| So, Obama says that he won't nuke Afghanistan or Pakistan:
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"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.
Um, OK. Do we live in a sick enough country where swearing off the use of nuclear weapons against poor countries from South Asia at which we are not at war (although we are occupying one) is somehow worthy of note? Is this, for some reason, a radical enough position to be worthy of news? Apparently it is, since there are now over 400 results for "Barack Obama" nuclear on Google News. The reason, as Jerome explains at MyDD, is because it seems someone in the "mainstream" press corps is leaking things to Drudge, who then quotes Obama out of contest:
It's also telling of a shift in the way that the press is handling Obama now. When a politician says "strike that" it's supposed to mean a 'do-over' that isn't brought out into the public by the reporter. This was dished to Drudge with the lead out of context in order to cause maximum harm.
There is definitely a media feeding frenzy on Obama and foreign policy right now. Partially, it is his own doing, as the campaign has been issuing several missives on the subject lately. Also, partially it is residue from the "spat" with Clinton, as it is being called.
This latest, Drudge fueled attack against him, however, is just plain crap and demonstrates three things. First, despite massive Republican electoral and poll setbacks, right-wing media infrastructure has not gone anywhere. Second, while the institutions that put Republicans in power are still in place, conservatives have clearly grown extremely tone deaf as to developing a successful, policy-oriented attack. Does anyone seriously think that Obama will take a hit in the poll because he said he won't nuke Pakistan and Afghanistan? To state that you would consider nuking Pakistan and Afghanistan is absolutely fucking insane, and I imagine has minimal support nationwide (Seriously--some polling outfit see how nuking other countries polls.) This actually bring me to my final point: why on Earth is it news that a Democratic presidential candidate would say this? To rephrase that question: why hasn't every single Democratic candidate for president sworn off using nuclear weapons as a means to "combat terrorism." I cannot emphasize enough how utterly insane the idea of pre-emptively nuking anyone to take out a terrorist cell is. That it isn't well known that all Democrats are against this idea is stunning. That some Democrats might even still ponder using nuclear weapons in such a way is even scarier. That this idea is taken seriously in the American press, instead of being rejected outright as utterly deranged, is incredibly frightening.
Shudder. It should not be news that someone is opposed to pre-emptively nuking a country in order to "fight terrorism." It should be as normal as the sun rising. It should only be news when someone suports, or even considers, that position. |
