Hillary scolds Obama like a schoolboy, yet contradicts herself (MORE: NYPOST GETS CREATIVE WITH OBAMA PIC)

Posted by: ST on August 2, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Hill vs. Obama(Photo courtesy: Illustration by Stanford Kay for Newsweek)

Not quite giving Obama a day to recover from his faux warmonger declarations before she pounced like a tiger on its prey, Dem presidential candidate frontrunner Hillary Clinton had this to say in response to recent ‘careless’ remarks Senator Obama has made about invading Pakistan – and using the nuclear option:

The leading Democratic candidates for president sparred with each other over the issue of nuclear weapons Thursday and the result was pure heat.

In another broadside indicating the increasingly heated race for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., implied Thursday that comments made by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., were careless and unpresidential.

Sen. Clinton was referring to Obama’s statement earlier in the day that he had ruled out using nuclear weapons against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Clinton also suggested Obama’s high-profile speech earlier in the week in which he said would be willing to invade Pakistan to attack high-profile al Qaeda targets, given actionable intelligence, was inappropriate, further evidence that she is painting her challenger as unprepared for the job of commander in chief.

Democratic Race Goes Nuclear

Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance.” He then added: “Involving civilians.”

Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”

Clinton, asked about his remarks Thursday afternoon, took issue with them.

“Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,” Clinton said. “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 nonuse of nuclear weapons.”

Strike 1.

More, from the article (emphasis added):

On Wednesday, Obama delivered a major anti-terrorism speech in which he essentially threatened the government of Pakistan that as president he would attack al Qaeda targets in the country with or without the permission of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will,” Obama said.


Clinton did not take issue with that as an option, but suggested Obama should not have been delivering such messages publicly.

“I am concerned about talking about it,” she said. “I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons.”

Strike 2, but with a contradiction.

If Hillary Clinton doesn’t think we should openly talk about how we’re going to capture and/or kill terrorists, where was she during the warrantless wiretap ‘scandal’ the NYT reported on using top secret information supplied by leakers? Where else? On the front lines, whining with the rest of the far left on how it was supposedly a violation of our Constitutional rights. There were no complaints from her that the leakers be held to account for revealing this national security information to the public, no chiding them that they shouldn’t have been talking about the program because it openly broadcasts to the enemy what we’re trying to do to catch them, in spite of the fact that intelligence officials testified that the leak hurt their ability to catch terrorists.

What Hillary’s told Obama to do here is: Hush – our enemies are watching, listening, and learning – and adapting, and we don’t need to help them. Exactly what conservatives have been saying about leak after leak after leak after leak that has come out in the papers about what our gov’t agencies are doing behind the scenes to try and prevent another terrorist attack. Of course, when WE say it, we’re “trying to stifle the free speech of others, questioning their patriotism, covering for the Bush adminstration, etc.”

Nice try, Mrs. Clinton, but your newfound demand for ‘secrecy’ when it comes to our strategy on capturing and killing terrorists doesn’t pass the smell test.

Update: This is freaking hilarious!

Here’s the Post piece from which that picture came.

Via NRO’s Tank blog.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • Capital Cloak trackbacked with Obama, Nukes, and "American Hiroshima"
  • 7 Responses to “Hillary scolds Obama like a schoolboy, yet contradicts herself (MORE: NYPOST GETS CREATIVE WITH OBAMA PIC)”


    1. Lorica says:

      Honestly, It is my opinion that Obama is throwing the campaign. I think someone has gotten to Obama and made him realize that his career will go absolutely no where, and kiss his chances for Vice President buh bye. You watch after he loses Iowa and New Hampshire, he will say something about how wet behind the ears he is, and needs Hillary to mentor him so that he will be a better politician. No one could be this dumb, it has to be staged. – Lorica

    2. henry says:

      what obama said respect to high value target in Pakistan,is Monroe doctrine in context and paralell,the very piller of American foreign policy.
      If any country conducts her internal politics in a way injurious to us or our interest, the USA will act , and in full force.Hillary knows that it was what obama meant. Rather she skewed the interpretation intent to make him look bad .It is called political gimic.

      3,000 plus dead in NY, about same amount on the the fields of iraq, 20,000Americans or so injured, thrillions spent on war on terror. If the man who caused all these shows up ,and Musharaff fails to act, do you believe Hillary will not. She will. Her number one adviser Bill did . Remember bombing the chemical plant in Sudan.
      H.clinton should show some candor in political discuss.

      Lorica, VP or not, power should not be at all cost for Obama.when two candidates engage themself on issues we all benefit. who ever wins the nomination shall be good for America whether he/she picks the other or not

    3. Severian says:

      So, henry, can we expect Hillary to only bomb aspirin factories in Sudan or lob the odd cruise missile into Pakistan when she’s caught in flagrante delicto with a White House intern? :-?

    4. Lorica says:

      Henry, I was trying to get beyond the surface of the discussion. It is what the “Vast Right Wing Conspriacy” does. Thank you for helping me understand the whole concept of what this is all about on the surface. Since I have no trust for the Clinton’s and have seen mafia still thuggery come out of there encampment ever since 1991, I flat out refuse to believe that there isn’t something or someone behind the scenes black mail going on here. That is what I was trying to get at.

      I full well understand the Monroe Doctrine, but thanks for the history lesson. I also understand that Clinton attacked some sort of factory in Sudan, what exactly that was is under some debate. The Sudan says it was a tylenol factory. I also remember the 400 cruise missiles that Clinton fired into the desert in Iraq, at 2,000,000.00 per missile. Was that part of the Monroe Doctrine?? Which also begs the question, If Saddamn Hussein was threat enough to waste that many cruise missiles, why was he a not threat now??

      Also Hillary has said in her complaints of Obama, that she would take out a high value target. We have treaties in place that would cover any International crisis caused by such an event.

      The contrast is still justified. In 1 week Obama said it was tea and crumpets with our enemies, but the next week he said he would bomb our allies. It is idiotic thinking and clearly shows he does not have the experience needed to handle the job of President of the United States of America, which is presently the most powerful position in the world. Which takes me back to the conclusion of my previous post. When divining the political future I have been wrong before, and I am more than willing to be wrong now. I was just pointing out what is obvious to me. – Lorica

    5. NC Cop says:

      Not sure where you are getting your history henry. Michael Schuer was the head of the Bin Laden unit under Bill Clinton and after Bill tried to blame the CIA for not getting Bin Laden, Schuer said this:

      No, sir, I don’t think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That’s the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.

      Remember bombing the chemical plant in Sudan.

      That’s because Clinton believed that it was being used for WMD’s, he wasn’t trying to get Bin Laden. He did launch millions of dollars worth of cruise missles that did nothing but blow up some empty tents in Afghanistan and also further Bin Laden’s reputation as someone who could stand up to the U.S.

      It has to be incredibly difficult for people to plan the future foreign policy of the U.S. when they cant even remember what it was 7 short years ago.

    6. cmitchell says:

      Why is it that Americans are not willing to admit that B.Obama has no platform?

      Why is it that Americans are not willing to admit that the media has not held B.Obama accountable for his blunders? The media, if anyone has been watching closely since B. Obama’s made his announcement to run for presidency has glossed over his blunders and questionable relationship ties.

      Are Americans ready to be subjected to another term with a new blunderer, the same dishonesty, more wars……..the same old mess with another president select B.Obama? I see the hanging chads!!!!!!!!
      The one we have in the White House is not working for us, and neither will this one!

      This is a great COUNTRY and we deserve the BEST, not the show!