We've already seen how Barack Obama likes to cherry-pick the wars he would fight as President; abandoning Iraq to defeat, only to step up attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And now, as Say Anything Blog points out, Obama is confused:
Fresh off telling us that genocide in Iraq wasn’t worth putting American soldiers at risk and calling for the invasion of Pakistan, Barrack Obama states that we shouldn’t use nuclear bombs.
The Belmont Club has excellent analysis, providing:
If Obama's disavowal of nuclear weapons has any possible meaning it must be that the US will not use nuclear weapons against al-Qaeda even if it launched a nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological attack against the US from Pakistan or Afghanistan. (Obama's spokesman specifically said "Afghanistan and Pakistan".) A retaliation for the use of those weapons are the natural circumstances under which the use of nuclear weapons would be contemplated. One would hardly consider nukes in response to an al-Qaeda attack using car bombs, small arms or even 200-ton jetliners to attack. We've been there, done that.
However, Obama is clearly mapping out a political strategy to lay down a Democratic-style war on Terror, as Wretchard writes:
And my guess is that Obama's stance is being articulated for political advantage by casting himself as a "war fighting" President yet one who will fight it on terms his political base will approve of. Here's a man who will attack Pakistan if need be, with a scale of forces that has excited derision it's true, but who will never go too far and use nuclear weapons. Obama is legitimately fleshing out what a liberal War on Terror would look like. And while one might criticize it as being dangerous, stupid or whatever, he has at least mapped out an alternative to the Bush strategy. And in so doing Obama has distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton who while more tentative than Obama in criticizing the Bush strategy, has not herself articulated a positive program for fighting the War on Terror, apart from looking wise and sage. And that's fair enough. Whether or not one disagrees with Obama's strategy (and I do) he has at least set it forth. If the Counterterrorism Blog is correct, then we are beginning to see the shape of a Democrat strategy in fighting the War on Terror.
At this point it is a matter of who is willing to pander more liberally to their liberal base. Obama's comments will undoubtedly win over more far-left anti-war types, while possible alienating the centrist Democrats and Independents Hillary Clinton is trying to cultivate.
More from Former Spook: The Audacity of Idiocy