The Associated Press decided to do a little research into Senator Clinton's thoughts on the role of nuclear weapons in American foreign policy. As it turns out, last year, in response to a question about the use of the atomic bomb against Iran, she told Bloomberg television that she "would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table."
Recently, she harshly--and apparently hypocritically--criticized Barack Obama for saying nuclear weapons were off the table in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This goes back to the ruthlessness of Hillary Clinton that I talked about in my post on Wednesday. It appears as though she merely made Obama's comments an issue because it gave her an opportunity to caricaturize him as "irresponsible" and "naive." I'll ask the same question I asked on Wednesday: if she is so willing to polarize her own party, how can we trust Hillary to bridge the partisan divide created by President Bush?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Perhaps I am naive, but I am a strong proponent of nuclear disarmorment. If we ever were to use them, the results would be catastrophic, so I'm sure we never will. They are remnants of the Cold War, when they actually did serve as a deterrant because (1) they weren't as powerful and (2) we were using them to deter a superpower, not an unstable regime like Afghanistan or North Korea. Plus, the more we build, the more nuclear waste we have, the more we have to destroy the old ones and replace them with new ones, and the larget the chance of terrorist organizations have of taking control of them. It makes NO sense to still have nuclear weapons, in the same way that it makes no sense that the US, as a first world country, still has a death penalty.
Post a Comment