Will Nets Ignore Apparent Clinton Flip-Flop on Nukes?

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
August 9, 2007 - 15:14 ET

On August 3, NewsBusters contributor Scott Whitlock noticed the network morning shows largely ignored Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) dovish blanket assertion that he would rule out the use of nuclear weapons in "any circumstances" in dealing with terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At the time, Sen. Hillary Clinton called the pronouncement unwise. But according to the Associated Press, it appears Clinton is contradicting a statement she made in April 2006 that aligns with Obama's stance.

On August 2, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) took the opportunity to disagree with Obama's dovish stance. As the Washington Post reported in the August 3 paper:

By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

But in an August 9 article, the Associated Press's Beth Fouhy reported that Clinton appears to have reversed herself from an Obama-like pronouncement on nuclear weapons in April 2006:

NEW YORK -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. At the very least it's excellent fodder for morning shows and the Sunday morning programs, particularly in light of the recent Clinton-Obama spats over foreign and military policy matters.

It remains to be seen if network journalists will scrutinize Clinton or attempt to nail down her position in light of her contradictory statements.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said

August 9, 2007 - 15:38 ET by upcountrywater

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Does anyone think she referring to Iran's Table???

LMAO i didn't think so

Entitlement over infrastructure every SINGLE time.

 

I think that one thing we

August 9, 2007 - 15:39 ET by Chris Norman

I think that one thing we can add to the list of life's certainties, beyond death and taxes, is that most of the media will always provide cover for Ms. Clinton. 

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb

Ignore Hillary?

August 9, 2007 - 16:39 ET by Scout Finch

Well, let's just say the media will obligingly let that comment go.  That was over a year ago, they'll say.  Just moveon.com!

One thing's for sure.  I'm looking forward to even more slips and gaffes from Her mouth!

No ... Really?

August 9, 2007 - 17:26 ET by Crash

Testing the polls one toe at a time. "Hey Hill, the latest polls don't think you're womenly enough. Call yourself 'The right girl for the job' next time out. M'kay? In the mean time lay off the pro-nuke thing ... the Chinese might pull their campaign support."

If they don't ignore it,

August 9, 2007 - 17:37 ET by mattm

If they don't ignore it, they'll attempt to explain it away...

That headline question was

August 9, 2007 - 17:53 ET by motherbelt

That headline question was rhetorical, right?

Perhaps HRC was hanging out w/ B Clinton, on use of nukes?

August 9, 2007 - 19:06 ET by Gary Hall

It's all about the media's agenda - and their continuing effort to protect Democrats, no matter what they say, or no matter what their position. Period. Let's understand that there probably is not much room for a debate over whether or not the press is all gung ho over nuclear weapons (or nuclear anything, for that matter). The media loves Obamam's view on nukes, but they want to protect Hillary (and given time, they sense that she'll come around to changing her spoken view to the view the media shares with Obama).

This change of policy - outlined below in an AP wire -  would outrage our MSM if one simply replaces the name Clinton witht he name Bush. Oh, the MSM was twisted over it - but they really tried not to talk about it too much. Why? In their view, they simply could not believe that Bill Clinton was doing these things - leaning this way, and the last thing they would want is to let the public find out.

In fact, understanding how we, as a nation, are forced to adapt to changing circumstances in the world, is what many of us would consider a proper role for the media to present. Any interest out there? 

 Perhaps HRC hanging out with Pres. Clinton, on use of nukes, and can't remember which way he leaned - that time? (My bold)

Clinton decides U.S. could go nuclear against chemical, biological attackers

Associated Press, 12/07/97 16:35

WASHINGTON (AP) - Turning U.S. nuclear policy toward an emerging threat, President Clinton has decided the United States will consider using nuclear weapons against attackers who hit American forces with chemical or biological weapons.

The policy, made explicit in a classified presidential directive, marks the administration's first instruction to the Pentagon shaping a nuclear strategy against the increasingly worrisome possibility that nations such as Iraq might turn chemical or biological arsenals against U.S. troops.

[..]

..Approved last month by Clinton, principal elements of the ``Presidential Decision Directive,'' or PDD, were reported Sunday by The Washington Post. In many respects, the directive follows long-standing policy on nuclear weapons, including continued support for the nuclear triad - bombers, land-based missiles and missile submarines - and basic reliance on nuclear weapons as a mainstay of national security.

The document breaks new ground by abandoning the concept that the United States should plan for a protracted nuclear war that it could ``win'' and by allowing nuclear targeters to expand the list of potential targets that could be struck in China in the unlikely event of war with that nation.

[..]

Worries about all-out nuclear war have been replaced by concerns that an adversary such as Iraq might use chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces. As a result, Bell [Robert Bell, a senior member of Clinton's National Security Council staff]said, the presidential directive discusses in far greater detail than in past directives responses the United States should have available.

``The PDD requires a wide range of nuclear retaliatory options, from a limited strike to a more general nuclear exchange,'' Bell said.

President Carter said in 1978 the United States would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states unless those states fought in concert with a nuclear power or defied the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iraq's suspected defiance of the NPT allowed President Bush's administration to threaten Saddam Hussein with massive retaliation if the Iraqi president ordered chemical or biological weapons in the Persian Gulf War.

[..] 

``What they are retroactively doing is attempting to realign national policy with what the operational policy has been for some time,'' Pike said. ``The colonels and lieutenant colonels figured out what they wanted to do, and you've just now got the White House catching up with that.''

Did everyone catch the Clinton adminstration's view on the risk from Saddam.