Obama: No Nukes To Fight Al Qaeda

(AP)  Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, drawing criticism from Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democratic rivals.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Obama was responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"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.

When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.

The Illinois senator, in a speech Wednesday, warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he would use U.S. military force in Pakistan even without Musharraf's permission if necessary to root out terrorists.

Asked about Obama's speech and his comments about nuclear weapons, New York Sen. Clinton chided Obama for addressing hypotheticals.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Asked about the idea of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al Qaeda leadership, Clinton said: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."

Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, responded: "If we had actionable intelligence about the existence of high-level al Qaeda targets like Osama bin Laden, Senator Obama would act and is confident that conventional means would be sufficient to take the target down. Frankly we're surprised that others would disagree."

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, one of Obama's presidential rivals, also criticized Obama's comments about unilateral military action in Pakistan to pursue terrorists.

"It's a well-intended notion he has, but it's a very naJive way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy," Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on National Public Radio's "The Diane Rehm Show."

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee along with Obama, also took his rival to task.

"Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options," Dodd said in a statement.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is politically unstable, raising concerns that the current military leadership could be replaced by religious fanatics who would be less cautious in using the weapons.

Obama warned that terrorists in the mountains of Pakistan are planning another attack on the United States, after already killing 3,000 Americans in their 2001 attacks.

"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005." he said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

In an AP interview Thursday, the governor of Pakistan's largest province said Obama's comments undermine crucial efforts to win Pakistanis' support for the fight against terrorists.

Baluchistan Gov. Owais Ahmed Ghani, whose province shares a long border with Afghanistan, said Pakistanis watch their soldiers being killed in the fight against militants and say, "If that is the sort of signal that is coming out of Washington, why bother?"

"Nothing must be said or done which will undermine the vital public support that Pakistan needs, the world needs," he said.

[tbweb]

Sen. Obama, no U.S. Official should ever let an enemy know the U.S. will never ever use nuclear weapons, even if it's true! Why take that option off the table unilaterally? It's a deterent, duh. More rookie mistakes and clear proof you are not ready to be Commander and Chief of the United States. Rookie mistakes ad naseum ... :(

[usatheway98]

Boy Obama is such an ignoramus - such a victicrat, and such a fool.

Think back, Boy Obama to August 1998 - in fact it might be a good idea for the cuckolded shrill shrew who's criticising him. Right after the Lewinsky thing broke, and when Osama blasted our African Embassies, the Pervert known as Willy sent that ridiculous CONVENTIONAL cruise missile strike against those virtually empty Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

Had the pervert used nukes,in even a 50 mile radius of those camps, the likelihood 9/11 would have never taken place would have been 100%, as intel now points out that little bin laden had run - but not that far away.

Of course gutless liberals always have to be concerned what the rest of the world would say. Except when it comes to dropping tons of ordinance from B-52s on a daily basis on the innocent civilians of Clinton's ILLEGAL war on Serbia.

Bill, Hil, and little Boy Obama - ALWAYS GUTLESS, ALWAYS COWARDLY, ALWAYS MYOPIC - AND YES ALWAYS TYPICAL DEMOCRATS - all of the time.

[usatheway98]

watch out xzavier, the bozos are out in force as usual.

Boy Obama sez - I'se don wanna use dem nukes to hit bin laden. whys? because i'se got my massa and pal gran massa kleagle byrdie to scare him. boy, he's come in dem white sheets in the pakistani mountains and ol' Osama my namesake is gonna sh*t like flies. Osama hes scared of dem fossils in white sheeeets. no nukes - i'se a shake my finger and tak about sending dem Union boys in and Osama will wanna tak to me. Ors tak to my anchovy, Lewie Farrocan.

I'se gotta go - Massa Byrdie he sez wiv got Chitlins tonight, and I've got to sail this big ol' steemboat. Bye.

[realpatriot1]

xzavierbrown,

My position is what I siad it is, not the way you choose to characterize it. I'm not for sending troops to Pakastan to fight the Pakastani government but to fight Al Quaeda at the source.

If you think that Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakastan are the same you're a simplistic idiot.

Infidel_US,

You agree with Obama on this but you think he's a clown for this. Which is it?

[toolmangler-2009]

Obama is wrong, they will use a nook or dirty Bumb on us first, then it will be "Katy! bar the door!!!"

[beck701]

Put a uniform on Obama and sent the idiot to Iraq , Pakistan or Afganistan. THen see the big mouth in action. I hope that fool doesn't become president

[agnim]

Some one has to light a fire under the tail of the Pakistanis or they will CONTINUE TO PLAY THE USA FOR AID! LOL

The ever-crafty Musharaf is playing bush like a fiddle.

Obama takes the right position.

All his critics are idiots; because the Pakistanis are shrewed and will continue to play the US.
If they are not sent a strong message, then they won't budge.

Pakistan needs to be sent a strong signal that they need to act decisively against the foreign maniac muslims in their midst!

[xzavierbrown]

let me guess..soon liberals would say its really okay WIRETAPPING and DETAINING ENEMY COMBATANTS in some far away land is OKAY..because Obama said so. not that i mind BUT are these liberals switching battle cries here overnight due to blind support?

liberals liberals liberals

[xzavierbrown]

Posted by realpatriot1 at 02:06 PM : Aug 03, 2007
+ report abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


((love it when liberals are ripping each other a new arse))

so your telling me that you are more than willing to send AMERICAN SOLDIERS and risk AMERICAN LIVES to a SOUVREIGN COUNTRY like Pakistan...who never attacked us...to deal with terrorism???

WAIT?? are you a liberal or a warmongering liberal because you are flip flopping on the 'we care about american lives issue here'

[realpatriot1]

The United States should abide by a no first use policy regarding nuclear weapons. We don't need to use nuclear weapons to fight AQl Quaeda in the mountains anyways, so it was nothing more than a gotcha question.

Clinton is more of a slimeball everyday. Does she mean to say that she would use nukes to take out terrorist training camps? If so,why? Does she have anger management issues like Tancredo?

It seems everyone accusing Obama of pandering and being naive wants to out pander and out naive him.