Meet with leaders of Rogue nations. Oh, wait...

You might try getting it right before going off like a fool.

According to the NY Daily News, hardly a trumpet for the Obama campaign, "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan,"

and..

"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."

Using nukes to fight terrorists in either Pakistan or Afghanistan would morally annihlate the US in the eyes of the entire world, not to mention, provide an incentive for a massive recruitment of Islamic terrorists.

Your Drudge-inspired mockery is typical wingnut BS distortion.

Here's one possible scenario, Fries:

Iran develops a nuke. They debate whether to give it to a terrorist group to use against us. Our long-standing policy is that we reserve the right to respond to WMD attacks with our own WMD, so they have to know that we might strike back by nuking some of their key military installations.

But not under President Obama, who thinks it's just fine to threaten to invade a nuclear power while proclaiming that we won't use our own nuclear arsenal.

Time to dig out those "duck and cover" videos...

J.

Even if "under any circumstances" was restricted to Pakistan and Afghanistan, how do we get Bin Laden if our troops are staring down Pakistan's nukes?

Taking nukes off the table just assured whoever is in charge of Pakistan that we will send our boys in with pitchforks and knives against their machine guns.

Brilliant.

Within Obama's first 100 days he will demand Greenland to raise its surface temperature 10 degrees or more and fall in line with the ecco-weenies "predictions" or he will nuc them into submission (read 120 deg year 'round) on day 101.

Jay Tea

Anyone who would think that any president, Obama included, would fail to respond in like kind in the event of nuclear weapons use is nuts. That scenario that you suggested has nothing to do with what Obama was saying in response to the reporter's question. To try to construe Obama's response as a guarantee that the US, under an Obama presidency, would sit back and absorb a nuclear attack is outright dishonest and you know better.

No matter Drudge's smear attempt, no would-be terrorist or would-be terrorist nation would ever think that they could use a nuclear weapon against the US w/ impunity. They might not give a shit about the US response because they want mass murder and they could care less about their own self-incineration, but they could never think that the US would not respond in kind, especially any would-be donor nation.

Just go back to arguing about angels on the head of a pin rather than ruminate about imagined absurdities.

You'd be the expert on pinheads, fries...

And my scenario involves terrorists and nukes -- just what Obama said. Keep spinning, and maybe you'll make others as dizzy as you are...

Finally, fries, if you have issues with Drudge, take 'em up with him. If you haven't noticed, I ain't him, and take full responsibility for what I write.

J.

Exactly, Jay Tea. If Afghanistan and Pakistan were included in the question, it was an even dumber answer followed by a non-answer.

Actually, Hillary gave the right answer:

"I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

JT, the quote I saw with Obama's comments were from his OWN website. Maybe freedom fries should stop reading Drudge himself. It seems it is the only source he uses.

Obama also said that is the U.N. won't help us with North Korea, he will hold his breath until he turns blue.

This guy is such a light weight. I call him Dan Quayle lite. It is a blast to watch his supporters, FF, BG,Jim, etc. defent their candidate when the rest of the democratic line up is laughing at him also. Love it. ww

Hillary Clinton is certainly not my favorite, but is moving well past Obama in the polls, so his campaign is all but dead in the water. By early February she should easily wrap up the nomination. But closing any military option is not wise for any president. All military options must remain open. His views are just another example of his inexperience and youth as a politician, and certainly make Hillary Clinton look tough like a Margaret Thatcher by comparison and only boost her image among voters. Clinton will likely win the 2008 general election by a narrow margin over any Republican nominee that will be hampered by the shadow of George Bush and Iraq. That looks in the cards to me.

Paul, I agree with almost all your comment. First, Ray Charles could see from the start that Hillary would get the nomination. I consider her and her husband evil and selfish, but in the political arena they are brilliant.

The good side of Hillary getting the nod is that she has such entrenced disapproval ratings, it can only help a republican candidate. GW isn't running. Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. Guilliano and Romney did not. Hillary has no executive experience, Guilliano and Romney do. Hillary has strong disapproval ratings, Guilliano and Romney do not. Pound for pound, it will be close but definitely a republican win. Now if Iraq turn around by next year, a republican sweep. The democrats have backed themselves into a corner with accepting surrender and defeat. ww

I've long just kind of assumed Obama would put up a show of running for President while keeping his VP nominee credentials in order. Now I'm starting to think he's trying so hard to catch up to Hillary that he's going to ruin his shot at a VP slot.

So, who does that leave Hillary to pick for the VP slot, assuming she doesn't implode like Howard Dean? At which point, a candidate who was against going to war before he was for it might have a shot.

Clinton will likely win the 2008 general election by a narrow margin over any Republican nominee

I don't know about this, her negatives are stratospheric, even among Democrats. If the Dems manage to nominate her as their candidate, I don't think there's any way she can win.

Also, I think it's likely that if she's the nominee, an anti-war third-party candidate (Nader?) will run at her left. If that happens, the Dems can look forward to being out of the White House for 4 more years.

"The democrats have backed themselves into a corner with accepting surrender and defeat"

Not just "accepting", they are PROMISING surrender and defeat. Every one of them, in fact. It's a plank in the Demcrat platform.

Obama tells Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez that if doesn't stop consorting with Castro's Cuba he'll "invade him and give him a titty twister he'll never forget."

Of course, by Jay's and Hillary's logic by virtue of the declared right to threaten to use nuclear weapons as a last resort, under practically any circumstance, has been an challenge for other countries to obtain one to join this exclusive club: Iran, North Korea. I'm with Obama. Maybe he should'nt have said it so baldly, but what Hillary and Republicans are saying, just as categorically is that meeting leaders of our enemies is always off the table, while nukeing their citizenry is never.

Wow Jay, This post really boosts your standing as the independent on the staff. I hear Michelle Malkin has an opening.

Steve,
Of course by your logic, Obama and you would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances (it is off the table completely right). In other words, you are declaring openly that the terrorists can use nuke against us, but you wouldn't not use it at all.

Until the recent foreign policy implosions, I have thought that Obama had a lock on Hillary's V.P. nomination. I now think he has proven himself to be a catastrophic liability, a candidate so open to attack by the eventual Republican nominees that he will not provide the "shoring up" that Hillary will by necessity require.

Who, then, will be Hillary's running mate?

Bill Richardson, no question about it.

Obama is beginging to sound more like hitler then anyone else

Jay,
One way for Obama to get back at Hillary is to declare that he will withdraw from Bill Clinton 's quagmire in the Balkans. Also Obama may criticize Bill Clinton 's mea cupa for not preventing the Rwanda genocide since he doesn't believe that the US needs to to do that in any case.

Just saw this from Drudge. According a Zogby poll (is this one favorite polling source of the left?), only 3% give Congress a good mark on handling the war. The dems really need Obama to boost up their foreign policy credentials now.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343

By taking on as a running mate the thing that is called,I believe, "Kicinich".

Barry Obama should encourage subversives in the CIA and State to reveal key strategies, for fighting those who want to destroy us, to the NY Times and other anti-American organizations bent on destroying the presidency of GW or any other repub...Uh, I mean, he ought to rally the peacenix together for one last rotten vegie heave in the general direction of the American fighting man, I mean Bushes "cold blooded killers", as jack mytha affectionately calls them. Later he can have a big jamboree, for all of the worlds insane mass murderers, climaxing in the traditional "ABCs" (Alkkkeda Bar-b-q Canibal sandwich) where Obama and company devour any stray righties who survive the '08 elections. The party, of course, will be catered by Edie Amins family business, "You taste like Chicken, Inc.", with entertainment provided by Margaret Cho and Rosie O'Dumbell who engage in an eating contest of each others adopted children.

only 3% give Congress a good mark on handling the war

Read the rest. That's because 52% want Congress to use funding to reduce troop levels, but they're not doing it.

So feel free to celebrate that Congress has a low rating because the American public feels they're not doing enough to oppose you.

Oh, let me save you the trouble of writing a reply. Just copy and paste this:

Brian shows he is the spinmaster who uses spin to show the dishonesty of the dishonest spin that he spins dishonestly for the dishonest Democrats. I won't respond to his point because he cites actual numbers that can't be refuted, but his dishonest spin is spinning the dishonest honest spin in spinningly spinning dishonesty. The dishonesting spinners of the party of perpetual fraud...

Oh, sorry, I was starting to channel RobLA a bit at the end there.

From the Zogby poll: 50% favor the current troop level. Maybe the dems have overplayed their defeatism? BTW, I am still waiting for your honest answer here . Can you be honest for once?

The vast majority (96%) also have a negative view of how Congress has handled the war, but there is disagreement about what Congress should do to support the troops. While half said Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, 29% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding and 16% believe Congress should cut all funding for the war in Iraq and bring the troops home.

50% favor the current troop level.

Liar or dipshit? You let us know which.

BTW, I am still waiting for your honest answer here . Can you be honest for once?

Well you can keep reading my honest answer here. Can you be literate for once?

So Brian, your point I'm guessing, is that the negatives cut both ways. Congress has abysmally low marks because some (by my reading, 18%) think they should have cut off funding for the war by now while some (survey says 42%) think it should fully fund the war and the rest think that there should be a phased withdrawal (which is just another way of saying eventually we should get out).

Not to point out the obvious but 18% is quite a bit less than 42% so I'm thinking that the 3% is well deserved.

But let's just grant your apparent premise that Congress gets only 3% approval on the war because some want them to defund it and they aren't. Should not the same benefit of the numbers be given to Bush?

First, Bush gets 24% good marks on his handling of the war (EIGHT TIMES THE RATING OF CONGRESS). The liberal press always represents this as 76% of Americans disapprove with him either going into or staying in Iraq. But if Congress's 3% reflects mixed reviews, could not Bush's 24% mean that some people think that he hasn't gone in STRONG enough?

I know that I personally think that he has done too little too late all along. He waited too long on the UN, then he waited too long after 1441 was ratified, then he backed off on overwhelming force after the left criticized him for using too much military force at the outset, then he sanctioned the insipid Rules of Engagement that our troops have to endure, backed off on using torture, coddled prisoners at Gitmo, gave no ultimatums to Iran or Syria, didn't arrest anyone in the press or the CIA for leaking national security secrets, and basically, has fought this war like a the moderate that he is.

Only recently have we actually started fighting this war like we should have all along and, surprise, surprise, the strategery is working and confidence in Bush is increasing.

My prediction, if Bush were fighting this war like a conservative, his ratings would be around 81% on his handling of the war (figuring that he would never get the 18% that think we should pull funding now.)

Brian,
You are right. I give you a brownie for my error : 42% for the general population. Still the summary of the poll here
Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President

Well you can keep reading my honest answer here. Can you be literate for once?
Sine I am not as literate as you. Let me make sure that I understand your answer correctly from the discussion since you are afraid to give me a straight answer.

Basically you agreed with Marc that Obama 's rhetoric is simplistic and silly. You simply tried your trade-mark spin to distract from the discussion by raising WRONG silly point. In the end, you also agree that Bush is much smarter than Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. You are also ashamed of the Reid/Pelosi rhetoric every time the terrorists blow up more women/children?

If you don't agree with that, please give me your honest answers instead of running around challenging people to take up your questions. When they do, then you try to skirt like a cheap spinner.

Pudge, I get the feeling you wouldn't choose a Democrat even if one were on the menu.
===============================

Not to point out the obvious but 18% is quite a bit less than 42%

Yes, but 18+34 is quite a bit more than 42. And 52%, as I said, want Congress to use funding to withdraw troops.

could not Bush's 24% mean that some people think that he hasn't gone in STRONG enough?

Of course, there are lots of nutjobs who think that. They're just outnumbered.

LAI, I'm tired of you. I answered your question, repeatedly, and because it took your narrow little mind by surprise, you're trying to spin it into a vast array of unrelated topics that you think will help you save face. It won't.

I answered your question, repeatedly,
It is understandable that you cannot honestly admit your mistake wrt your challenge of Bush 's statemant. But, thanks for agreeing that Bush is much smarter than you, Obama, Reid/pelosi. Since I don't have an objection from you. I will bookmark this as your tacit agreement of that assessment

About the poll, you always hide behind polls. If you believe that the 3% approval of the Dem congress is due to their not forcing a withdrawal now, then it should be easy for you to find a poll with honest questions like the following. How would you answer that poll, Brian?

We should take American troops out of Iraq even if it means (1) A defeat for America and a victory for the terrorists, the Baathists, and the Iranian mullahs. (2) A bloody massacre (or genocide) even on a larger scale than the Cambodian genocide