And Obama, he's showing his idiocy.
Personally, I prefer the original M.A.D concept.
Obama said "...he would not use nuclear weapons in any circumstance to fight terrorism..."
That is just stupid. It has been long standing policy to fight WMD with WMD - ie. respond in kind, MAD, etc. Saying you won't is inviting devastating attack with little potential consequence for the attacker. The US won't use chemical or biologics, so our retaliation to a WMD strike has to be nuclear. Saying you won't under any circumstances is criminally idiotic.
But then Clinton gets stupid too, and comes up with: "Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,"
Well, don't you sound presidential...not! Another long standing policy of the US is the "No first use" principle in regards to nuclear weapons. Basically a pledge to the then USSR that we would not strike first. Very much a blanket statement.
These 'rats... Do they have any education or appreciation for history, strategy (other than campaign/smear), or just plain common sense?
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. ... 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... Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee along with Obama, also took his rival to task. "Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options," Dodd said in a statement.I really miss the Seven Dwarves.