here. Give some of us something that would actually make a diff...

DCS, NYC

Very well said and an important point. The major criticism of Obama from other politicians and the MSM is that he is "green", "naive", not a seasoned politician. It is his absolute strength. I hope he can continue to be honest and offer ideas and not get beat down by status quo politics and conventional,negative partisan warfare.

Hillary and her machine attack Obama because their only goal is to WIN. Hillary wants to be president, period. I see no evidence that she has a vision for the nation and wants to lead us -- all of us -- forward. If she did, she would welcome Obama's ideas and give constructive criticism or embrace them. Instead, the logic goes: Hillary suported Bill, so now it's her turn, Obama is in the way, get him.

Actually, Hillary is the one talking like a fool. Numerous presidents have made frequent policy statements about the use and non-use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Johnson ruled out their use in Vietnam.

The idea that nukes could even be of any strategic use against bands of terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan is absurd anyway. It would be like trying to swat flies with a .45.

The polls I saw were of "Democrats, and non-Democrats who said they would vote in a Democratic presidential primary (from a total sample of 1,005 adults nationwide--NBC/WSJ);" and "registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or lean Democratic."

Both those give Hillary a margin-of-error uptick in her lead over Obama. The one of "393 Democratic primary voters nationwide" gave Hillary a 39-30 lead. (Diageo/Hotline).

Hillary's just not gonna run away with this, mainly because she doesn't deserve it. There's only one reason she's front-runner, and it's spelled B-I-L-L. Nepotism, pure and simple.

Amen! "The terrorists" have nothing in common with the Soviet Union. Exactly how are suicide bombers supposed to fear being nuked? They're SUICIDE bombers. A nuclear attack by the US is their wet dream, because it would start WWIII (or WWIV, V, VI, or whatever Bill Kristol thinks we're up to)! I expect these concepts to be too complicated for Soviet expert Condoleeza Rice and fools like Cheney, but I expect a lot more from Democratic Presidential candidates.

"I don't care if Jesus Christ was President, it's not his power to declare war in this country. Anyone who thinks its okay for Congress to tell the President that s/he can declare war or not declare war based on whatever he feels like."

Congress didn't tell bush "that s/he can declare war or not declare war based on whatever he feels like." Does that matter?

"Military engagements authorized by Congress

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war."

scroll down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Seems picky. But you are said pretty clearly "Congress to tell the President that s/he can declare war" and that pretty clearly is not what happened.

Also "declare war based on whatever he feels like" is just the opposite of what happened. Does that matter?

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

I'd agree the whole thing was hash. But you are just making it up.

"It's obvious to any vertebrate that the Iraq War has been a disaster"

It was obivous to Hillary to:
"October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Hillary:
"“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H."

So don't make it up. Vote for somebody else.

Their "whole world"? A nuclear strike in Afghanistan would not destroy their whole world. Hell, it should be obvious enough already that nukes aren't on the table and what's more, the threat of them isn't a deterrent, because the people in question do continue to attack Western countries. They kill 3000 US citizens on Sept 11. The Madrid train bombings. The London airport car bombs. The earlier subways bombs in NY. Etc etc.

Seriously, nukes aren't on the table with terrorists, they never have been, and the idea of nuclear war isn't a deterrent to them. This much should be obvious to anyone who's concerned with anything beyond political point scoring here.

BTW

U.S. officials rarely rule out nuclear attacks as a matter of diplomacy, preferring to keep the threat as a deterrent. Yet several foreign policy experts said Obama was essentially right: It would be unwise to target an individual or a small group with nuclear weapons that could kill civilians and worsen the United States' image around the world.

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."

"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.

Wash Post

Yeah, and this is exactly what causes bad actors (rogue and unstable nations) to want to get nukes themselves. i.e. Pakistan, North Korea, Iran.

Nukes as a deterrent is a slippery slope. If you need to use them you have already failed.

This would lead to a new Cold War, a wet dream for the Military Industrial Complex.

As long as one country has nukes, the rest will want them as well. Let's not think so high of ourselves that we are the only "responsible" country to be able to possess them. We have already nuked a country (Japan) for heaven's sake.

Comparisons to Laura Bush are a bit unfair. Hillary has always had larger ambitions and abilities than Laura Bush has ever claimed to have. Remember back to Bill's first campaign -- they sold the idea of a "co-presidency" as an asset. George and Laura never implied anything like that because Laura never had the ambition to achieve or interest in achieving a high political office. Come to think of it, George never had the interest either (just the ambition).

But Hillary has been a national figure since 1991 and she spent her 8 years as first lady in a manner that it was no shock that she was the first ex first lady to become a Senator. She was always, even when the wife of the president, properly seen as a wonk with ideas of her own.

Maybe this doesn't speak directly to your experience objection, but I think both her admirers and detractors have to admit that she's more than just a woman who married the right man.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Its the George Wallace-Lurleen Wallace model. The Clintons are able to do it because of (1) the fundraising network that they built using his White House years and the prospect of her coming into power and (2) the damage they did to the Democratic Party during his years in the White House that piled a little heap of discredit on other Democratic politicians.

"because she doesn't beg foregiveness for a vote she obviously took in good faith."

Since when is voting for AUMF in 'good faith' when you do not even read the NIE report? It is irresponsible and a dereliction of the constitutionally imposed authority of Congress to authorize and declare war not the executive branch. Good faith my foot.

Yes!

She's in it to win it.

Not provide America with the leadership that it needs nor the vision to repair our global reputation and transcend this horrific pre-emptive strike against another country which is the very anti-thesis of what it means to be a democracy. Hillary does not care about the hearts and minds of America she only cares about her own aspirations.

Yes, Hillary tried once before to be out front on politics and policy when she was in ARkansas. Bill lost the re-election to the Governorship. I bet if we looked up old archieves about what they were saying about HRC then it would hold true today. The people of Arkansas soundly rebuked Hillary even if it meant doing without Bill. HRClinton has not changed one bit. She lacks politcial astuteness and folks always have to clean up her mess...she makes different messes from Bill. Bill's errors in judgment are seen as human fallibility...Hillary's however are because she is trying to score some point or political advantage and she consistently looks calculating and cold blooded.  Folks see her that way because she is that way and they see Bill as embracing and compassionate because he is.

His sole role in this campaign is to humanize Hillary, and she is keeping him busy with all these misguided attacks.

Sure she's more than just the woman who married the right man. But she's the woman who married the right man above all else. And it's the only...I repeat, THE ONLY...reason she's the apparent front runner. Both Pelosi and Feinstein (and Granholm), for starters, are more deserving to be the first female nominee.

Hillary's not a dynamic, charismatic candidate. She's smart, sure, but so are a million other people. The only--I said ONLY--reason she's in this position is nepotism. Remind you of anybody?

The Laura Bush hypothetical is just an attention-getter. Hillary's a little smarter and more ambitious. That means she deserves the nomination? Hillary's a Dem, so I'll vote for her and hope she wins the election, but she doesn't deserve this nomination based on her own achievements, skills, or political dues paid. Period. If she gets it, it'll Bill's payoff to her. And I guarantee you this, he knows she doesn't deserve it. He's a self-made man; she's not.

"It's probably not a good thing..." Gee, are you SURE?

Of course it's not a good thing. We got the present asshole president through nepotism. Personally, I think being a wife, son, or daughter of a president should be a hindrance rather than a stepping stone. Screw this nepotistic shit.

Comparisons to Laura Bush are a bit unfair. Hillary has always had larger ambitions and abilities than Laura Bush has ever claimed to have.

Yeah but it's fun to be unfair. :-)

What abilities are those that Hillary has? The ability to trade cattle futures by having others' profits assigned to her? The ability to make a judgment on her vote for war in Iraq without reading documentation? The ability to countenance a nuclear attack on terrorists?

Or the ability to scam millions of people now?

Laura Bush seems relatively undistinguished in those kind of abilities.

I don't think anyone will argue about Hillary's burning ambition to keep Democrats in the Republican Lite column. Maybe Mike Gravel.

Best, Terry

I think we all know how she'd respond -- the same way. "you never rule anything out..."

Yes, and the reason for that is AIPAC. Hillary can't make a decision without 'pre-conditions' due to AIPAC and she also  'can't take all options off the table' for the same reason.

Americans need to wake up and understand who controls HRClintons positions on FP. She is the largest recipient of AIPAC dollars running for Presidency.

You're right. Not even Bill Clinton thinks what HRC is saying is a good idea.

In a November/December 1998 report, the nonpartisan Arms Control Association described the Clinton policy – and its ambiguities – this way:

“Speaking for President Clinton, then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher declared in 1995 that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) unless such states attacked the United States, its forces or its allies ‘in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.’

“Discussing the November 1997 presidential decision directive (PDD-60), Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, broadened Christopher's statement to include the option of responding with nuclear weapons to attacks by non-nuclear states-parties to the NPT that are not in ‘good standing,’ such as Iraq and North Korea. Other U.S. officials, however, have claimed at times that all options are open in responding to chemical and biological attacks.”

Though President Clinton’s policy did not address a situation in which a non-nuclear stateless group like al-Qaeda was hiding inside a nuclear-armed state like Pakistan, Sen. Clinton’s position of putting the nuclear option on the table would seem to go against the logic of the Clinton administration’s strategy.

Even by raising the possibility of a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear enemy, Sen. Clinton risks exacerbating tensions in the Muslim world, reduces America’s moral standing even further, and creates a stronger incentive for Islamists in Pakistan to cooperate with al-Qaeda on securing a nuclear weapon for use against the United States.

In other words, Sen. Clinton’s tough-gal posture – much like President Bush’s tough-guy-ism – could contribute to less security for the American people, not more. She also is positioning herself closer to Bush’s policy of not setting any prior constraints on nuclear first use than to her husband’s nuanced approach.

All Americans need to be afraid, very afraid of Senator Clintons' 'sophisticated' approach to foreign policy.  To quote a highly judicious man 'thinking  that being in Washington makes you an expert on foreign policy is illusory"

Yes, a president sure can rule out using nukes.

Not if you are beholden to AIPAC. We have to look at the larger picture here, please.

 AIPAC demands 'preconditions' before talking with folks in the ME and AIPAC demands 'no nuclear options off the table' despite Israel having 200 nukes.

C'mon people. That is the crux of this entire FP dustup it is all about America's foreign policy with Israel. That is why Hillary answered like she did. That is why she is blowing this issue up...she is speaking on behalf of AIPAC. She receives the most dollars from AIPAC of any candidate running.

Her answer in the debate was to the pro-Israel lobby and every tactical shift since then has been about the same constituency, right down to Albright saying HRC has a 'sophisticated' approach.

HRC can't say nukes are off the table if she wants AIPAC's powerful support.

Barack can.

No matter what Obama says, Hillary will say something different and say Obama's answer was naive,

Yes. I think this qualifies as 'naive' Obama making a complete an utter nitwit out of HRClinton everytime.  Talk about playing chess and him pushing her 'I can do anything he can do better' button...lol lol.

All right, look, this whole discussion has degenerated terribly. The only good reason to oppose Hillary is that she's the candidate most likely to lose to the Repubs in 2008. And the only reason to oppose Obama is that he might not have the savvy to fight back effectively against the grotesque race-baiting, swift-boating that he will face in 2008.

Either one, or Edwards, or god help us, Chris Dodd, will be ten thousand times better than the shit-eating toad the Republicans will nominate. This bullshit about Hillary being "unprincipled" or "only interested in winning" makes my skin crawl. Who cares? VOTE FOR SOMEONE MOST LIKELY TO WIN. My feeling is that it's Obama. I don't care about his principles. I'm sure they're good enough, just like Hill's, Edward's, Dodd's, etc. I CARE IF HE CAN WIN! The day after the election, I'll worry about the nuances.

this series of attacks she's attempted has no logical, cohesive center to it. it adds up to nothing, and its over nothing. basically she's saying Obama is inexperienced, and we know this because he wants to 1) talk to potentially hostile regimes without demanding Bush/Cheney-style concessions first and 2) he won't launch first-strike nuclear attacks against them either.

Yes, that Obama is one 'naive' and 'irresponsible' fellow for creating a series of foreign policy gaffes that make HRC's policy positions look utterly ridiculous.  Maybe that is what he meant about the illusory foreign policy expertise based on being in Washington.  I hope Obama keeps this up cause Hillary is looking worst than a wet hen she is BushCheney on steroids.  More importantly it shows that even Bill can't rein her in.  Let's not forget that should she be elected and a male foreign head of state challenge her as Obama has on FP this past week...she can push the red button and just end the enitre oneupmanship and declare to the country "I am WOMAN"

What is good judgment is getting yourself into a position where your policies can be enacted. Nader didn't pull it off despite transparent honesty as to his policies; maybe Obama can.

Sexist BS.

In principle, she appears to believe that in dealing with Saddam, the president should have had all options available. Bill Clinton would have wanted it. She would have wanted that were she president. Yes, she, and all her colleagues, should have read the NIE. Who knows whether it would have affected her vote. I doubt it.

Yes, she should have said, "Bush is a sociopath, an incompetent, who will lose control of this situation." You and I might have said that, but most reasonable, responsible people (not to mention the paranoid patriots) were still giving him the benefit of the doubt at the time -- he was the president -- we had a constitution.

IMHO we should never invade another country without a declaration of war. Ambiguous resolutions like the AUMF have generally gotten us and lots of innocent people into trouble. In reality, we will probably never have another declaration of war, since a slimy resolution will always do the trick. As ridiculous as it may sound at this point, especially to those who have come of age in the last seven years, I think that Hillary's vote was in good faith.

Sorry if it upsets you but Bill Clinton damaged the Democratic Party a great deal. The Democrats had solid majorities in both Houses of Congress when he took office that were wiped out 2 years later largely because of antipathy to the Clintons. They lost state legislature seats throughout the Clinton years and that hurt redistricting in 2000. By the numbers, Clinton hurt the Democratic Party. Because of the Clintons, the Republicans were set to be a permanent majority party except that Bush turned out to be a maniac.

More interesting to me is the way he knocked out everything the Democratic Party stood for. The Democratic Party was the anti-war party; most of the Senate Democrats voted against the first Gulf War. Then Clinton made it acceptable for the Democrats to be for war, too, and here we are with this disastrous war that the Democrats could have stopped if they'd been the same party they were in 1990-1.

The same people who were outraged at Clarence Thomas asking Anita Hill, "Who has put a pubic hair on my Coke can?" couldn't be bothered with the details of Gov. Bill Clinton sending a state trooper to bring a young state clerk to his hotel room so he could proposition her for sex. And those facts are not in dispute. That is what he did: sent the state trooper to bring the clerk to his hotel room to proposition her for sex. Democrats who make a big stink that the "media" was biased against Clinton are full of baloney because I have never ever seen a Democratic politician be addressed to explain how they could say one good word about Bill Clinton knowing that he had had a state trooper bring him a state employee in order to proposition her for sex. Amazing omission given that the country had to spend a whole year dealing with it in 1998. If the media was so biased, all those Democratic women in Congress would have been nailed down on those facts so that they could never again stand next to that fiend and smile up at him! I'm glad he was impeached so history cannot ignore it the way the Democratic politicians did (at the expense of their own souls).

Lots of other matters, too. Individual Democrats were weakened by 8 years of defending the Clintons or saying "Lets move on" about all the scandal-a-week crap.

I like the way you use "Clinton" and "the Clintons" interchangeably. Good argument tactic. Actually, it was Hillary's antics with the health care panel that undermined the administration the most the first two years. And it was corruption within the Democratic Congressional majorities that gave Newt and the Contract on America such a leg up in 1994.

As for the Gulf War vote, the correct vote was FOR the war, not against it. I loathe war, but it would have been absurd to allow Saddam to maintain his illegal and brutal suzerainty over Kuwait, never mind the implications for western supplies. As it was, Dems like Kerry who cast knee-jerk votes against the Gulf War, are STILL trying to live it down, as we saw when they voted the wrong way again when Bush asked for his blank check. It was a mistake to oppose the Gulf War, just as it was wrong to support Bush's war, just as it was a mistake for the Republicans to oppose NATO's defeat--led by Clinton--of Serbia's onslaught against Kosovo.

As for the alleged state trooper incident, this was widely doubted at the time and since. The trooper was a right wing Republican eager to shit on Clinton. None of the Whitewater charges were worth shit, but major organs like the NY Times carried on what can only be described as a baseless vendetta against both Clintons.

The only "scandals" were utterly phony, as we all now know. You're criticizing Clinton for allowing Republicans to unfairly attack him! He couldn't control their hatred any more than Kerry could have prevented the Swift boat lies. It's ridiculous. Christ Himself would get swift-boated if he had a (D) after His name, and you'd say, "Oh, Jesus just was so wrong to force Dems to defend him against Republican attacks!"

Please. Paula Jones was a fraud and a liar, a creation of the right wing hate machine. She batted her eyes at the governor, then decided a few months or years later that she was "exploited?" Give me a break. She was a skank.

And even if Clinton was a sex "fiend", so what? Do you know how many American soldiers were killed in combat in the eight years of his administration? Zero. As in none. He can have as many blowjobs as he wants, as far as I'm concerned, in exchange for THAT record.

As for the "diplmatic efforts" to get Saddam out of Kuwait, your history fails you. France, Russia, and the Atab League all supported expelling Saddam from Kuwait. It was Saddam's act of war that precluded diplomatic efforts. Not to act against him would have made a mockery of the concepts of sovereignty and respect for national borders. His invasion was a throwback to Mussolini, Genghis Khan, and the Seljuk Turks. You're in a dream world. Sometimes the US has to use its power to act in the interests of justice and to protect victims of aggression. Actually, we don't do this enough. The expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait was a humanitarian act. The idea that he would have ever withdrawn through diplomatic efforts offends common sense.

The speech you quote says all things, takes all sides, it is very quotable because it was written to cover every eventuality. Bottom line, it led to a vote for Bush's War, no way to spin it.

You are absolutely right. If the Dems don't win, there's no point to any of these debates, and it won't matter which of them is right or wrong. Winning comes first.

Of course Hillary regrets her vote, she just won't say so because she thinks it's politically unproductive, and I agree with her. One thing Cheney has taught us is the political value of NEVER APOLOGIZING.

Edwards' haste to don the sackcloth and ashes over his vote WAs unseemly and self-centered. So he's sorry, so what? How do his shrill demands that Hillary prostrate herself in regret help the Dems win?

The roots of this war were laid in the 1990-1 situation. The US has supported plenty of brutal dictators (e.g., Suharto, Trujillo, Mobutu, Pinochet, the Argentinian generals, 1976-1983). "The Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor has been called the worst instance of genocide (relative to population) since the Holocaust."

So now your defense of Clinton in the Jones case is, "She wanted it!" Gee, thats exactly what I meant about Democrats losing their souls. Yes, it does matter.

"As president, I have no doubt, she will inspire only the intense partisan warfare that characterized Bill's years in office."

That's no basis for opposing her. EVERY Democrat will inspire intense partisan warfare, because that's what Republicans do.

And on what "principle" do you oppose her candidacy? I haven't discerned one yet. Basically, you just don't like her and use terms like "dishonest" as vague rationalizations. "Dishonest" is another campaign-speak pejorative that means nothing. Does she steal? Lie more than usual for an adult or a politician?Hillary's not a dishonest politician. Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham were dishonest politicians. Bush lied to America about just about everything to start a war. The idea that Hillary (or Gore) might do or have done the same is Naderite gobbledygook. And is it really true that Hillary's supporters think she's dishonest, as you state? Or are YOU being dishonest?

And when you say "You and I disagree. Peace," does that mean you're impervious to logical argument and don't want to hear any more?

LongTom just reading this backandforth between you and Karen444 about the Clintons and Bill's record made me nauseous. This is precisely what is going to happen if Hillary is the nominee and god forbid she is elected...it will be endless.

I do not want 6 more years of sex and politics everynight on the news coarsening the entire moral and social fabric of the nation. Families do not need for the kids to hear all this muck over and over.

It's disgusting. Hillary being the nominee is the worst thing that could happen to us as Dems.

Romney will be President if she is the nominee.

Link to her bragging about it? The reason Clinton paid out over $800,000 is that she had contemporaneous witnesses saying she described it and he had NO defense. Ye Gods, even with your "She wanted it!" rationale, you've got the Governor sending a state trooper to get a state employee so that he could proposition her for sex.

If the 1990-1 situation had been dealt with diplomatically, as it could have been because there was no immediate threat to the US, we'd be better off and so would the people of the region and thats how I judge it.

Here's a link to an interview with Jeffrey Toobin who wrote a book about a lot of the Clinton witch-hunting.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/14/cf.00.html
Apparently, Paula told the statie "[Clinton] has sexy hair" before they allegedly hooked up.

As for "she wanted it", that's incontestable and not a "rationale," as you characterize it. What he apparently did needs to be rationalized only to his wife. It's their business, not yours. He didn't rape Paula. They apparently had consensual sex, though I think Clinton never admitted to it.

I suppose Hitler's occupation of Poland and Milosovic's invasions of Bosnia and Kosovo should have been "dealt with diplomatically" too? There are simply times when inaction (i.e., "diplomatic efforts")constitutes a callous disregard for humanity, as was the case for too long in Bosnia, and was the case when Saddam occupied Kuwait. I'm sure the Kuwaitis, especially those women who escaped being raped and murdered by the Republican Guard because of the expulsion of Iraqi troops by the allies, were grateful that the west didn't resort to diplomacy for too much longer.

I refered to the most recent ABC/WP poll of Iowa voters, which showed Clinton a distant third among Democrats at 14 percent when the issue is "HONESTY and TRUSTWORTHINESS" Only 48 percent of Hillary's own supporters rate her as the most honest and trustworthy of the candidates.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3441459&page=1

When Hillary was interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today Show (01-21-98) she said looked at the nation and said Bill Clinton was innocent of Monica's charges, the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. She was either naive or dishonest, neither characteristics I want to see in a president. My view is that she is dishonest, in the say dishonorable, misleading ways that Bush is dishonest.
I have not doubt that Hillary's major interest is winning, not governing, and she would spend her presidency getting even with the right wing. And like the Balkans and the Middle East, it would just fuel perpetual offenses and retaliations. One clear prospect of breaking the cycle is to end the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton swap off.

I don't see the "logic" in your cynicism. All politicians are dishonest, so we must accept that forever? Obama at least has vision, life experience and charisma to inspire people and bridge divides. I think of all the candidates, he has the best prospect of leading the nation, not just 50 percent of it. That's my view and its honest. You think differently. Peace

And it was like a million people macheted to death in Rwanda - the 20th century was the bloodiest century in history no doubt. Oof - comparisons of Saddam Hussein or anyone to Hitler are absurd.

Didn't you know that Paula Jones also sued the state trooper? He was a defendant, too, so his comments are self-serving. (Though how it affects the crux of the matter, that a Governor used a state trooper to procure a state employee for sex??? Like it would be none of our business for elected officials to turn taxpayer paid government employees into whores and whoremongers. None of our business; thats their right. And if anyone in the press knows about it, they should keep quiet. If Clinton sent the state trooper to get him entire departments, its just fine.)

I probably saw that Jeffrey Toobin interview so I won't bother to read it because that a**hole infuriated me with his speculation that the likeliest explanation for the incident was a consensual sexual encounter. I hope such an encounter happens to his wife -- that a powerful man sends an underling to fetch her to proposition her for sex. Or, better still, some bigshot at CNN sends Toobin to get a CNN clerk to bring her to him for sex. Maybe, maybe, Toobin would learn something about human dignity and that everyone is entitled to it on those levels.