Mark Murray and Lauren Appelbaum posted what they see as a clarification for everyone on Obama’s nuclear comment stating Obama specifically said he wouldn’t consider them in Pakistan or Afghanistan or to fight al Qaeda:

Of course, it’s still newsworthy that Obama said he wouldn’t use nukes to pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan — although who would? — but the second story is far, far different from the original.

My own bit of spin here? If you take Obama’s previous comment, that he would bomb inside of Pakistan in order to hit al Qaeda or bin Laden you find a foreign policy/defense strategy that might have to open itself up to the use of nuclear weapons. I am by no means a military expert here but last I checked Pakistan was a nuclear power and al Qaeda was attempting to procure a nuclear weapon.

Pakistan is a fractional nation, not totally unlike our own as are several other “trouble spot” nations like Iran. There is the democratic government, the religious factions within those governments, the military factions & the people along with several other layers in each. All of them have different ideas, different goals and though there is a government figurehead we don’t always know how well they are in speaking for all people. The biggest fear the U.S. had when Pakistan became a nuclear power was that some faction would get ahold of power and use it, specifically an islamofascist regime with the backing of, say, the military.

Most U.S. leaders have agreed the nuclear option always remains open no matter what. Why would we need it in Pakistan? Not only as a deterrent and as a retaliation to a nuclear attack but the other thing about nuclear weapons is this. Nations don’t just build their entire arsenal above ground in places that everyone can monitor. They build them in places that are hard to reach.

We might actually face the possibility of having to destroy a nation like Pakistan or Iran’s nuclear capability with nuclear weapons of our own. The likilhood? Probably not high, but its always an option and its an option that grows if you go around bombing inside of a country causing political/military & social upheaval that could end direct relations between our country & theirs.

Just something to think about.

Yesterday John Edwards assailed Rupert Murdoch’s decision to buy the Dow Jones Co. & with it the Wall Street Journal. In a statement Edwards said all his fellow Democratic candidates should resist taking money from News Corp executives and return all donations already received (including of course the very publicized donations from Murdoch himself to Sen. Hillary Clinton). There is, of course, a twist to the story.

“I’m challenging every Democratic presidential candidate to refuse contributions from News Corp executives and return any they’ve already taken, beginning with Rupert Murdoch. The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party.”

Edwards, as the New York Post points out published a book with HarperCollins (owned of course by News Corp) from which he made at least $800,000. So why was it OK for Edwards to get rich off of the company but not his fellow candidates?

You will have to ask Edwards as thus far his people aren’t commenting.

Thoughts From the Blogosphere

Michelle Malkin | Roger L. Simon | Red State

Associated Press reports the Senator now supports immigration reform that brings tuff enforcement without a path to citizenship.

McCain has been PUMMELED by the right on his previous stance on immigration and most see this latest move as purely political.

Personally I don’t know how this couldn’t be seen as a political move and so I wonder how it will play. The big hope for McCain is that the core group of Republican voters haven’t been paying attention so far. Other than that…

Today he suggested that those elected officials who are convicted of using their offices to abuse the public trust should lose their federal pensions.

This fits right into the “you mean, they don’t already” category. I thought this new Democratic Congress was going to weed out corruption and make the homegrown evildoers pay. Shouldn’t this be like priority #1?

Don’t take this as a partisan statement as I am not supporting a horse in this race on the blog, but way to go Mitt. Good idea!

On the Diane Rehm:

“In order to look tough, he’s undermined his ability to be tough,” Senator Joe Biden said, arguing that Obama’s rhetoric would hurt the U.S.’s ability to get the very same “actionable intelligence” that might prompt an Obama administration’s military incursion.

“It’s a well-intended notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” said Biden who yesterday said of Obama’s speech, “the way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it. The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate - quote - ‘their sovereignty.’”

You can listen to the full interview online.