What Obama Actually Said

Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:17 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats, Security

From NBC's Michelle Perry and Andrea Mitchell
As charges and reactions continue to ricochet over what Obama actually said regarding the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan, below is the actual transcript of the audio of the Associated Press' interview with Obama (which the AP has given to NBC News).

From the audio, it is clear that Obama initially rules out the use of tactical nuclear weapons -- then backtracks. His opponents, especially Clinton and Dodd, have attacked Obama for appearing to rule out the nuclear option -- in contradiction of traditional U.S. deterrence in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Today, Obama's camp is standing firm and welcoming the contrast to what they are describing as "traditional Washington think," saying they are surprised that anyone would disagree with what he said.

The transcript is below...

AP: Sir, with regard to terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...

OBAMA: Yeah.

AP: Is there any circumstances where you'd be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden?

OBAMA: No, I'm not, uh, there has been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss.

AP: Not even tactical?

OBAMA: No. I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. Uh, if involving you know, civilians... Let me scratch all that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table so...

AP: No discussion within your group?

OBAMA: I made a very narrow statement that I think is incontrovertible, which is if we've got a actionable intelligence then uh....that there are high value Al Qaeda targets, that we should take them out. And that's the extent of the statement. I mean it's...

AP: But the nuclear topic is bound to come up because of the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is certainly capable from Middle East experts to have an irrational religious fanatic type leader.

OBAMA: I'm not going that far field on this topic -- right now the question is are we going after Al Qaeda, and that's what the topic of the speech was about.

AP: Thanks for your time.

OBAMA: You bet.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Speaking as one of those Democrats who can't stand the thought of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton continuation, I totally agree with Mr. Obama. Hillary is way too polarizing. She may be polling well, but she'll never bring the country together. Not like Senator Obama seems to be able to do. That's what our country needs. I liked Bill Clinton, but the fact is, he totally disrespected the Office of the President. That's fact. I know alot of you fellow Democrats will argue that he simply got caught doing what all the other Presidents do, but that's weak. What's worse, Hillary knew it and let her thirst/power hungriness for the White House outweigh her morality and respect for the Office of the President. Period. And if I'm not gonna let Bush slide on his hypocrisies about his "moral decisions", I can't let the Clintons. I'm glad Bill had his time and I'm certainly glad Hillary seems to be a good Senator, but that's where it ends. Senator Obama is gonna get my vote and it will be a proud one. For those of you still jumping behind the "oh, he's to inexperienced crap", just stop. You sound like the Republicans chanting flip-flopper to John Kerry. It's the "establishment" politicians who have gotten us in the mess we are in. Obama '08!!!!

Steven (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 5:26 PM)

Also note here how the distinction between Pakistan and Al'qaeda+Taliban gets blurred.

I don't know anything about this AP reporter, but this person seems to be taking Obama's statements on attacking terrorist targets and frame them as an attack on Pakistan, implied by bringing up Pakistan's nuclear capability.

Does anyone else see this? The AP reporter seems to be muddling what the context of the question is.

I may be stupid, but the idea of nuclear weapons to attack terrorists makes no sense. To me that's like using a hammer to dial a number on your cell phone. Regardless of your stand on the use of hammers, it's clear that this application doesn't make sense.

Obama appears to have been thrown off, but I would be pretty confused too by this reporter.

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 1:58 AM)

Doesn't anyone realize that a nuclear strike would inevitably hit civilian targets??? To deploy just one nuclear weapon would pollute the entire planet and it would be the end of life as we know it. It may even bring about the end of the world, period. What's the matter with you people?????????

Mary Shepard (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 12:43 PM)

It does matter how long is day, a week, a month or a year, the truth will come out one day...
We all now know what Obama said, but not what the media, establishment and the clintons gangs want people to hear as inexperienced comments form Obama.
We all need to stay behind Senator Obama to take these such negative moves and politics to an end..

Chris, Chicago, IL (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 3:53 PM)

He won't be elected because he is black, and even though its not polite to talk about, approximately half of the south is racist versus colored people, and they probably won't vote for obama because of that.

I think it's amazing that a black man and a woman are the top contenders for president for the Democratic Party.

Breed, NYC, NY (Sent Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:22 PM)

Hillary is not willing to take nukes off the table to go after an individual terrorist who is already trying to blow himself up? She hedges and equivocates on talking to people who disagree with us and on going after bin Laden in Pakistan. She also trusted Bush and gave him a blank check on Iraq but now acts like an anti-war candidate. Sounds worse than Bush to me.

Barack opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and explained what would happen and has been proven right. He is willing to do things differently to fix the problems that face us. He will go after bin Laden and Al qeada wherever they are and he knows using a nuke in civilian areas would be a profound mistake.

That's the kind of judgment we need in the White House. Not a fraud like Hillary who was the largest recipient of lobbyist money in 2006.

Todd Smyth, Alexandria, VA (Sent Monday, August 06, 2007 11:19 AM)

If America is to return to her old glory, there's ONLY one man for the job. BARACK OBAMA. I have watched, read and studied all the candidates as closely as "anyone on the outside looking in" can and the choice couldn't be clearer. OBAMA's policies are most appropriate for these critical times and he hasn't been damaged by the corrupting political culture in Washington.

He stands without doubt for CHANGE, UNITY, HOPE, OPPORTUNITY, DECENCY and FORTHRIGHTNESS. Hopefully, Millions of Americans will stand with him.

LAWSON, London, UK (Sent Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:17 AM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=303159