Much like last week's Obama arguement over diplomatic relations with enemy nations, I think this little ditty reflects Obama's opposition to tactical nuclear weapons, vis-a-vis Bush's outright support for their deployment.

The administration, particularly in the Rumsfield days, made a couple oblique remarks about using tactical nuclear weapons as bunker-busters, mostly in regards to Iran. They also made efforts to restart research and development of smaller, as they say, "usable" nuclear weapons. For starters, see

<link>

and

<link>

Now all that may be old news now, which brings us back to Obama. I think he has stated his opposition to nuclear weapons as a tactical option as a means to further differentiate his policy from Bush's. This technique of "Bush likes A so I like B" was even more in play in regards to speaking with our enemies.

I'm with Obama on both of these, as I think it represents a return to a sane foreign policy focused on reestablishing Americas proper place as an international leader. Point being, I don't think Obama has some sort of huge "anti-nuclear weapons agenda", but rather, he's making his divergence with the current administration's policy on this clear and explicit.

I wonder what Hillary has to say about all this...

Why should Hillary say anything? Why not sit back and watch Obama continue to self distruct. The remarks about leaving Iraq and invading Pakistan? Sounds like he morphed into Rumsfeld.

...but I like to think Obama said he wouldn't use tactical nukes to fight Al Qaida because the idea is STUPID. Maybe I'm just dreaming though...

Actually, I'd rather hear what Rudy "on the offensive" Guliani thinks about anti-terror incursions and tactical nukes. ---- Granted, these remarks probably won't play well with the mass public who can only tolerate noncommital answers, but I like 'em.