The spat between Obama and Clinton over foreign policy just got very, very weird.
In yesterday's big foreign policy speech, Obama suggested that as president he might deploy special forces into Pakistan to capture of kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton responded by suggesting that Obama's approach is both dangerous and naive.
Today, Obama ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And Clinton responded by suggesting that this too was dangerous and naive. All options must, she proclaimed, be left open.
Could someone please explain to me how these two criticisms don't contradict one another? Am I really supposed to believe that its dangerous to suggest that you'd deploy special forces into Pakistan, but entirely reasonable to suggest that you might nuke Pakistan?
I know Clinton thinks she has a winning hand here - why else would she keep up this line of attack - but I've never bought that. Now I know why. Her criticism of Obama isn't based on a policy disagreement; it's all politics. And although I generally dismiss criticisms of Clinton that suggest she is nothing more than a political opportunist, in this case, I'm not sure there's any other way to see it.
More from Sam Boyd @ Tapped here.
UPDATE: For the record, the comments of Obama and Clinton:
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."
"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."
More from Greg Sargent here.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
