Wow?.....There is nothing wrong with saying you will not use nuclear weapons on terrorists in Pakistan.  Name 1 candidate that said he or she would use nuclear weapons in Pakistan.

Lori, I must admit I have come into this discussion after the dust has mostly settled and the AP has apparently amended their article so I wasn't 'in' on the initial reporting but I don't see any problem with a presidential candidate forswearing the use of nuclear weapons to deal with a non-sovereign threat to the United States as represented by al-Qaeda.  It sounds like good sense to me, in spite of the fact it violates the unspoken convention of never discussing nuclear threats the US may choose to employ in future.  I think it is refreshing that a candidate is willing to take the US electorate into their confidence in this matter.  It is certainly a departure from what we have been accustomed to from the Bush administration.

Arguably using nuclear weapons in Pakistan against al-Qaeda would be problematic and dangerous, tunnels or no.

It may be wise for some of the posters to consider just what they are proposing as an alternative if they think that such a definitive statement weakens the US position on finding and destroying the al-Qaeda network.

Oh my Lord!

I don't know what is happening but mistakes like this & we are not even in the General election.

Can you imagine when the heavy pressure is on & right wing attacks start hitting him left & right with lies & nonsense.

This is exactly why MANY DEMOCRATS feel the Clinton is a safer bet.

We cannot afford another John Kerry disaster when responding to swift boaters.

Again, Hillary is as disciplined, sharp, but ferocious as you can get. And she's seen it all.

Q:

"In Afghanistan or Pakistan, is there any circumstance where you would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden."

Wildly out of context quote.

Lord have mercy!

That's not the point.

As President of the United States, you cannot categorically rule out EVER using nukes.

Just the way he responded shows the inexperienced combined with a feeling of being "unsure".

It is mistakes like this in the general election that can kill a campaign.

It sounds like he is making it up as he goes along.  Very dangerous for any President.

That's a good question. Why does America need to continue to build nuclear and biological weapons at a pace that it is unjustifiable?
How come liberals and others "leftwing" gatekeepers have not done more to oppose the Arms Merchant state running rampant in this country?

Of course it is always worth noting that of all the Presidential candidates on the democratic side,only two (kucinnich and Gravel) oppose the expansion of the military and have openly called for cuts in the Arms budget. All of the others (Edwards, Hillary and Obama included) have talked the same game as Brownback and the rest of the repugnicans.

I hope the dems dont make the same mistake of 04 (despite the fact that that election was as fraudulent as the 2000), and nominate someone who will try to out-republican the republicans.  The people want change.....not more of the same.

The Pakistanis better not push too hard on this.

If they become the ficus of media scrutiny, their sorry history with the Taliban, A Q Khan, Al Qaida and the rest will be an terribel focal point.

Offending the Pakistanis should not concern Obama.

Can we hire this guy a foreign relations teacher?

Crash course needed. Please.

Hahahaha! Hilarious!!!

That was the best comment.  It gave me a good laugh.  Thank you.

I cannot support anyone in favor of using nuclear weapons as a preemptive strike.

Yea, the question that he is asked specifically isn't in the article (a later one appears to be once he clarified his answer), given how this was shot across Politico and Drudge, it could be a smear; the AP writer is... dunno.

You Obama Explainers crack me up. Obama sticks his foot in his mouth and right there you are explaining away what he said with what he meant. I hope you guys get paid well because you sure put in enough overtime.

I realize that Obama admires Reagan but does he have to emulate his puppet presidency too?

I'm not suggesting anything really; I would tend toward wanting him to rule out nukes in all circumstances, but that's probably not what he intended, or not what the question contextualized? Tough to tell, but what's obvious is that the drudge machine is in full gear on it, blaring "Obama says use of nuclear weapons to fight al-Qaida 'not on the table'... "

As a Presidential candidate you never comment on specific Foreign Policy options.  That is left to the current President.  Age and experience trump youth and enthusiasm.

... in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Which is quite sensible.  Joe Biden might point out that his answer was rather inarticulate, but fine in substance.

The Politico "forgot" to include the question initially:

"*UPDATE: Obama's campaign says the story lacks the context of the quote, which was a question specifically about nuking terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That's a much narrower context, and doesn't imply the same kind of grand strategic revision.

Here's the original question, from campaign transcript: "In Afghanistan or Pakistan, is there any circumstance where you would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden."

US nuclear doctrine not only envisions first-use of nuclear weapons, this has always been US policy and we have fiercely resisted any international efforts to take first use off the table. The post-9-11 Nuclear Posture Review and subsequent doctrinal revisions have cemented a commitment to potential first use in an enlarged number of scenarios.  Alarmingly, as you presumably know, the United States is pursuing an operational capacity to implement this doctrine by developing a new generation of nuclear weapons.  The weaponization of space is also a component of developing a first strike nuclear capability any where in the world.

The United States was the first user of nuclear weapons in war and remains the most probable second user (not that there aren't other worthy candidates in Israel, India or Pakistan).  Gar Alperovitz and others have documented the routine threat of nuclear use by the United States during the Cold War against non-nuclear enemies, to take one random example, during the Iraq coup crisis in 1958.  An analysis in the mid-1980s by AFSC and Joe Gerson concluded that in a bare minimum of 19 cases the United States threatened nuclear first use.  Reports indicated that in Gulf War I the United States positioned at least 300 tactical nukes in the Persian Gulf and issued barely-veiled threats of their use to Hussein.

Obama's only possible error is expressing in an impolite way his disagreement with US policy; a policy the entire world knows already all to well.   The target of the deception about US doctrine is the domestic population that might be somewhat off-put by the prospect of nuclear weapons use in their name.

The issues I have with the dust-up and the comments in this thread generally are that:

(1) Any sane leader should commit to no first use of nuclear weapons, particularly against non-nuclear adversaries, as a crucial first step on the path toward complete disarmament.  Obama first appears to embrace NFU, then qualifies it, then disavows it. For a peacenik policy wonk such as myself this is extremely disconcerting.  It reflects a very cavalier attitude about these critical issues.  And all this comes on the heels acting like T. J. Kong ready to ride the first (non-nuclear) missile into the northwest territories in Pakistan.  What does he believe?  This is partly being whipsawed by a media narrative, but seasoned politicians understand at least something about managing that dynamic.  Worse, from my perspective, he cannot control that dynamic because there is no core philosophy on interacting with the world.

(2) All the hawks running for President and their supporters really need to get a grip on reality and ask some hard questions about the actual role of the United States in world affairs.  At least let a little bit of the reality shine some light on the reigning national security dogma that passes for intelligence on such matters in polite conversation.  There is no body of collective wisdom more disconnected from reality than of national security "common sense" in the chattering classes.  I have little respect for people who hide from the fact that Senator Clinton is an avowed hawk.  Not an idiot hawk or an incompetent hawk or a foolhardy hawk or a pathological hawk.  But a hawk she is.  I respect that more than Obama because I do not know what he is.

Find out your candidate's positions on (1) NFU; (2) Article VI of the NPT; (3) next generation nuclear weapons; and (4) plans currently in place for US weaponization of space - not fantasy weapons, but those in current development and the doctrines guiding their use.

Great questions for future debates: "Do you support a declaration that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in any conflict?  Do you support the Bush administration in its plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons?  Do you support the efforts of this administration and the Pentagon to weaponize space?"

Let's get these people on the record.  Maybe someone already has.

Regarding current use nuclear doctrine...

US nuclear doctrine continues to embrace possible first use

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must "believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."

Walter Pincus, Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan, Washington Post, 10 Sept 2005

Bush Doctrine expanded possible first use to any potential adversary

The United States has never ruled out the possible first use of nuclear weapons. Although it has pledged that it would not attack non-nuclear weapons states with nuclear weapons under most circumstances, it has maintained a policy of "studied ambiguity" about the circumstances under which it would consider nuclear retaliation and the type of response it might use if a nation attacked the United States with WMD. In its nuclear posture review (NPR), the Bush Administration did not alter the U.S. policy on the first use of nuclear weapons. However, with its emphasis on the emerging threats posed by nations armed with weapons of mass destruction, the Administration did appear to shift towards a somewhat more explicit approach when acknowledging that the United States might use nuclear weapons in response to attacks by nations armed with chemical, biological, and conventional weapons. The Bush Administration has stated that the United States would develop and deploy those nuclear capabilities that it would need to defeat the capabilities of any potential adversary whether or not it possessed nuclear weapons. Specifically, in its briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review, the Administration stated that the capabilities needed in the U.S. nuclear force structure "are not country-specific" and that the United States "must maintain capabilities for unexpected and potential risks." The focus will be "on how we will fight, not who we will fight." This does not, by itself, indicate that the United States would plan to use nuclear weapons first in conflicts with non-nuclear nations. However, General Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated in an interview that the scope of the destruction, not the weapon used in an attack, would affect a U.S. decision on whether to respond with nuclear weapons. He included high explosives, i.e. conventional weapons, in the list of "weapons of mass destruction" that might bring a nuclear response from the United States. Furthermore, press articles that reported on the nuclear posture review stated that the Administration had considered using nuclear weapons in contingencies with nations such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. These nations do not, at this time, possess nuclear weapons.

Amy F. Woolf, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force Structure, CRS Report for Congress, August 10, 2006

Current first use doctrine lowers threshold for nuclear use

The new doctrine incorporates preemption into joint nuclear doctrine for the first time, lowers the threshold for nuclear use further by reducing the level of hostilities where U.S. nuclear weapons might be used, endorses a role of nuclear weapons against all forms of weapons of mass destruction, endorses a role of nuclear weapons against terrorists, and describes missile defenses as a means of defending nuclear forces rather than people against attack.

The new doctrine incorporates the findings of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. It reflects the impact of 9/11 on U.S. strategic thinking with a focus on all WMD threats whether from countries or non-state actors.

Nuclear Information Project, Federation Of American Scientists, Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, 2005

But it is quite a screw up.

Its spreading all over the net and will be the talk on tv tonight.

I am sure the Clinton camp had a great giggle before they sat down and got stone cold serious about how they will use this gaffe to  slowly stick that knife in and turn it a little deeper.

gmab, I brought the issue up for discussion that the rightwing is trumpeting. If it's too much for you to bear to want to discuss this, get a grip. I would find it refreshing if he does move the nuke option further to off the table, and applaud him for doing so.

Better Jerome strikes then we end up with another trigger happy President who gets us all killed.  

And the answer is no to that question.

Further explication should be on the lines of "we would only use nuclear weapons in defending ourselves against a nuclear attack."

This is a gaffe.

are trying to push the story.  It'll be interesting to watch.

Will Democratic voters view Obama's words as a sign of a dramatic and welcome foreign policy change?

Or will they view him as not ready to lead in the area of foreign policy?

I think it will be the latter, but what do I know?

awful journalism. Truly pathetic. One leads with the answer and drops the question in the last graph and the other doesn't even mention the question. Pravda was more honest.

I remember when Obama stood for ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home but that was last week.  

The fact remains this was a serious gaffe of an answer.

cya tomorrow.

Don't let the door hit ya on your sorry ass.

Toodles!

I have observed that in the past two days, both the front page and hateful comments have intentionally lied about what Obama said and how he said it. And when the truth comes out they still don't delete the fraudulent diary or appologise for it.

Drudge Report:

Obama says use of nuclear weapons to fight al-Qaeda 'not on the table'...

Obama said in grilling with AP reporter Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance' to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan...

This is completely different from what Jerome attributed to Drudge. I cannot believe I am quoting dirty filthy Matt Drudge. That is how low this place is becoming. I am glad Kos does not allow Drudge quoted on Dailykos.

From my observation when Jerome gets the maximum hateful and negative impact from the like of Big Tent Democrat, areyouready, and the two others, and when the truth becomes evident, instead of deleting or correcting it, he tries to sparse it in his update. That got to be unethical.

It is not easy to say this about Jerome because I have always respected him. Jerome this is not personal but you have to re-orient this blog without infringing on your readers first amendment.

This blog is becoming a freak show. What went wrong?

yes they are and it's good to see Jerome become such a willing participantg in talking a print interview out of context, even politico has now provided the context,(not drudge) MYDD the new face of the rioght wing noise machine, well atleast when it comes to Obama, It's time to tell some of the more liberal sponsers of this blog what is going on here.

What?  You don't call "I will meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea without conditions" and now saying he would pre-emptively attack Pakistan without congressional approval a bit of a flip flop?  

LOL!

It's a big news day in the real world, in the mydd and drudge world it's just another day in let's the lets take down Obama, the difference is the GOP is trying to get Hillary the nomination becuase they think they can beat her (anyone think Cheney's comments on the "pentagon letter" weren't intended for that reason)for Jerome the reasons are different. After all this great press and pr obama somehow still is doing better agianst GOP opponents, I know 20 people that will vote agaisnt Hillary in NV but will vote for Obama, if this take down works I guess we will have to wait till 2102.

It has become very common for a comment to be very "fuzzy" and therefore needs to be explained further.   When you have to do that, you already lost.  We are no longer in the late 80s, early 90s.  A comment has to be clear and precise, so there is no room for interpretation.  Otherwise a comment gets cut up and Youtubed, then played over and over.  

When it comes to something as serious as nukes, you simply can't make a statement and then state, "No, scratch that."  It makes you look like you have not thought this through properly.  There are no do-overs, no "scratches," not in this environment, not today.        

bad high school debaters. Though bad and high school debate are interchangeable : )

True.

LOL

You have to be ready to play the game.

The public elected the guy they wanted to have a beer with last time around.  

Life isn't fair and the public isn't smart.  Democrats have to stop wondering when the public is going to wise up and become experts and stop electing the people they think will help them change a tire, or have a beer with them, etc.  

We have to simply play the game and play it better than the Republicans.

"maybe the Hillary campaign and you have reached some kind of "understanding."

You know, these constant conspiracy theories and paranoid delusions expressed here are what is wrong.  

The problem with your answer is that the question of taking nukes off the table in this, that or the other situation is a recurring foreign policy theme, and it is always fully intertwined with "ever" and "never" questions. Using the wrong "ever" or "never" word can't be dismissed as a meaningless grammatical slip, because that's what the issue is all about.

Kal, are you serious?  This story is all over the media, not JUST Drudge or Politico.   It is everywhere, yes, even in the "liberal" media.   It was a gaffe and everybody is dealing with it as such.  Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everybody just has it in for Obama does not help the situation.  

warrants?

It's from politico. I didn't read drudge. What does that 'scratch it' mean?

Of course, it's sensational, but that's the way how media plays, if you don't like it, stop running.

Yeah, Hillarytocrats should apology for following drudge.

because politico is atleast attempting to be a serious site and not a parody of drudge, mistakes happen when you try to post stuff quick, what drudge did is not surprising they called off the dogs on Hillary for a while for obvious reasons but we know what thier game is, what is disgusting is how it's become the "game" of mydd and the Hillarybots.

Because this was a big smear job and they are getting pushback from inside Obama's campaign.

he didn't step into a pile of shit, by the spin of Hillarybots everytime he opens his mouth he "steps in it' his opinions are "gaffes" Hillarybots are part of the problem and not part of the solution to having honest discussions of issues, and i'm afraid her campaign encourages this type of "gotcha" out of context type political garbadge, one of the many reasons why if Hillary is the nominee I might just say fuck it and wait till 2012, this type of crap shouldn't be rewarded, and yes I know the supreme court, but this type of crap needs to stop.

He delivers a great speech.

He is a like a pop singer with a great voice that can't write their own lyrics.

"It would never happen but it could."

Could you imagine the U.S. asking France to use a tactical nuke against a terrorist training camp operating U.S. territory? I'm guessing that wouldn't go over so well.

yea I know that didn't entirely make sense but you get the point....

either the three of them are in the first tier or hillary is alone in it.