Posted By Charlie,Houston,Texas (August 2, 2007 5:39 pm):

You morons if we just nuke thoses idiots we will be done with them, end of story. Its you tree huggers that keep us from using the weapons we have, really we might hurt civilians, but who cares, you think they cared of ours when they tore down our towers with CIVILIANS falling to their death.

I agree totally with you, Charlie.

Hey Glenn in Birmingham ==> learn how to spell! It's Democratic and Republican…

How about the other candidates stop being such arm chair quarterbacks? They just sit, waiting for Obama to do something and then react–ALWAYS NEGATIVELY–to his ideas. Any ole Joe can sit around and CRITICIZE FROM THE SIDELINE!!!! Where are the other candidate’s plans for terror? WE DON’T SEE THEM.

What is the argument to Obama’s nuclear answer? THERE SHOULDN’T BE ONE! Last time I checked nuclear weapons decimated huge tracts of land and left collateral and residual damage THAT CANNOT BE QUANTIFIED. How can this be used (if nuclear weapons should even be used in the first place) IF OUR ENEMY IS INTERSPERSED WITHIN INNOCENT SOCIETIES AROUND THE GLOBE? Cue Hillary, and…and… whatever their names are.

Hey other candidates how bout A LITTLE LESS MUDSLINGING AND A LITTLE, scratch that, A LOT MORE CRITICAL THINKING? Maybe if they weren’t concerned about playing the game of politics and were actually concerned with what matters-THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE (the main theme of our DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE) our government could do something CONSTRUCTIVE. The Bush Administration’s strategy of 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE is an atrocity that identifies them as the scheming manipulative leaders that they are.

Barack keep coming up with the right answers to the tough questions and leave the other candidates where they belong–ON THE SIDELINES.

This is twice now that I have had to side with Shrillary. We should never take any option off the table when protecting this country, NEVER.

He is just trying to now pander to the tree huggers that honestly believe that talking with everyone will solve everything and we can hold hands and sing kumbya.

It should always be a last resort, but we should maintain it as a resort.

The candidates would have criticized Senator Obama no matter what he would have said. If he would have said he would use nuclear weapons against any enemy if they were set on using them against us, I am sure the candidates and the right wing press would have condemed the senator for that.
How can we say, on one hand, we would use nukes at will, and tell other nations as Iran, and North Korea to disband their program of fabrication of bomb grade materials for weapons?
The candidates are scared of Senator Obama's great chance to become the Democratic nominee. Obama is kicking their buts, so they are going after him. I am even more greatful for Senator Obama than before, because he is for all Americans. He can reason, and he think on his feet. He is by far, the best candidate this country has ever had to run for President.

Clinton has experience and a solid grip on "World Views"?! Give me a freakin' break. I have more experience in world views visiting a Mennonite Market in Canada than she'll ever have. Clinton is status quo - the "same old same old" Pro corporate - anti-American.
And for anyone to see her otherwise is really the truest example of naivety. Ron Paul '08

Hey CNN–why don't you show Barack Obama the same type of favoritism you show (especially) Senator Clinton and the rest of the Dems? Drop your vendetta!

Barack Obama has the potential to be the greatest media darling since John F. Kennedy, and you are blowing his chances. He is doing the very best he can–better than his counterparts–but the way that you spin him is utterly unacceptable. Constantly talking about how he is the "democratic punching bag" and how his commments are "under fire," when everything any candidates says is usually that way with their opposition, is spinning Obama into the ground.

CNN, you sicken me with your political spins. Get off of your power trip and love for the Clintons, and quit attacking Obama.

It is good to see Obama finally making his thoughts clear on his approach to fight terrorism, but I think he needs to stay away from a sledge hammer attitude to the situation in Pakistan. Musharaf is in a tricky fix and any unilateral use of force by US inside Pakistani lands will only destabalize an already fragile government, and this would create a security nightmare for the entire region. The key point to note is that majority of Pakistanis are against the 'Talibanisation' of the region, and support a return to democracy in their country. The best way to tackle the Pakistan question is two folds, on one side push Musharaf for a return to democracy, and on the other side provide economic assistance for the development of the FATA region (rugged mountain areas b/w Pakistan and Afghanistan), these regions have recently seen intense fighting b/w fundamentalists and Pakistani forces. The idea that fundamentalists in FATA region are somehow capable of launching direct or indirect strikes against the US could not be further away from actual facts. The only way to defeat the terror threat is to eliminate their support, and this can only be done by US coming across not as a crusading force but as a leader of the free world.

“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 trully don't understand why any country specially the U.S concider using nuclear weapons.

Obama should have stuck with what he said about discarding the use of nuclear weapons.

These are times that makes me think, who is more dangerous with a nuclear weapon, iran/s.korea or the U.S?

Lets talk about how Hillary will not take the Nuclear option off the table in the Middle East. She is basically saying, "I will start Nuclear war with in the Middle East to destroy the terrorist network". She is saying that all options are on the table with regard to nuclear weapons.. Where is that Story CNN? I don't get this beat up on Obama for giving a thoughtful and intelligent answer, but then give Hillary a free pass non-sense. Why aren't people asking the tough questions of Hillary Clinton? I've never seen such bias before in all my life.

Geez Obama is a nut job. How do use nukes only against terrorists and not civilians. Aren't nukes the most powerfully destructive devices developed by man? Like the terrorist stay in one place and civilians stay in another? People who want to vote for Obama are just as clueless as he is. No thanks Obama I will vote for Ron Paul instead since I favor intelligence.

Obama is the leader, all the 08 ers presidential critics with all big talks of experience as seen co-authorising the president to invade Iraq with no plan of the aftermath, should bring forth wisdom or different approaches to the Global war on terror than critising someone else initiative. Sen H, Clinton should show honesty by appologising for her vote which is costing this nation lives. Supprisingly she claims others are naive and inexperience but she authorised the war without reading the last intelligence report. That's the peak of fanatism and irresponsibility.

Stick to your guns Barack! The people who are voting for you don't believe in nuclear weapons anyway! We want change, not another cold war. Please put Kyoto in your stump speeches and show how radical a departure you are from the current administration philosophy. We should be a world leader, not an excuse not to conform to world treaties that will have a direct effect on my children.

If Hillary would ever consider using nuclear weapons in a situation involving civilians than I don't want her in the white house.

Cheers to Obama for actually going out on a limb and giving us something concrete. Hillary's opinion about not making blanket statements exemplifies everything that is wrong with American politics today.

Obama doesn't know what to do while running for president, how can we expect him to know what to while BEING president!? He is clearly showing he is not presidential material and just a gifted speech giver. Someone get this guy out of the race!

what happened to freedom of speech?

if he can't do or say something without congress's approval then what's the point of running for president?
i believe no one at any point of time should use nuclear weapons to "solve" problems.

Hillary is way off the mark. How are nuclear weapons a deterrent to someone who actually wants to die and become a martyr? Al-Queda and the Taliban do not care weather we use nuclear weapons or not.

More honest, straight-forward answers from our next President, Barack Obama. What's interesting to me is that what some see as naivety and inexperience, I see as substantive and nuanced. Pakistan, our ally only after bullying post-9/11, should know that we aren't even thinking about the nuclear option in taking out the terrorists, especially after the Senator's speech the other day.

Obama is smart, experienced, well-educated, well-traveled, tough, pragmatic, faithful, and honest. Everything we should be looking for in a President.

Senator Obama is the has it right. All the status quo politicians just don’t get it. Their fomula of distracting us with hatred while they rob us blind has worked for a long time and the MSM is fighting to keep their power and influence over what the electorate thinks about a candidate in order to maintain their relevance and profit is oh so very transparent. Drive on Senator the people get you! We are behind you. Anyone claiming to be swayed against supporting you because of sensationalized news reporting or the adolescent ramblings of the other so called front runners don't deserve the opportunity to be apart of this history changing movement.

STAY STRONG DONT FALTER!

Edward:

"Although a non-Clinton or Obama supporter, I side with Clinton on this issue. Interesting enough, what if a nuclear-armed country uses its weapons against us?"

"We will certainly not use said power to harm or threat other nations."

I'm sorry, how are these two statements not contradictory? Obama is wrong because we should be willing to use nukes, but the US can be trusted not to use nukes to 'harm other nations'?

Good job, Obama. I know that's a very hard thing to say in these dangerous times. But it shows you have a good heart. You think of other people and the damages a nuclear weapon would do to them. It's a Christian heart, and you live by it.

If any of the Dem candidates wanted to stop the war they would produce legislation considering they are a part of congress They Haven't!! The only candidate with legislation on the floor to capture OBL and stop the war is Ron Paul look up their legislation people. There mouths say one thing but their actions say something else. Be responsible american and go to thomas library and look up their legislation. After all don't tell me what your gonna do show me now what you are doing.

Al Qaeda might have declared war on the US, but we need to remember that they are a terrorist group, I doubt that the UN would just sit back and let the US 'invade' Pakistan.

"Obama has shown his ability to rationally think through serious strategic matters from a new and refreshing perspective. It’s this perspective that led him to not only advise against going to war in Iraq, but to accurately predict the current difficulties we are facing in trying to stabilize Iraq".

Posted By Nick G, Scottsdale, AZ : August 2, 2007 5:56 pm

I need to respectfully disagree with the statement above by Nick G.

To say that Obamas' comment that he would pre-emptively invade Pakistan to fight terrorists is a
"new and refreshing perspective" is in
my view, wrong. What is so new and refreshing about suggesting invading another country to fight terrorism, when that approach has proven to be such a dismal and tragic failure in Iraq?
While Obama appeared to be concerned about what would happen if we invaded Iraq and making predictions he has continually and consistenly shown his support for the war in Iraq by voting for every Supplemental Appropriations Bill to continue to fund the war! Google: VoteSmart and
you can check this out for yourself.
Thank you.

SusanforKucinich 2008!

It should be noted that based on the
way Clinton worded her remarks, she would not rule out using Nuclear Weapons herself if she were President.

Hillary is correct and the reason is that to say we will not use nukes subverts our defensive posture of "mutually assured destruction"….that is why we should not tell bin laden we won't use nukes, cuz then he's safe to pursue more serious attacks on the usa.

Hillary better watch out…if she keeps hunting after a FELLOW DEMOCRAT and not focusing her attacks on Republicans and a screwed up war that we need to get out of ASAP, (which she voted for) she risks losing Democrats like myself if she does win the nomination…

Hitler was a Fascist Adam from Boston…

He is a straight talker. No verbal runaround in his remarks.
No more of the same old people in Washington, please. We need change like Obama.

That's why we want our homeboy, John Edwards. These other two don't stand a chance down south, and we don't like their fightin' either.

The fact that Clinton think sit would even be possible to use nukes on an un-conventional enemy is a screaming example of her serious lack of experience in military tactics and leadership.

How about this: let's let the military decide how to best fight the enemy. It is after all, their job.

Very careless, rather clumsy attempt here by Obama to try and speak as if experienced in foreign affairs. This man has a political future and I believe he could ONE day be President. This, however, is not his time.

The fact that he spoke what he felt honestly, not trying to give the same safe empty response is WHY myself and so many others like him. What's the use of voting if all we do is put forth the same carbon copy for each party term after term.

I 100% agree with him on the nukes stance. All we do is say we want them dismantled around the world but yet we'll be willing to use them on such a small terrorist group in a country that would destroy countless innocent civilians? We've killed enough innocent trying to make it so called "SAFE" over there and here. Bang up job everyone in the Bush Administration!!

I don't understand criticism of this statement by Obama. At what point is it morally right for the American people to make use of weapons of mass destruction against our enemies? Especially those hiding among civilian populations? I agree with Obama totally.

Ever since the debate squabble Obama got into with Hillary, he's been trying a little too hard to establish his "I will be a strong President and everybody better look out" credentials. I wish he'd take a lead from Hillary and show strength with restraint. I'd feel a lot better if he'd quit shooting from the hip.

Obama's main issue at the moment is that he answered that question with emotion first, and logic second. His emotionally side is fair and just and knows that the usage of nukes would set off a firestorm in the international realm and is completely unreasonable. Then he had regain his political composure and realize he is running for president and that a good majority of his potential voters actually couldn't care less how the world views this country because they deem it invisible. To me this article is a statement to the sad state of affairs we as a country are in. The U.S. is fighting a radical bunch of men hiding in the hills of Afghanistan, and the deserts of Iraq who are simply armed with semi-automatic weapons and RPG's building homemade bombs. Even if Al-Qaida had nukes and bombed us first (which would be horrible), where would we aim our return fire? The mountains of Afghanistan, a marketplace in Baghdad?? The death toll amongst civilians would be astronomical and the amount of insurgents/terrorist killed would only be a very small percentage. The only reason he re-phrased his answer is because he knows everybody is watching his every word (including the enemy both foreign and DOMESTIC)and is keeping his "hand" secret. Essentially calling their bluff.

The naïve line against Obama is so thin, it’s absurd.

It would be a geopolitical disaster if the United States ever used a nuclear bomb again. What better motivator for Iran to develop nuclear technology then to spew rhetoric that you may be compelled to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance? (Not to mention giving nuclear technology to India, a country that isn’t operating under UN treaties or guidelines)

Clinton, for the second time in two weeks, has proven that she’s old-hat politics in regards to foreign policy and once again Obama has shown his ability to rationally think through serious strategic matters from a new and refreshing perspective. It’s this perspective that led him to not only advise against going to war in Iraq, but to accurately predict the current difficulties we are facing in trying to stabilize Iraq.

Of the two, Clinton is the one who should be considered naïve for empowering Bush to go to war. The line that she thought he was going to use every diplomatic effort is also farcical, and again shows how naive she is.

No, La'Goro, I disagree. It shows how prudent and reflective he will be as a president. Being willing to amend and sharpen answers is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign that one's actually thinking and not just shooting from the hip. I don't want a president that is too proud to admit even the smallest misteps. Bush's biggest mistake has been his overconfidence. Obama will be the thinking person's President.

You morons if we just nuke thoses idiots we will be done with them, end of story. Its you tree huggers that keep us from using the weapons we have, really we might hurt civilians, but who cares, you think they cared of ours when they tore down our towers with CIVILIANS falling to their death

Using nuclear weapons in the context of fighting terrorism would be a profound mistake and would set a dangerous precedent at a time when we are seeing a worldwide nuclear arms race (we've added 3 members to the nuclear arms club in the last 10 years, North Korea, Pakistan, India; Iran is close). We would have no ground to stand on in getting others not to pursue nukes. The only way would be to use force. Our military is stretched thin and I sure ain't going to fight the next one, and neither are the chicken hawks.

Hillary Clinton is the perfect presidential candidate…for the Republican Party.

Barack Obama in 2008!!

Obama is not irresponsible or naive-(lacking wordly experience and understanding), how insulting! Rather,he is an analytical thinker and has enough intelligence to know that every answer is not responded to clearly with a "YES" or "NO". I pray for a leader who can think things through quickly, as HE CAN, and not a candidate who responds with One-liners for media headlines. Bush & Cheney has proven that dumb and dumbest does not serve the people well. Hillary must be very careful and avoid sculpting Obama's image with the same Black man brush-updated for the 2008 election. The black vote will reject her like a right wing Republican if this rhetoric continues. More important there is NO MERIT to her incredible comments! The female candidate must focus on and overcome gender bias.

J.N.
Greensboro

Hey Hillary, he's not President…and you're not either. And if this country has any sense left at all, neither of you will be…hypothetically speaking.

Was My far below responce to this comment directly below posted for a few minutes then quickly removed?

“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.”

Just shows how naive, non-confident, uninformed, uncertain, unsure Obama is.

Posted By La’Goro, Albany, NY : August 2, 2007 2:54 pm

——————————————————————————–

Hey La, Goro to your comment
“Just shows how naive, non-confident, uninformed, uncertain, unsure Obama is.”

NO Just shows that he knows that the media hangs on very syllable in his every word, then twists it. So he is being careful with his wording. Not to mention that to many folks failed comprehension and don’t bother to read or listen for themselves.

Good job OB.

Posted By Dave, Clinton, MD : August 2, 2007 3:39 pm

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

Affirming that President Bush did not lie to our country about weapons in Iraq…"we used the intelligence" we had in 2001 (and from prior administration).

Until today I had not made up my mind whether I would be voting for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primaries. This makes my mind up. Thank goodness we finally have someone willing to make reasonable statements, even when they fly in the face of the Established Political Statements (which are nothing other than hemming and hawing). Of course it would be crazy to use nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, in the fight against this theoretical enemy. Thank god Obama is willing to stand up and say so.

Although a non-Clinton or Obama supporter, I side with Clinton on this issue. Interesting enough, what if a nuclear-armed country uses its weapons against us?

I firmly believe that as leaders of the free world, the US and its affirmed allies, are the only nations that can truly be trusted with nuclear armament. We will certainly not use said power to harm or threat other nations.

Obama is as naïve as any rally chanter from the '60's; and Clinton-#2 is more experienced at cloaking her naïvety.

A real President-candidate confides:–

"Nukes aren't the issue: The issue is power and stability– Would we assert major destabilizing power against any terrorist organization in any foreign country?– For example, Would we have shaken the White Mountains holdouts?"

Or, taking advantage of current news:

"Would we use Threat of destabilizing force against Libya for demanding the exchange of nukes for prisoners?- The diplomatic answer depends: on whether the demand is credible or bluff-a-lo: We tolerate freedom of speech in this country, but Libya does not: Therefor we immediately clear Libya of foreign persons and collapse their leadership nut we don't detonate nukes: we treat the threat of, nuke-capability within Libya itself: In America, we manage a nuclear capability: Libya cannot…."

His answers show a real naivety. I am no fan of Hillary but I think she has a better understanding and a more sophisticated world-view than Obama. Obama needs another 12 years in the Senate and then he might be a viable candidate.

Naitivety aside, it makes sense. Its completely sound to disprove of nuclear weapons for such a small, and globally insignificant conflict. (You can argue that point night and day, no country wants radioactive fallout) World War II, sure, I'd skirt that with a maybe. Those were tough, tough times. But a nuclear weapon is beyond the line. Hypothetically even, some things are just too terrible to consider.

Brilliant!! He wants to retreat from Iraq and let (potentially) millions of people get executed, invade an ally (Pakistan), and promise not to use our most powerful weapon against our enemies.

Hey Obama! Nukes ended WWII and saved the lives of thousands of US soldiers you dork. NEVER promise not to use them if we need to do the same thing.

If our enemies know that we WILL use extreme force, they will fear us. If they fear us, the are less likely to give us a hard time. Mind you, I'm talking about governments and not the groups like Al Qaeda. Those fanatics like to die…

“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.”

If anything, I believe his words show discretion and a desire to be accurate. It's much better than repeatedly stating something unfounded with the hopes that it will catch on like a pair of obnoxious Gucci sunglasses.

Barack Obama did misspeak here, but he's also right in not wanting to use nuclear weapons against Pakistan.

The main threat of nuclear weapons is mutually assured destruction - you bomb us, we bomb you, hello nuclear winter. Obama is fine in not wanting to use nucs. But leaders and presidents should never voice that fact. The minute that he says it out loud, he loses the threat and makes it that much easier for nations to use other types of force less devastating than nuclear weapons on us, knowing that our commander in chief won't retaliate with end of the world force.

Yes, he sounds so unconfident and naive, because major policy decisions like the use of nuclear weapons are made in split second decisions as a response to media questions. At least if Hilary is president Americans on the right and left can continue hating each other.

As someone who really dosn't care for either one of these guys, it's amazing to me how Clinton keeps making Obama look like a toddler who is just learning to walk.
Yeah, she's calculated and strategic, but I think we're all clear that Bush isn't at all, and look where that has us.
Obama should just be quiet look good, raise money, and get more experience because right now he's even messing himself up for a Vice-Presidential Bid

"I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,” Clinton said.

Yes, and no. She is quite right, that presidents should be very cautious making blanket statements (especially where national defense is concerned). Nevertheless, the use of nuclear weapons is so egregious, in general, and so very likely to unify the muslim world against us were we to employ them in the middle east, in particular, that I would hope Hillary would make the same blanket statement. If she does not realize this, perhaps we should consider a candidate more attuned to national security realities.

Odd that Hillary calls it a blanket statemtent. Obama was actually very precise in what he said and how he said it. Maybe she should take notes.

I also find it funny Hillary now proclaims that military action within Pakistan should not be discussed for "obvious reasons". This is the same woman throwing a fit over details on our strategy for pulling troops out of Iraq (a hypothetical, by the way). She sounds more and more like Dick Cheney every day.

La'Goro

What is naive, non confident, uninformed and uncertain is not addressing hypotheticals like Clinton suggested. Any president at all times must address reality and hypoetheticals because the U.S is in very unique position being the world's only super power…which means one can expect anything. Thinking about hypotheticals mean exploring possibilities and options…something which is needed to react carefully and accurately.

Obama stated that it would be a mistake and then paused to say that the option wasn't on the table. I don't see what is so uncertain about that. It is a mere confession of his own feelings and the situation as it is right now.

Naivite is reading only what the media tells you and non confidence is being narrow-minded. You should think about that.

It looks to me like he wants to give honest, real answers in a system that punishes that type of answers. His answer doesn't seem naive or uncertain at all. It's more like he understood a question, had an answer, and then had to translate it into over-analyzed politician-speak.

Hillary certainly has more expertise in dodging questions, but is that what we really want?

I don't really fault her for being adept at politician-speak, but I'm not going to fault Obama for trying to give direct answers either.

Right or wrong what this shows is the type of president Sen. Obama will be in office. In 60 years US has never used nuclear weapons on civilians.
Not even George W Bush would stoop that low.

But, once again Hilary won't even address the question. Even a no brainer. Will we ever know what type of president she will be? I wonder if she had to do it over again, if she would authorize the iraq war? She won't even answer that question!

I really do not know what to make of this Obama statment. Which is really a failing on his side. We now know what the question was actually addressing; that helps us understand the context. But, I really do not feel comfortable with the "scratch that" part of his statement. Under any circumstances requires a yes or no. He at first gave a semi "no" by adding the part about the welfare of citizens. But, then he scratches that statement to pass the buck by point out that nukes have not been discussed. Well, that's point of a hypothetical question, to get at what will happen if certain things happened. Frankly, I think Obama needs to sit down and think through his foreign policy stance. Right now he appears to be anti-war in Iraq, war mongering in Pakistan, has an open door policy to all state leaders, but half-hazardly diminsihes our authority as a nuclear power with a single statement. I'm all for being idealistic, as long as the ideas are grounded in reality.

"Just shows how naive, non-confident, uninformed, uncertain, unsure Obama is"

Isn't it more likely he realized he said something that he didn't mean and immediately fixed it. Imagine how much better off we'd be if every president was so quick to fix his mistakes. At any rate, if being "confident and informed" entails sticking to the first thing you do/say no matter what, give me the "non-confident, uninformed" guy any day.

Clinton goes for the meaningless personal attack supported by another one of her famous generic soundbytes.

…While Obama gives more straight talk and specific plans or ideas.

Clinton attacks her opponents, while never offering any real ideas of her own.

Is Mr Obama going to just talk platitudes about foreign policy or is he also going to do something about the state of this country - eg. our aging infrastructure - what happened in NY with the steam pipes and the bridge collapsing today are case in point problems that directly affect us.

Inexperience? How about his ability to think, and not fall into the kind of sound-bite traps that will ultimately be used against him.

I think it's funny that straight talk and thoughtful answers are viewed by some to signs of uncertainty and naivete.

We can't possibly consider using nuclear weapons when fighting an enemey such as this. The fact that Senator Clinton would attack this notion is pretty sad. She's powerhungry, there's no question about it.

So Hillary Clinton WOULD consider using nuclear weapons???!!! Great..just what the world needs another crazy, wanna-be dictator.

He's totally not ready. He can't even handle a situation with the press.

Senator Obama has just lost my vote,his speech yesterday and todays comments solidifies and confirm my thoughts that is definitely not ready to be President of the Unites States Of America,these actions of his make Senator Clinton look and sound like someone ready to lead the country.

As much as I despise and loath Hilldog with every fiber in my body, she once again illuminates Obama's inexperience. Although she may not be correct on the matter (as I agree with Obama to the extent that nukes should never be used unless used against the U.S.), she is accurate in saying no candidate should make all-encompassing blanket statements. This comes from her somewhat extensive role as a POLITICIAN, but not necessarily a leader the people can depend on to be honest. After all, she's a "progressive," and last time I checked, Hitler was a progressive.

In addressing Pakistan, Obama wanted to show the American voters that he, a Democrat, was tough on war on terrorism. Instead, he has ended up showing that he was naive about the situation in Pakistan, has ruffled the feathers of Pakistanis, and he has left a bad impression on the world about how much trustworthy was the U.S. as a friend.

Good news for Pakistan and the world is that the new President of the U.S. will be Ron Paul, not Barack Obama.

La'Goro, I actually feels this shows that Obama is speaking from the hip, not that he is uninformed or unsure. We decry every single day on these message boards for politicians and candidates to stop giving us cookie-cutter responses. I feel Obama did just that. He didn't have a preset answer for the question like most do. He answered the question as you would in conversation. Let's stop being hypocrites and when we ask for honesty, let's support the effort to be honest even if we don't like the answer.

I hate to say this about cnn.com, but they are embarrassing themselves when they continually try to misrepresent and misquote Obama. I see it. I know others on this comments board see it; even the different blogs all around especially on Time Swampland recognize that Obama's being misquoted at every step or speech he makes. Last week it was he's naive and not strong enough, now its' "Bush like" and hawkish and whatever. I don't even know where to start with people who call Obama's comments a continuation of Bush-Cheney policies. I mean how absurd is that. I hate to say it, but the MSM led by cnn.com and Time and others are doing a dis-service to it's readers and listeners. What should be discussed is not what effect Obama's articulation on positions/policies might have on the electorate (please leave us to make up our own minds) but whether his future policies will have a positive impact or negative. All this talk about experience, naivety is nonsense and only makes Team Obama look strong and purposeful while his detractors look all too biased.

What we need right now is a clear thinker and Barack Obama is that person. We can't keep folding our arms and not talking to enemies or threatening rogue nations with nuclear weapons. The time has come for us to end our belligerance around the globe and begin mending bridges that the Bush Administration so badly burned.

Go Barack!!

This statement, then flip-flop by Barry shows his continued lack of experience and judgement. He would be more effective in the senate; it's time to give up this campaign.

“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.”

This certainly does not sound like a leader.

Once again Hillary's trying to score political points with Obama's statements instead of telling people what she would do instead. Obama is right on, its a profound mistake to use Nuclear weapons where it involves civilians.

I agree with La'Goro, Albany, NY. Obama seems to be very confused. You will notice on the debate, when he speaks how confused he is! His speech is very vague, ambiguous, and abstract. Obama PRETENDS to be a foreign policy expert, but he is not, and it is laughable when we see it…It is the best for any human to be himself or herself. There is no reason to pretend to be someone else…

La’Goro, Albany, NY

Please, go play in the sand or something.

Hey La’Goro, you never had a moment's change of thought because you envisioned a circumstance where things might not be black and white?

Barack Obama is America's best chance for survival. This man is the answer to our problems, folks.

La'Goro, quite the contrary:

It shows just how much he's got it together.

The United States should never use nuclear weapons as a leveraging technique. I cannot imagine a worse fate for mankind, and a worse ethical dilemma than that. What kind of country even CONSIDERS using that? It just opens up the door for other countries to do the same thing.

I will take Obama's alleged "uninformed, uncertain, unsure" any day over your's and Clinton's "foreign policy skill" if this is what you call "skill."

La'Goro,, who's paying you to keep blatantly posting and pushing this "naive" meme? The Clinton camp or the Biden camp?

I've never seen someone try so deperately in a blog's commenting system to repeat the same talking point over and over again like you have, La'Goro.

Hey La, Goro to your comment
"Just shows how naive, non-confident, uninformed, uncertain, unsure Obama is."

NO Just shows that he knows that the media hangs on very syllable in his every word, then twists it. So he is being careful with his wording. Not to mention that to many folks failed comprehension and don't bother to read or listen for themselves.

Good job OB.

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.”

Just shows how naive, non-confident, uninformed, uncertain, unsure Obama is.

—————————————

Actually, it shows how thoughtful, understand and insightful. Nuclear weapons to fight Bin Laden in a Country were they have Nukes. Yea, that would be a good thing to do. We want to catch Bin Laden, not start World War III.

I concur! The fallout from the fallout would be as disastrous as the fallout. Fallow me.

OBAMA SAID,

"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.”

Considering our latest and best laser-guided SMART bombs have no assurance against collateral damage… EXACTLY how do you, Mr Obama, order a nuclear strike and assure civilians are not involved?

Are you going to use a biblical call-out asking only the terrorists or enemy army meet you in the middle of a desert?

I'm afraid the more questions Barrak gets asked about foreign policy the worse it gets for him.

The only time a reporter should be worrying about nukes and Al-Aqaida is if Al-Qaida has them. Then the question would be what to do about it, not whether we should be using them. The reporter who asked the question should be fired for being a complete idiot.

If Mr Obama wants to talk about actionable intelligence then we can talk about the failure by Clinton to get Bin Laden from the Sudanese when he was offered up. There was no actionable intelligence and missed chance to take out an Al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If there was it would have been bombed. Even if a meeting was bombed their is no guarantee that certain key figures would have been there since our human intelligence capability in regards to Al-Qaida sucks. They don't just trust anyone around their leadership.

“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.”

Just shows how naive, non-confident, uninformed, uncertain, unsure Obama is.

al-Qaida declared war on us. Obama is right when he said 05 was a mistake. Others were made by Clinton. If Obama kepts making sense, they will throw him out, of Demacratic/Repulacan party.

Good man. Notice the straight answers, no double talk or skirting the questions?

It absurb to even consider using nukes against an unconvential enemy.

The question regarding "tactical" nukes was more appropriate. There again the answer was correct…no pause or meaningless cliches.

We need to be a leader and not promote the use of nuclear weapons, especially in relatively small battles. Otherwise we have no grounds to stand on trying to promote emerging nations to dismantle nuclear programs.