Democratic Presidential front runner Hillary Clinton is attacking Barack Obama over his statement that he has ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. Now, I supported the Senator in the argument, because the option should never be ruled out.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has found himself embroiled in a new foreign policy flap with rival Hillary Clinton, this time over the use of nuclear weapons.

Senator Obama has ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after Al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Senator Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table…

New York senator and former first lady Senator Clinton quickly pounced on Senator Obama’s remark about nuclear weapons at a Capitol Hill news conference.

“I think presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use, or non-use, of nuclear weapons,” she 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 non-use of nuclear weapons.”

But, it seems Senator Clinton doesn’t practice what she preaches. Iran is believed to be on a mission to develop nuclear weapons, which could wipe out America or our allies. She points out that “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 non-use of nuclear weapons.”.

However, Senator Clinton made a “blank statement” in an interview last year, in which she took the nuclear option off the table in dealing with Iran.

“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” she said in April 2006…

“I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Clinton said. “This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven’t seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that’s a terrible mistake.”

Here’s her campaign’s excuse for her blatant double standard:

“She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically,” he said. “She wasn’t talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy.”

So, the excuse is that a) she wasn’t a candidate at the time, and b) she was saying it so Bush wouldn’t use the option. So, now that she’s a candidate, her stance has changed? Why is it ok for her to keep the option on the table as President, but Bush shouldn’t consider it?