Conflict on Clinton’s View of Nuclear Weapons: Did she flip-flop?

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Conflict on Clinton’s View of Nuclear Weapons
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: August 9, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has criticized Senator Barack Obama for saying he would rule out using nuclear weapons to root out terrorists in Afghanistan or Pakistan, made a similar comment regarding Iran last year, before she became a presidential candidate.

“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television in an interview in April 2006, responding to a question about how the Bush administration would try to prevent Iran from building up its nuclear program.

Last week, Mr. Obama said it would be a “profound mistake” for the United States to use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Asked to reply, Mrs. Clinton said: “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

For weeks, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have tangled over their foreign policy views, judgment and experience in their quest to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Mrs. Clinton has challenged Mr. Obama — at one point, calling his foreign policy stands “irresponsible and frankly naïve” — while he has sought to portray his positioning as an example of how he would change Washington.

But during the television interview more than a year ago, the comments of which were reprised today by The Associated Press, Mrs. Clinton also discussed the role of nuclear weapons. “I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clintons 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.”

Phil Singer, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton, said she was responding to a specific news report at the time that the Bush administration was considering nuclear strikes on Iran. The context, he said, was different than the scenario raised last week by Mr. Obama....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/10cnd-clinton.html?hp

[MannyGoldstein]

1. No - Rather, She Simultaneously Embraces All Sides Of An Issue

She's incredibly good at it, too.

[Meldread]

3. That's true. Triangulation at work. -nt-

[Meldread]

2. She either flip-flopped or is two faced on the issue.

Honestly, though, I don't think she flip-flopped. I think she just decided to trash Obama to score points, which makes her two faced when you take what she said at the AFL/CIO debate about Democrats not attacking other Democrats.

It makes me wonder, though, why she attacked Obama when statistically speaking she is pretty far ahead. It was an obvious strategic move on her campaigns part, it makes you wonder what they are saying behind closed doors. Do they consider Obama a threat? If not then why attack him? It is rather uncommon for such a clear front-runner to attack another candidate without good reason.

[Alamom]

4. Consider the timing. The idiots in charge were talking about nuking....

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/08/clinton_discussed_use_of_nukes.php

"She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."

Source: AP News

[papau]

5. Easy to make it look like a flip/flop - but reality seems that it was not

The Obama answer to the AP question that asked if there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader was Obama saying 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... (pause) .....involving civilians."


Bloomberg Television in April 2006 asked Clinton 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."


SO IN THE TALKS WITH IRAN CLINTON IN 2006 THOUGHT WE SHOULD NOT BE THREATENING TO USE NUKES IF IRAN DID NOT GIVE IN. CLINTON IN 2007 SAID THAT IN DEFENDING THE US NUKES SHOULD NOT BE OFF THE TABLE.

THERE IS NO OBAMA QUOTE RE THE TALKS WITH IRAN AND THE BUSH THREAT OF USING NUKES.

SO CLINTON SAYS TO NOT DESTROY THE ATMOSPHERE OF IRAN NEGOTIATIONS BY TALKING OF NUKE THREATS TO IRAN - BUT TO NOT RULE OUT THE USE OF NUKES IN DEFENDING THE US. I DO NOT SEE THE CONTRADICTION.

[BeyondGeography]

6. She made a "blanket statement" regarding the use of nukes in Iran

The same type of statement she said Presidents shouldn't make last week when she was trying to score campaign points.

She said re. Obama: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

And re. Iran: "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table."

That's our girl!

[papau]

7. I do not read it that way - I see a statement about atmosphere in negotiations n/t

n/t

[antiimperialist]

8. You say she did not flip-flop; I say she flip-flopped twice

I see a contradiction within her 2006 interview and a contradiction when we compare the 2006 interview with her recent criticism of Obama.
In her interview with Bloomberg, she reminded the interviewer that prior to that point in 2006, she had publicly said that "no option should be off the table"; but she immediately said that her new position was to "certainly take nuclear weapons off the table".
In other words, she said: I will now flip-flop, so what.

Now in '07 responding to Obama's comments, she said that ""I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

So here are the flips:

Pre-2006: No options of the table.
2006 interview: Nuking Iran off the table (first flip flop).
2007: Obama was wrong in issuing blanket statements ruling out options. (2nd flip-flop, since her pre-2006 opinion was a sweeping, blanket statement).

Hillary is well-intentioned, and I would vote for her over any Republican, but she's an opportunistic phony.

[papau]

9. The context in 2006 was Bush will nuke Iran if it doesn't agree - the full quote is below:

HUNT: Senator, you sit in the Armed Services Committee. There were reports this weekend, the ``Washington Post'' and elsewhere, that the United States is considering a military option against Iran if it won't relinquish any ambitions to nuclear weapons. The ``New Yorker'' even said that we're considering using nuclear – tactical nuclear weapons. Should those options be on the table when it comes to Iran?

CLINTON: Well, I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And 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.

Secondly, when it comes to Iran I think the administration needs to engage in a process with Iran. They outsource this issue of whether Iran would go nuclear to the Europeans. I thought that was a mistake then. I've said it on numerous occasions since. We dealt with the Soviet Union, who had thousands of missiles on hair trigger alert pointed at us. I remember hiding under my desk – a little good that would do – when I was a child. But we lived with that threat and we never stopped negotiating and engaging in a process with our most implacable foe for decades, someone who had been a country, a system, that was dedicated to destroying us.

This administration takes this kind of hands off approach to North Korea, to Iran. All I know is that five years ago North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons. We now believe it does. And five years ago Iran may have been toying with it or thinking about it. Now it looks as though it's on the road to it.

We have to be much more diplomatically engage and not have this hands off approach to it.

=====================================================================================
=======================================================================================

I read the above as being in the context of being diplomatically engaged - you do not threaten to nuke. It does not say you will not use nukes (in my opinion/reading of it).

in contrast the AP reports Obama said:

"The Illinois senator yesterday declared he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He says it would be a "profound mistake." Obama was responding to a question by The Associated Press about the subject. Obama says his position includes tactical nuclear weapons. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Obama for addressing hypothetical questions and says presidents should never make such blanket statements about weapons use. Clinton says it's a bad idea to telegraph one's intentions."

=============================================================================
=============================================================================

There is a difference - one discusses the approach and words used in getting a discussion going with Iran, the other details the exact paramters of how he would use force. I do not see Hillary saying how she would use force - just that she would not threaten it - "take it off the table" in discussions with Iran.

[rodeodance]

12. Nicely said, Context is SO important in evaluating Senators statements. Thanks

[Ethelk2044]

10. yes, She did.

[zulchzulu]

11. Let me Clintonify it for you: She readjustified her presentational positionizing

Yeah, that was last year...just like her other position about striking Al Qaeda in Pakistan was last spring that was opposite of what she catcalled to Obama recently.

Can we move along now? The Coronation is being delayed by this little sidetracking event. Do you hate her like you hate all women????

:sarcasm:

[BeyondGeography]

13. And let's not forget the part about not talking to bad/evil people

or was it we should talk to them unless Obama says so? A pattern emerges.

And national security is supposed to be her strong point...The Republicans would have such fun with her.