Shouldn't the future leader of the free world sound like he had given the matter some thought previously? If he had not given the matter any thought, then he should have simply refused to answer a hypothetical question and then arranged for somebody to ask him a similar question at a later time. One of the things that killed John Kerry's chances was his tendency to think as he spoke, sometimes contradicting himself during the same interview.

 

Heaven forbid that someone would think while they spoke. On the bigger point, I agree that some will try to make a big deal out of unclear language. Let's think about what he said. His first reaction was to say no he wouldn't use nuclear weapons against Pakistan or Afganistan. Seems like a reasonable response, but he is in a campaign so someone would try to make something out of such a clear response, so he pulled back and left at least some room for ambiguity. Should a President leave some ambiguity? Maybe so, but just like the past ten presidents Obama doesn't see a use for nuclear weapons against small powers. Makes sense to me.

Heaven forbid that someone would think while they spoke. On the bigger point, I agree that some will try to make a big deal out of unclear language. Let's think about what he said. His first reaction was to say no he wouldn't use nuclear weapons against Pakistan or Afganistan. Seems like a reasonable response, but he is in a campaign so someone would try to make something out of such a clear response, so he pulled back and left at least some room for ambiguity. Should a President leave some ambiguity? Maybe so, but just like the past ten presidents Obama doesn't see a use for nuclear weapons against small powers. Makes sense to me.

Face it, that was as badly mangled a response to a serious question as anybody has given in this entire campaign. What circumstances do you envision where the use of nuclear weapons would manage to exclude all civilians?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but no American president, including even Jimmy Carter, has ever taken the nuclear option off the table. Obama came very close to doing just that before he realized what he had said.

Face it, that was as badly mangled a response to a serious question as anybody has given in this entire campaign. What circumstances do you envision where the use of nuclear weapons would manage to exclude all civilians?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but no American president, including even Jimmy Carter, has ever taken the nuclear option off the table. Obama came very close to doing just that before he realized what he had said.

But he didn't. This is a non issue except to the right wing spin machine.

But he didn't. This is a non issue except to the right wing spin machine.

 

:thumb:

 

I'm not an Obama supporter by any means...not even close. But, to try to make a story of this is absurd (like all politics basically). First of all, as someone noted, the decision to use a nuclear bomb shouldn't be one that we make in 3 seconds. And, second, a hypothetical Q & A? How is he supposed to answer a question like that? We don't know what kinds of situations will arise and neither does Obama. My answer would be to say I don't know. I wouldn't rule it out, nor would I commit to it.

 

Typical politics these days it seems...try to spin every third word someone says to support your view.

But he didn't. This is a non issue except to the right wing spin machine.

I agree.

But he didn't. This is a non issue except to the right wing spin machine.

If McCain said it, it would be an issue to me, and oddly enough to those of you that are saying it's a non issue with Obama.

But he didn't. This is a non issue except to the right wing spin machine.

 

Exactly. That's what so much of all of this is.

Once again proving that I'm an "equal opportunity" critic (or jerk, pompous derriere, etc, choose your own adjective ), I have to agree that my brethren Republicans are making more out of this than it really is. While I can understand somewhat their logic ("Good Lord, hasn't the man who is running for President already thought through what he would do if faced with the decision of whether to launch nukes and if he is such a great orator, why did he fumble his position on the issue" or something of the like). But, I feel that we as a nation have become way too fixated on mistakes made speaking. I realize that the issue of whether to launch nukes is a very, very important issue and that accordingly the potential President's comments will be critically examined by friends and foes worldwide and I might feel differently on my opinion that this slip up is no big deal if Obama's comments were part of some prepared speech on the subject, but the fact that he fumbled a response to a question thrown at him while on the campaign stump isn't as troubling to me. I expect all the three remaining candidates (and eventually two) to make similar verbal mistakes throughout the campaign. As long as they quickly clear up their mis-statement, I'll be fine with it.

 

I truly wish posters on both sides would be more reluctant to point out every little blemish of the candidates as I think it greatly detracts the focus on the real policy differences. And there are real differences. But this is a free country and I guess the posters can do what they like.

Frankly, if someone answers a hypothetical regarding whether they'd use nuclear weapons, and they answered without hesitation that they'd do so, they'd lose any support that I may have had for them. There is absolutely no way, IMO, that we should have leaders with that kind of power who would be that willing to use the last resort method.

How in the world do you view this election any better then the last?

 

Because George Bush isn't running.

Frankly, if someone answers a hypothetical regarding whether they'd use nuclear weapons, and they answered without hesitation that they'd do so, they'd lose any support that I may have had for them. There is absolutely no way, IMO, that we should have leaders with that kind of power who would be that willing to use the last resort method.

 

 

I don't think anyone would have criticized Obama if he had answered "I can't answer that question. It would depend on the circumstances at the time and its impossible to predict all circumstances. I will say that nukes should only be used as a last resort".

 

What has attracted the attention is the fact that he first said under no circumstances; then added that he wouldn't use them against civilians (which implied that he might use them only against military members) and then seemed to back away from that. I'll grant that it wasn't a very polished response. But if I was an undecided voter, I don't think that slip up would effect my consideration much at all other than it might somewhat reaffirm the obvious fact that Obama doesn't have any real experience in military, intelligence and foreign policy matters.

I don't think anyone would have criticized Obama if he had answered "I can't answer that question. It would depend on the circumstances at the time and its impossible to predict all circumstances. I will say that nukes should only be used as a last resort".

 

What has attracted the attention is the fact that he first said under no circumstances; then added that he wouldn't use them against civilians (which implied that he might use them only against military members) and then seemed to back away from that. I'll grant that it wasn't a very polished response. But if I was an undecided voter, I don't think that slip up would effect my consideration much at all other than it might somewhat reaffirm the obvious fact that Obama doesn't have any real experience in military, intelligence and foreign policy matters.

Refusing to answer a hypothetical question about using nuclear weapons would have been appropriate. Obama's answer was barely coherent because he was trying to think of an appropriate response as he spoke. As a lawyer, I know that you understand very well that in a deposition you think before you answer because a pause does not appear in the transcript. Obama should have given the matter some thought if he was going to answer the question at all. At least then, the people who read his response to the question would have been impressed with his answer.

 

Bill Clinton was masterful in talking while he thought of an answer, or simply answering a question that had not really been asked if he did not really want to answer the question that was asked. Obama apparently does not have that skill and he should answer questions more deliberately.

Refusing to answer a hypothetical question about using nuclear weapons would have been appropriate. Obama's answer was barely coherent because he was trying to think of an appropriate response as he spoke. As a lawyer, I know that you understand very well that in a deposition you think before you answer because a pause does not appear in the transcript. Obama should have given the matter some thought if he was going to answer the question at all. At least then, the people who read his response to the question would have been impressed with his answer.

 

Bill Clinton was masterful in talking while he thought of an answer, or simply answering a question that had not really been asked if he did not really want to answer the question that was asked. Obama apparently does not have that skill and he should answer questions more deliberately.

 

I can't disagree with anything you said. Some people think quicker on their feet than others. I just don't think a person is unqualified to be President because he/she can't think quickly on their feet. I'd hope that on any issue that the President makes a critical decision on, the President will have had plenty of time to think his/her response through, and in those circumstances where a fast ball out of the blue is thrown, that they know to be more careful (I'm pretty certain that Obama learned that lesson well as a result of this episode).

I can't disagree with anything you said. Some people think quicker on their feet than others. I just don't think a person is unqualified to be President because he/she can't think quickly on their feet. I'd hope that on any issue that the President makes a critical decision on, the President will have had plenty of time to think his/her response through, and in those circumstances where a fast ball out of the blue is thrown, that they know to be more careful (I'm pretty certain that Obama learned that lesson well as a result of this episode).

I agree, but a president needs to be saavy enough to know when and when not to answer hypothetical questions. The thought of Obama fulfilling his promise to sit down with the cagiest thugs in the world for a meeting with "no preconditions" is pretty scary.

I have always found that someone’s first response to a question is the true response. He initially said he wouldn’t use nuclear devices ''in any circumstance”. When you look at his entire platform, I think it is fair to say nuclear devices aren’t an option.

I think Obama blinked on this one. And I’m sure bin Laden isn’t threatened by his response.