RUH ROH...Hillary's words come back to bite her..."Clinton Discussed Use of Nukes Last Year"

[in_cog_ni_to]

Clinton Discussed Use of Nukes Last Year
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

14 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. 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."<snip>

http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2007/08/09/735305.html

[hedgehog]

1. Yes, but she was running for the SENATE then, not the Presidency.

Senatorial candidates have different rules. That's why no one ever brings up the fact that she was running against the anti-war Tasini in the NYS Primary.

[karynnj]

17. Hillary Clinton may have been running for Senate, but she was also clearly a Presidential candidate

even if it wasn't official. The Senate does have a role in advising the President on foreign policy - that's why there is a Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The President, as George Bush put it, is the decider, but he would be wise (impossible in Bush's case) to listen to the counsel of the Senate and others.

Hillary has contradicted herself. (In a specific instance, you CAN rule out nuclear weapons.)

[TwilightGardener]

2. ...

:rofl:

[Richard Steele]

3. Well, this should finally put to rest those notions that she'll say anything to get elected!

:eyes:

[emilyg]

5. and the other candidates won't???

[Alexander]

11. The Hillary fanatics make yet another excuse for her.

Last week you guys were overjoyed that she "trapped" Obama.

Now that it's been shown she flip-flopped on nukes, you say "But everyone else does it too!"

Pathetic. :eyes:

[emilyg]

23. I'm guilty. Love her!

[HeraldSquare212]

4. So unlike her...

It's so contrary to her style to make a definitive statement about anything that she just assmed she hadn't said anything about nukes.

[waiting for hope]

6. Scooby! What did you do!

Need a scooby snack?

[jsamuel]

7. well, in her defence (which I don't like to do), she wasn't a presidential candidate in April 2006

[karynnj]

18. Officially no, but did anyone in the world doubt it.

Second, the Senate does advise the President on foreign policy - even though Bush doesn't listen - so it does make a difference in a Senate race. The truth is that saying what she said last week in the NY PRIMARY, where she had a little known anti-war opponent could have marginally increased his numbers, embarrassing her, though certainly not even coming close to defeating her.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Meaningless without context. nt

[hedgehog]

9. Well, the context then was she was speaking to an audience

that was opposed to the use of nuclear weapons and now.....

[Exiled in America]

10. Not unlike your post.

[KaptBunnyPants]

15. Describe a context which could have changed the meaning of this sentence.

"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."

She saw a shot to attack Obama, and took it. The truth that Obama was right didn't matter at all.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. She pounced a little too quick on this one! She should have made damn sure

she had never said the same thing at any point in her political career. Big mistake on her part.

[RufusTFirefly]

16. Here's the head of a pin. Feel free to start dancing. n/t

[gratuitous]

12. How about this: No first use

What is so tough to understand about this concept? It worked pretty well for 50 years or more, against an enemy that was a mite better armed than your average disgruntled guy in a cave (by which I mean the Soviet Union).

Instead, we're in Republican Cloud Cuckoo Land where Hillary Clinton can make a totally off-the-rails comment like "I don't believe any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons" and be applauded by the fuckheads who think that violence is an answer to any problem. What about using nukes on civilian population that doesn't have nukes, Mrs. Clinton? That's a blanket statement about not using nuclear weapons. According to your statement, you wouldn't rule out dropping a nuclear bomb (or even several nuclear bombs) on a civilian population without the means to fight back, get away or do anything but perish in the flash.

Am I putting words in her mouth? Am I being unfair? Is that an unwarranted reading of her very clear statement? What poisonous shit have we ingested over the last decade that makes such a monstrous statement defensible? If anyone should back off his or her public comments, it's Hillary in this case, and political considerations can go to blazes.

[Dems Will Win]

13. I believe this is a mortal wound for Hillary, It exposes her worst perception: She'll Say Anything!

Obama is going to have a field day with this!

This will especially hurt her in New Hampshire, where more Indies will now crossover and vote Obama.

This makes Obama look very, very good and totally neutralizes all the criticism of him from the last 2 weeks.

In fact, it just might inoculate him against the inexperienced charge!!

Any reporter will now be loathe to say he is inexperieinced, given this, while they will be searching all of Hillary's past now on every comment to search for contradictions like this.

I think Hillary is now mortally wounded.

It's going to be hard for the conservatives to spin this gaffe in her favor and keep her in the race.

Dems love to knock over the front-runner, and she just shot herself in the foot big-time!

Doesn't she have staff check this kind of stuff out??

She looks like a complete idiot and Obama looks wise and commanding. Really think this will be blown up over the next couple of days and over the weekend.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. I was really surprised her handlers left this stone unturned. One would think they had scoured

every word she's ever uttered and made damn sure she doesn't contradict herself. I wonder how she'll spin this one?

[Dems Will Win]

19. That's easy: read what she said -- "Iran Off The Table, Pakistan On The Table"

Makes sense if you don't ever think about it.

That's all she can hope for now.

[mdmc]

21. She is very presidential

:kick:

[Elidor]

22. Ooops!

Hillary a two-faced, say-anything weathervane? I'm shocked!