Is this a Freudian slip? Has there been discussion? It would be hard to imagine, that we did not discuss the possible use.  

Clinton is such a witch.  And I'm a Democrat.

That's funny, Ron Paul said almost exactly the same thing in expressing his outrage that his fellow candidates would refuse to take nuclear weapons off the table as a possibility for dealing with Iran, and no one cared. What makes Obama so special?

Paul is an intelligent statesman who upholds his oath to defend the Constitution with proven integrity. Obama is a (very) charismatic politician who would be a lot more refreshing if he stopped pandering to the political masses.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Well I'm sure the left will blame the Drudge report instead of the AP.

On a lighter side of the news. Someone tell Russia to stay the hell off our moon.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070802/ts_nm/russia_arctic_dc_7

Bush Cheney extra heavy.

For anyone worrying Obama's position was too hawkish, this nips it in the bud.  He's basically saying here that if it comes down to it, he won't rule out a tactical strike targeting military installations on the verge of attacking us in a doomsday scenario; on the other hand, Obama appears to be fundamentally against nuking a city under any circumstances even in the doomsday scenario.  I personally think that's GREAT news, and if Hillary Clinton finds that too much of a blanket statement, the only Democrat being overly hawkish is she; this isn't 1945, and we have the technology now not to have to ever launch a Hiroshima again, nor should we we hold such a threat over the heads of civilians whose hearts and minds we hope to win.

 

need to watch all the talk about nukes, makes other countries nervous, you really don't want anyone to know whether you would use them or not, that’s part of the deterrent, and it's not a good thing because the u.s. is trying to stop iran from building them, rather hypocritical when your trying to stop others from building them when your using them as bargaining chip in the news

GREAT!! Now you know what conservatives have had to put up with for the last 30 years when it came to Liberal and Democratic party controlled mainstream media reporting.

This is like Deja vu all over again:  Sen.Obama flubs a national security question and Sen. Clinton nails it.  It's not news anymore:  Sen. Obama just ain't ready for prime time.

So MSNBC is off of the bash Obama ban wagon knowing that their calculated misrepresentation of his speech yesterday effectively ended his chances.  I guess he should feel grateful that you're not willing to throw salt in the wound you opened yesterday?

Nice of MSNBC to leave out the fact Hillary Clinton contradicted herself while bashing Obama--and the media ignores it per usual...

Hillary Clinton, August 2:

I am concerned about talking about it," 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."

Hillary Clinton, August 1:

"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.

It's so funny that when Obama states the obvious that a tactical nuke would kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians for the head of 50-100 guys everybody is surprised.

Same when he says he will continue the policy that Roosevelt, JFK and Reagan had of talking to enemies.

The Washington insider game has already become.

Boy, Dave, this story and your comment above really flies in the face of your usual "liberal media" hooey huh?  I guess I should be glad that you don't really believe it to be true either.

There he goes again.

Yawn, what an uninformed question. Yes, we keep the nuclear option on the table... when dealing with other nation states. No, we've never discussed nor considered (I hope) using nuclear weapons against a non-governmental organization.

But this was a mistake by Obama. He started giving the real answer, and then realized the headlines these reporters and editors - who really know very little about anything outside of counting column inches - would come up with. So he slipped back into the political answer, rather than spending a few news cycles explaining U.S. nuclear policy to the press.

Obama really shouldn't speak without a teleprompter or prepared text.

Today he proved just how Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time the Junior Senator from Illinois is.  As he demonstrated during the debates, Obama just can't seem to help stepping into a big pile of his own making.

His latest flailing about with I-won't-use-nukes-with-citizens-that-is-wait-scratch-that-I'm-not-discussing-nukes debacle illustrates that he is as clueless about how a Commander-In-Chief should address the most lethal weapon in his military arsenal as he is about how to respond to a double terrorist attack or about Presidential diplomacy.

The American electorate doesn't seem to like what Obama is stepping in, either.

The three most recent national polls, taken after the last debate, show Clinton trending up and way ahead by double-double digits over her nearest rival.  As of today, Clinton trounces Obama 43(38) to 21(25) Rasmussen; 43(39) to 22(25) NBC/WSJ; and 40(34) to 21(24) Pew.

Standing in front of a teleprompter and reading a speech written by Richard Clarke isn't a terribly difficult thing to do.  Unfortunately for Obama, the American electorate knows that we live in serious times and require more from their President than a dramatic reading from a prepared text.

That statement clinches it for me. Saying that nukes are off the table flys directly in the face of the Cold War. Maybe he does not remember the Cuban Blockade. Ninty miles off our southern coast tactical nukes were poised to due their nasty business and it was the "real" threat we were ready to blow their country off the planet that stoped them. As long as there are leaders like Nikita K. and g.w.bush who have the capability and desire to "first strike attack" nukes are basically the ultimate deterant. The U.S.expects nothing less than from thir leaders. Obama is not strong enough to meet that possible challange.

---> Yawn, what an uninformed question.


A gimme question, but yet Obama blew it big time.

What's Barck going to do when he starts getting the difficult and probing questions in the coming weeks from the likes of MSNBCs Keith Olbermann?

"Someone tell Russia to stay the hell off our moon."
Good one Dave.  Thanks for the Friday chuckle.

Ginger, I don't agree. Its only a "gimme question" when the audience understands what its hearing. Obama gave the answer that all would, Republican or Democrat, in this election cycle and all previous ones in the nuclear age.

We have never considered a nuclear deterrence (not to mention actual employment of nuclear weapons) against a group of people who cannot be defined by a nation state.

Here's a challenge for you. Find me another time where any serious candidate said the nuclear option is on the table for non-governmental organizations. Bet you can't.

Tough questions from KEITH OLBERMANN?

You're kidding, right?

So what Barack was doing was musing around with himself in front of others until he came up with a nuclear strategy.  Very cool.  Did he capture the whole idea on a used napkin?

"We have never considered a nuclear deterrence (not to mention actual employment of nuclear weapons) against a group of people who cannot be defined by a nation state."

A bold statement.  So are you saying we have never considered it?  Or, no one has told you what it is?

"Here's a challenge for you. Find me another time where any serious candidate said the nuclear option is on the table for non-governmental organizations. Bet you can't"

Not in so many words, but lets not be too obtuse.  Countries (aka, governmental organizations) have been told they are either for us, or against us, right?

"You're kidding, right?"


Olbermann hosting a Democratic forum/debate next week.  My gosh, the FEC should make the Democrats pay for the airtime they are getting from NBC.

This gathering will make those info-mercials they put on in the middle of the night look unbiased.

To the ignorant people who keep repeating the ‘his not experienced’ rhetoric ,please go and read his well thought out plan on keeping terrorist at bay before coming here to display your ignorance. I live amongst you and I know majority of you do not even have passports just incase you might have to see the real world .Calling Obama naive, is like saying Bush is intelligent.Atleast he has studied about the world enough not to stick to one source of information. He schooled in Indonesia and like many of us who got the privilege of living in the developing world, he knows not all Muslims are radicals. Lets get back to Pakistan, a nation with 70% moderate Muslims, like most majority Muslim countries is hijacked by radical extremist minorities. Senator Obama said he is willing to work with Musharaff to take out Al- Qaeda and 9-11 mastermind Bin laden ,reining in control of the dispersed autonomous northern tribes who are harboring terrorist .This will also help Afghanistan take care of the insurgence by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants hiding in the mountainous borders of the Pakistan Afghan border. The pragmatic thing after 9-11 which Bush ignored was to pressure Pakistan to allow special forces in those regions to hunt down Al-Qaeda remnants, this current administration failed to do this because it did not benefit corporate profiteering ; making Afghanistan and Pakistan’s volatile northern regions safe for the World in general. With the support of Hillary Clinton ,who with clearly laid out false intelligence, knowledge of the history of the middle east and experience in being first lady during her husbands two year term voted to give Mr. Bush the mandate to invade Iraq. Thus living Afghanistan and Pakistan which should have been our main focus to Bin laden and his cohorts to taunt the world with their periodical release of videos reminding us of their invincibility.

It is clear CNN and the Clinton spin media are doing all they can to smear Obama, the mostly ignorant and gullible Americans who can’t read for themselves but take everything the media puts out as the truth, get on the internet to spew their pitiful sagacity with a few sentences they write because they have nothing else to hit the most promising Leader America will be lucky to have as president in a while. I’m glad there some Americans who see the need for a new leader to bring America back to its glory days, where it was feared and respected by friends and enemies alike.

Nuclear arms is here to stay but the will to use it has been curtailed by humanity. Until these inhumane terrorist started killing innocent people, it was a deterrent to keep the world safe from power hungry dictators and regimes from take over the free world. America has advance technology to counter and neutralize any Nuclear attack on its ally how much more on it’s self. For those who don’t know there has been so much money spent not on building nuclear pile but defense against nuclear attacks as well. Its the reason the cold war ended because no sane human being was to go end the world by starting a nuclear war which can never be won by any nation. This can’t be said of the terrorist who wants to expedite their journey to heaven to be with their beautiful virgins. The US is still strong and a force to reckon with in the world. The world is changing and the US is in the dire need of a president who will be embraced by world . Once again the US have the chance to lead the world, the pacesetters it has always been and Barrack Obama is the one to take it there. Taking the fight on terrorism back to the real terrorist Al-Qaeda which is residing in northern Pakistan presently is not a bad idea. With the support of the UN , allies and corporation with the Pakistan people who wouldn’t want to be associated with Bin-Laden and his cohorts, the true fight on terrorism will begin with the safety of the Pakistani and Afghan people at heart.
Feel free to argue constructively after thoroughly reading my post.Thank you .

PS: CNN is deleting comments because we are “keeping them honest” by calling them Clinton spin doctors.We all know who is been paid by the candidates now.I’m starting a campaign against CNN for taking away our right to debate and call on the unfairness of the media towards Barack Obama.Join me.

Excuse my grammatical errors I speak and write 5 languages and english is not my first language so bare with me.

  Excuse my grammatical errors I speak and write 5 languages


Maybe you should focus on doing 1 well.  The only thing I got out of your post is that you think Obama is naive.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):