Much has been said about Barack Obama's 'naive' and 'inexperienced' comments about not using nukes in Pakistan.
But, let us remind ourselves of what Hillary Clinton had to say about his comments:
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "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 nonuse of nuclear weapons."
Fair enough. But, if we should keep nukes on the table against terrorists in Pakistan, we certainly should keep them on the table for hostile states which would be much more susceptible to deterrence, right?
Not according to Hillary Clinton.
The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention possibly even a nuclear strike to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.
"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "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."
Of course, that was 2006. Before she had announced for President and before she was tangling with Barack Obama.
Her explanation:
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," he 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."
So, is her explanation that Senators on the Armed Services Committee are allowed to be more candid than Presidential candidates satisfactory? Or her assertion that it's worse to take nuclear weapons off the table for hypothetical suicidal terrorists than for an actual regime?
Should Hillary Clinton tell Mark Penn to shove it and start speaking her mind?
UPDATE: The full exchange for context:
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 -– tactical nuclear weapons. Should those options be on the table when it comes to Iran?
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.
Comments are closed on this story.