CLINTON: OBAMA IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO RULE OUT USING NUKES IN PAKISTAN. The Barack Obama-Hilary Clinton slug fest keeps going and going. To which I say "pass the popcorn," this has been by far the most fun week of the campaign and quite possibly the most illuminating one as well. Most recently in an interview today, Obama ruled out using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Clinton was quick to condemn this as careless:
"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."
Really? She thinks the possiblity of us nuking Waziristan is reducing al Qaeda activity there? She thinks its a good thing if people believe we might use nuclear weapons for the first time in sixty years to kill some folks hiding in a cave? The article also includes a rather cutting, though wholly accurate, summary of Clinton's spat with Obama on foreign policy yesterday:
"I am concerned about talking about [sending US troops into Pakistan]," she said. "I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons."
Clinton didn't seem to have any problem "talking about" the subject on Wednesday, when interviewed on American Urban Radio News Network.
"I've long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.
A pattern is developing. Obama says something vaguely controversial but sensible, Clinton condemns it as naive, careless and stupid, but then it becomes clear she doesn't actually have any real criticisms of his policy. The pattern does, however, perhaps reveal a disagreement about how foreign policy should be conducted. Obama is more willing to be open about what options he would consider while Clinton puts more value in secrecy and deterrence. Neither approach is without merit, but I find something refreshing in Obama's willingness to be honest and forthright, even when what he says is a bit provocative, and I suspect that after almost seven years of the Bush administration I'm not the only one.
--Sam Boyd
