He shouldn't be talking about nukes or not using nukes, Hillary is right there. Why even discuss that? And how do you know what "actionable intelligence" means???? What's concrete mean? I think we've all learned our lessons. My decision not to consider him a viable candidate is based on his reckless statements that I find don't endear him to be trusted to smart decision making. He strikes as someone who will say the wrong things that will cause controversy and damage. We need someone who is more politically adept, wise, and doesn't threaten our allies. If we don't respect the boundaries of our allies, who will ever trust us?
I'm guessing that is already the case already. Even if that isn't what is going on now and that is what Obama intends by all means then don't talk about it ahead of time! Frankly I think this was a desparate move on Obama's part to hit back at Clinton on the security issue. This was an issue that no other candidate had been talking about so he figured this was his chance to stake his security credentials. I don't think he thought this out very well and if he does become President I am doubtful he would follow through with major action in Pakistan.
His discussion on using nukes didn't help much either. Like I said, I think he'll be a strong candidate in 2012 if Rudy wins it in '08
I agree with NewYorker on this one, even if I don't know how truthfully he holds these views. Obama might be right about not using nukes and barring even the most severe circumstances I don't see even GW Bush using nukes. Its impossible to know if the most severe circumstances will arise so its a mistake to apriori rule out their use.
One more thought on this. IMO its a mistake for Obama to go toe to with Clinton on who is tougher on security credentials. Obama isn't going to get elected based on his security credentials but based on his charisma and the idea of changing politics. Like it or not Obama is a freshman senator dealing with one of the shrewdist politicians of our time. He's not going to out tough Clinton and if he does she will tag him with being naive. Obama just needs to convince people that they will be secure without having to come off as aggressive. When it comes to security he could basically go along with whatever Hillary Clinton says and still do well.
Did you just basically say that Obama has to do the political equivalent of showing some more leg to get elected?
Obama is great when he can go on Oprah or The View and wax eloquent about generalities. It's when he has to come with substance that he gets smacked around. All hat, no cattle.
Again with Nukes he clarified his statement to say exactly that. If you listen to the soundbite instead of the context you might get the wrong idea.
It's especially galling how he can lambast Hillary and Congress for voting for that Iraq resolution when they were given "actionable intel" for their vote. He better cut his losses while he's still ahead on other fronts. I think he's fearing the Rovian machine a little too much and he'd be better served focusing on his strengths and avoiding attacks against his candidates. That breath of fresh air can get stale real fast. I'm also disappointed, and he better use his time wisely to change his political course.
The actionable intel congress was given, was cherry picked, and congress should have done more investigating before having made their vote. As President the actionable intel he sees would be different and not filtered. I agree he shouldn't be talking about nukes one way or the other. That was a mistake for him, which he clarified instantaneously. But it was a silly hypothetical, and his answer was technically a sound one. There is no way we should be nuking Afghanistan or Pakistan to kill terrorists.
Well if Obama gets it wrong w/ the strike, then there'd be plenty of time to criticize how much more investigating he should've done. I hate to rehash Iraq, but even with Blix's assertions, everyone still assumed Saddam had nuclear materials of some sort. Then there's Clinton's various missile strikes. The point is that the definition of actionable intel is never stongly concrete or accurate. And as for the assertion of unfiltered intel, I like to see what Bush is reading that's making him calm and upbeat about our prospects in Afghanistan. I'm more concerned about Obama's decision making abilities at critical points and whether he's truly considered the weight of his actions.
I think they assumed Iraq had WMD, I don't think everyone assumed they had nuclear materials. As far as Clinton's missile strikes, those are what helped finish off Saddam's WMD stockpiles. And actually you have spelled out your reasons for disagreeing with Obama's Pakistan statements, and doubting him nicely. I don't agree, but you had valid reasons, and didn't try and make his statement into something it wasn't(a pledge to invade Pakistan).
I disagree with this. (the part I bolded) I would agree that "everyone" thought he had WMDs, like gas, etc., but I never believed he has anything worthy of mention in the way of atomics. And he wasn't a threat to the United States or our interests with the WMDs we thought he might have. Invading Iraq was an act of gross incompetence. Saddam was no credible threat, we were overflying the country and didn't hesitate to blow up or shoot down anything that appeared to be a threat, his military was degraded severely by the Gulf War and the sanctions afterwards... the reason he didn't make strong statements denying he had WMDs was the threat of Iran on his border. It wasn't Rockets science, except for the chump in the Oval Office. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
I concur. At the time I would have been very willing to believe any evidence of a nuclear program. I was much more trusting of the process then than I would be now, and probably much more willing to believe than hippies like Deckard, but I was fairly confident from the way that they presented 'the evidence' that no nuclear program existed.
I intended to mean a restarted nuclear program (buildings, labs, processing facillities, etc). At the time, most people thought it wasn't a matter of if, but rather when. Plus those forged Niger documents were still used by our CIA until June of 03, which supported the claim that Saddam was seeking (unsucessfully) uranium from Nigeria. But my own correction doesn't override the point that the definition of actionable intel isn't always strongly concrete or accurate.
