Clinton and Obama: Wed to Nuclear Terrorism

[IndianaGreen]

On August 6 the world commemorated the 62nd anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, followed by the memorial at Nagasaki on August 9. These two cities are a stark reminder of the lasting legacy of using atomic weapons. For any Presidential candidate to speak so lightly about using such horrific weapons is utterly disgusting and deserving of condemnation.

The idea touted by Hillary Clinton of using a first strike nuclear attack on any country in which there are terrorist cells operating, puts the entire planet at risk and would turn our nation into the biggest threat to humanity since Hitler's Holocaust.

There are limits beyond which we should never go, and the advocacy of first use of nuclear weapons is a show stopper in my support of any candidate or political party.

May I remind my fellow DUers that Seymour Hersh revealed in a recent article that the Pentagon had plans to use nuclear bunker buster bombs on Iran. Can you imagine what will happen to all the people exposed to the radioactive fallout from such weapons? Is this a Christian thing to support? Or Jewish? Or Muslim? Or Pagan? Or anything?

During the Cold War we just accepted the crazy notion that an American President could destroy all life on Earth just because he was pissed at a Soviet leader. How did we ever buy into that insane Kool-Aid? Now we are being asked to support a variant of Mutually Assured Destruction, except that this time there is no one on the other side to retaliate. The end result is the same, though. Millions will die!

Some issues are more important than country or political party. Any use of atomic weapons is a LIFE issue, a FAMILY issue, a HUMAN issue.

Published on Monday, August 20, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Clinton and Obama: Wed to Nuclear Terrorism

by Joseph Gerson

I was in Hiroshima, participating in the World Conference against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, when the latest barrage of nuclear madness flailed out from the U.S. presidential campaign trail. Almost inured to Bush’s romance of ruthlessness and believing that almost anything else can only be an improvement, people from nations across the world were shocked and angered by Obama’s and Clinton’s recent nuclear madness.

It remains to be seen how badly Barrack Obama’s self-inflicted wounds will be. First he played cowboy sheriff and G.W. Bush - threatening unilateral military attacks against a sovereign and already fragile nation - Pakistan, but attempted to soften the blow by pledging not use nuclear weapons against Al Qaeda. Someone was planning to hit South Waziristan with nuclear weapons? He then further demonstrated incompetence and ignorance by saying that he would not use nuclear weapons against civilians. Nuclear weapons can be used without inflicting Hell on earth and taking countless civilian lives? Has he not heard of fall out or considered the fact that the U.S. tactical (as opposed to “counter-value” strategic) nuclear weapons include many Hiroshima-size A-bombs?

Hillary Clinton then went on to confirm what many long suspected: that in its approach to the world, terrorizing U.S. first strike nuclear weapons are always on the table, saying “I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.” That means that U.S. presidents should never remove the nuclear threat when dealing with other nations.

This is consistent with other statements she has made on her presidential campaign trail. Last February, as she was leaving the New Hampshire high school where she had just formally launched her campaign with a carefully staged event, a young peace activist caught her going out the door. She asked Senator Clinton, “When you say that all options must be on the table with Iran, do you really mean that we should be threatening all of that country’s women and children with genocide?” The Senator’s chilling response was, “I meant what I said.”

The Obama and Clinton statements - like President Bush’s nuclear threats and campaign to post-modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and vastly expand the U.S. nuclear weapons production infrastructure - violate commitments the U.S. has made in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and they stand in stark defiance of the International Court of Justices’ advisory ruling on the use and threatened use of nuclear weapons.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/20/3298/

[DURHAM D]

1. Yeah - I agree.

Clinton and Obama are both really out front and breaking new foreign policy grounds on this issue. None of the other Dems would say the same and certainly none of the Repubs.

Good grief - what is the matter with people.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Hope nobody releases those photos of them walking around with knives clenched between their teeth

Then we'd really be screwn.

[SaveElmer]

3. As usual Commondreams publishes something idiotic...

And as usual Green falls for it

[IndianaGreen]

4. The only idiots are the ones that see nukes as legitimate weapons

On a speech to AIPAC earlier this year, Hillary Rodham-Clinton told the audience that all options were on the table in regards to Iran. When challenged as to whether she included first use of atomic weapons among those options, she stuck to her nuclear guns.

On the eve of the Hiroshima commemoration, Hillary restated her position that she considers a nuclear first strike a necessary option for her as President.

Now mull carefully what Hillary, and Bush, are saying. They are saying that they have the God-given right to launch a nuclear strike against any country, government, or group within a country. Neither Hillary nor Bush seem at all perturbed by the consequences of what they are advocating, including the long-term effects of atomic fallout far beyond the borders of the country they nuked.

The deaths of millions of innocent people are an acceptable, and even a welcomed, risk to Hillary as it is to Bush.

First use of atomic weapons is a crime against humanity and a barbaric act!

[sandnsea]

6. If Bin Laden takes over Pakistan?

And our only hope is nuclear strikes?

Silly hypothetical. YOU are President. YOU, YOU, YOU, know beyond all doubt the attack is coming. Do you nuke or do you let our country be wiped out???

[IndianaGreen]

9. Such hysterics and fearmongering is what led to the Cold War

and if President Kennedy had listen to atomic cowboys like General Curtis LeMay, none of us would be alive today.

Reagan used the same fears during the 1980 campaign as you are now. Reagan said that the Soviets has a first strike capability, and we needed to boost our nuclear stockpile and delivery systems in response.

Raygun was wrong then, and so are you today!

[sandnsea]

10. That's why I put YOUR ass on the line. YOU

YOU know your morals and ethics. YOU know what it would take to convince you of a real and immediate threat. So if YOU were 100% convinced our country was done for, maybe the entire northern hemisphere, what would you do?

You simply cannot live in the fantasy world that attacks are an impossibility simply because you don't want to belive in them.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Like John in the island of Patmos, you are hallucinating about attacks that don't exist

Pakistan lacks the nukes or the delivery systems to pose a threat to the United States, and to say that the Pakistanis will allow an Arab to take over their country is as far fetched as having Martians land on the White House lawn.

Oh, I am sure that rightwing radio will spew such crap and their sheep-like audience will swallow the whole of it, but we are the rational ones, not the ones that suffer from faith-based nonsense.

[sandnsea]

13. And that's why the left never wins

Because you simply cannot stick your fingers in your ears and lalalala the world away. Whoda thunk Americans would have let the likes of Bush take our country away? But we did.

[IndianaGreen]

18. If you had a grievance against your neighbor, do you have the right to destroy the whole town?

That's what nuclear weapons do! They are lousy weapons for they kill and destroy far beyond their target. The Bush plan envisions nuking Syria. How many other countries will be affected by the radiation?

Advocacy of nuclear weapons is insanity, and it is a disqualifier for the Presidency.

[sandnsea]

21. So your answer is let the country be destroyed

North America. Europe. India. Whoever. Let Pakistan, for instance, do whatever they want to any country they want. Is that your position?

Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Are you saying that you would nuke Pakistan if it were going to nuke India, and viceversa?

India and Pakistan's missiles can only reach each other. Are you saying that if these two nations were crazy enough to launch a nuclear strike against one another, you would join them in the nuclear insanity?

Do you even realize how crazy it all sounds?

The Bush nuclear doctrine is to nuke non-nuclear states for whatever reason Bush deems necessary. That's the policy that some of the Democratic candidates seem to be embracing.

[sandnsea]

27. You won't take responsibility for anything

YOU. What would YOU do.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

28. I won't become an American Hitler by using nukes that would kill thousands of innocents

I don't get testosterone surges thinking of ways of butchering people!

[sandnsea]

32. But people would be butchered due to your inaction n/t

[BornagainDUer]

53. "People would be butchered"? Well, look what the "tough call"

:eyes: "action" shitbrain made in Iraq.

Your right wingers are so fucking totally without credibility on these issues it is a wonder you don't drown in your own hypocrisy.

[BornagainDUer]

22. Name the scenario and conditions in which you would use nukes.

Go ahead. Take your time and think one up then post it.

[sandnsea]

25. If I knew they were about to be launched

anywhere in the world. If I could take them out before they were launched, if a nuke were necessary to do that, I would.

[IndianaGreen]

29. And you would rely on another CIA "slam dunk" to nuke anyone, anywhere.

Did Iraq teach you anything, since obviously you learned nothing from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[sandnsea]

33. No. Dennis Kucinich told me.

So what would you do?

[mogster]

49. Well, what about the similarity of the situations?

If YOU were Kennedy back in '61, would you have used nuclear arms to 'defend' the USA? That's whats implied in your reasoning.
Nobody wins a nuclear war, so the 'win' lies in never getting to the point where use of those weapons becomes a reality.

[BornagainDUer]

19. You are out of your fucking mind!! Bin Laden takes over Pakistan

so fucking what. YOU tell me what difference it would make. Be specific.

And don't forget that Bin Laden is a CIA asset.

[sandnsea]

23. silly hypothetical. A massive attack is about to come

YOU are the President. YOU. Your morals and values. YOU KNOW. 100%. Pakistan, for instance, has been overrun by whoever. They are going to launch nukes. Massive destruction. India. Europe. North America.

What do you do.

[IndianaGreen]

30. If you believe that Pakistan is capable of a massive attack, I suggest that you need new meds

Not even China is capable of a "massive" nuclear attack!

In the bad old days of the Cold War, the Soviets could have launched thousands of warheads in our direction, and we would have launched a similar number in their direction. Now, that's a massive attack! If the US did not respond at all to such an attack, the Soviets themselves would have perish in the radiation and nuclear winter that would follow.

Nuclear weapons are deterrent to other nuclear weapons. They are not meant to be used!

We need to get back to nuclear non-proliferation and stockpile reduction.

[sandnsea]

34. That's why I called it a silly hypothetical

But it exposes the problem with the left as I've called it for years. You sit back and throw stones because you know you will NEVER be responsible to make the tough calls.

Well I'm calling you on it. You're IN.

What do you do?

[BornagainDUer]

52. The Left? The problem with the Left? What in the flying stupid

fuck are you talking about? Who made the tough call during WWII

The very first thing I would do is cut Osama's paycheck and warn the Saudis to do the same.



Bush makes the tough calls? Shit the only tough call he made was ordering another round of Peruvian marching powder.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Last I checked Pakistan doesn't have long range missiles capable of reaching the US

If Israel or India feels that their security is threatened, they have nuclear arsenals and they can play chicken with Bin Laden all that they want.

[BornagainDUer]

17. I totally fucking agree! The use of nukes is pure insanity. nt

[sandnsea]

5. On the same side this time

They wonder where the right wing comes up with their talking points.

[wyldwolf]

7. IndianaGreen - wed to conspiracy theories

[IndianaGreen]

8. Dennis Kucinich: It’s insane to be talking about nuclear options,

Dems should stop ‘dangling’ nuclear options

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sunday, August 12, 2007

LOS ANGELES, CA – Voters should question the "suitability for office" of any Democratic Presidential candidate who would "dangle the nuclear sword of Damocles" over the whole world by saying nuclear options are "on the table" in dealing with nations in the Middle East.

"It’s insane" to be talking about nuclear options, Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich told a national television audience this morning on ABC-TV’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Nuclear saber-rattling "just begs the question as to whether they have the fitness to be president," Kucinich said.

Instead, "I think that the United States must lead the way for nuclear abolition." He went on to say, "I think we have to get rid of nuclear weapons. The idea that somehow by having nuclear weapons you make the world a safer place is essentially insane… Under my administration, we will work to abolish nuclear weapons and engage every nation which is a nuclear nation to do the same and every non-nuclear nation not to develop nuclear weapons."

Kucinich quoted a statement from the inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy: "Let us not negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." He explained, "I would lead through multilateral nuclear disarmament" negotiations. People and nations all over the world are concerned about climate change and global warming, he explained. The use of nuclear weapons anywhere would be even more disastrous.

Diplomacy, he said, will more effective than threats in dealing with the volatility in the Middle East that "has been fueled" by the occupation of Iraq. Diplomatic efforts in the region and the withdrawal of U.S. forces, he added, would help bring together other nations, including Iran and Syria, to participate in an international security and peace-keeping force after the U.S. leaves. "I can tell you that every country's concerned about the instability, which our occupation of Iraq continues to bring. So it's clear we need a new direction."

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/dems-should-stop-%91dangling%92-nuclear-options/

[SaveElmer]

11. Maybe we could all text "No Nukes" to North Korea, China, Pakistan...

And Iran...and they would just magically disappear....

[BornagainDUer]

20. Do you know anything at all about nuclear winter? If one-tenth of one

percent of the available nukes were used in an exchange it would throw the world into a nuclear winter and ALL of US would die.

You are just trying to reinvent the Cold War and MADD.

[eridani]

37. How's about a solid "no first use" policy?

That has the implied reminder that they are really, really not going to like our second use.

[SaveElmer]

38. How about we don't tell our enemies what we are willing to do...

Do you start a poker game by informing everyone you will not raise unless you have at least a pair of face cards?

[eridani]

How about developing strategies that will work

--regardless of what your enemies know. With really good pitchers, a hitter might make a very good guess at whether the next pitch is a fastball or a curve, but still be unable to hit it.

[sandnsea]

40. Sure, if you're negotiating ground rules

Nothing wrong with that.

But if you see somebody cheating - then the rules have automatically changed. Everybody knows that.

[IndianaGreen]

47. To you and your kind, Emmanuel Goldstein is everywhere! You need fear!

How else can you keep people sacrificing themselves and their loved ones in order to keep the military-industrial complex functioning at full speed?

How is this different from the way Bush has governed?

[IndianaGreen]

48. The American people have the right to know if a Presidential candidate is so insane as to use nukes

In case you have forgotten, Hillary and all the other candidates are being interviewed for the job of President. We are not having a coronation, but a job interview!

[zulchzulu]

14. OK. So Obama says he would never use nukes and that means...

...that he would use nukes. The logic is...um...um...yeah...OK...

Just checking...

:crazy:

[IndianaGreen]

15. White House defends nuclear war plans with sophistries and saber-rattling

The underlying issue is that some of the Democratic candidates for President are embracing and adopting as their own Bush's reckless nuclear policies.

White House defends nuclear war plans with sophistries and saber-rattling

By Patrick Martin

15 March 2002

In the week since the press first reported that the US government is laying plans for a greatly expanded nuclear capability—increasing both the number of countries targeted and the circumstances under which the use of nuclear weapons could be authorized—the Bush administration has publicly sought to downplay the revelation.

<snip>

The new nuclear weapons doctrine was drawn up in a secret Pentagon report delivered to Congress in January, and made public by the Los Angeles Times March 10. Seven countries are on the US hit list, including Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and the US military would be authorized to use nuclear weapons under a wide range of conditions, including whenever conventional weaponry proved inadequate for Washington’s purposes.

<snip>

Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the plan could “reverse the direction of where arms control has been going for decades.” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said the US risks being seen as “a rogue nation going off and finding ways to use nuclear weapons.” John Kerry of Massachusetts called the plan “very disturbing,” adding that it undermined US efforts to restrict the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

<snip>

The Los Angeles Times called on Bush to “publicly disavow ... the apparent lowering of the threshold for using nuclear weapons and the blurring of lines between nuclear and conventional weapons.” The newspaper noted the Pentagon plans suggestion that nuclear weapons could be used in the event of “surprising military developments,” calling this “a term so vague as to imply a launch-at-will concept...”

Perhaps the most politically significant commentary came in the New York Times, which has slavishly supported the Bush administration’s conduct of the “war on terrorism.” Under the headline, “America as Nuclear Rogue,” the Times wrote: “If another country were planning to develop a new nuclear weapon and contemplating pre-emptive strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state. Yet such is the course recommended to President Bush by a new Pentagon planning paper that became public last weekend.”

The Times noted that the most dangerous feature of the Bush administration’s policy is the transformation of nuclear arms from the proverbial “weapon of last resort” to just one among many options for Pentagon war planners.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/nuk1-m15.shtml

[AtomicKitten]

16. CommonDreams has Obama all wrong.

Obama's comment: ''I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,'' Obama said, WITH A PAUSE, ''involving civilians.'' Then he quickly added, ''Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.''

It is my opinion and others (an example below) that Obama said what he meant initially, that it would be a "profound mistake" to use nukes under any circumstances, followed by the ubiquitous but telling PAUSE, and then he starting back off of it. While it is convenient to lump the two front-runners together to make it easier to summarily dismiss them, CommonDreams yet again goes too far and proves again that they are not a reliable wellspring of truth.

Clinton disagrees with Obama’s ‘no nukes’ comment
By Klaus Marre
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-disagrees-with-obamas-no-nukes-comment-2007-08-02.html

August 02, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Thursday that she disagrees with her closest rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), on the possible use of nuclear weapons.

Obama, according to an Associated Press story, had said earlier that he would not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. He added that he opposes the use of the weapons if civilians are involved and then said, “Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.”

When asked about the comment, Clinton said she does not believe “that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

She added that presidents should “be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,” and argued that the threat of using those weapons has been used as a “deterrence to keep the peace.”

After an amicable beginning of the campaign season, in which the top Democratic candidates all pointed to the overall strength of the field, things have begun to heat up in the past two weeks, beginning with Obama’s assertion that Clinton was “Bush-Cheney lite.”

In addition, several of the candidates have lashed out at the Illinois senator for saying he was willing to hold talks with rogue regimes.

[maximusveritas]

24. A trained monkey could write better than that

He can't even spell Obama's name right. He misinterprets Obama's remarks on Pakistan, though he deserves credit for avoiding the word "invade". And he doesn't seem to know that Obama's remarks were in response to a direct question. To say that Obama's comment's "violate commitments the U.S. has made in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty" is just laughable.

[ripple]

31. Obama said that nuclear strikes are off of the table

Hillary said that they are on the table and basically called Obama foolish for indicating that he would consider strategic, conventional strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan. Apparently, Hillary is cool with not striking until a nuclear situation is the only option.

How in the hell are they somehow "wedded"? I certainly see a clear difference. :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

35. Wrong...on both counts...nt

[AtomicKitten]

36. Nope. I believe you have this one wrong.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-disagrees-with-obamas-no-nukes-comment-2007-08-02.html

[SaveElmer]

39. FIrst of all that is a poorly written article...

Obama has not taken nuclear weapons of the table in Iran...he was asked about using them to get terrorists...

The article makes it sound like he has taken nuclear weapons off the table in all situations...and that is not what he said...not even what he was asked...

Second, Obama's answer sounded like he hadn't really given the idea much thought, like he was trying to formulate an answer on the fly...not good..

Third, Hillary's point is you don't tell the enemy what is and is not off the table. When you are playing poker you may know you won't raise in certain situations, but you don't announce that ahead of time...her answer on this point is the correct one...

[AtomicKitten]

41. Unfortunately the comment was inarticulate and equivocal.

I freely admit that. I would think that if he said he would not use nukes under any circumstances, if you say specific in reference to terrorists, one would think that was a universal statement because the the hypothetical specifics appear to be the extreme.

And you bet Obama was inarticulate in that particular quote. That is where he reeks of being green. I can live with that because he's tightening up his game and improving.

I don't agree that Hill is right to keep nukes on the table. In fact, I find that atrocious and a big reason I don't support Hill in the primary.

[SaveElmer]

42. You don't know whether they are on the table...

That is the point...

Lets say the Pakistani government falls to militants devoted to Osama. Not out of the realm of possibility. Do you take the nuclear deterrent off the table in dealing with a nation, controlled by enemies who have the bomb?

If you think this is not possible, I'll just remind you that Iran under the Shah was once considered the most stable of middle eastern countries...

[AtomicKitten]

43. On this issue, we part company politically.

I respect your POV, but for me this is one of those deal-breakers.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have brought the US to its knees with shame. But clearly it has not. I'm sick of the arrogant posturing by my government. Arms proliferation has increased exponentially under Junior's regime.

I want my government to be a leader in disarming the planet.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[sandnsea]

46. One does not preclude the other

Moving forward with disarmament can happen while still considering the nuclear realities of various countries. I don't really have an honest feel for where Hillary is on nuclear disarmament. I know Obama went with Lugar to Russia and worked on nonproliferation legislation. That says to me his heart is in the right place. Just like I knew Kerry's work on nonproliferation since Iran/Contra, his stand against Bush's nuclear bombs, etc. So even though he always said 'nothing is off the table', I knew nuclear weapons clearly were. I wish I knew how Hillary and Biden, specifically, really thought about the issue. It's too important to poiticize.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Pakistan doesn't have long range missiles capable of striking the United States

Israel and India have their own nuclear arsenals and can use nuclear deterrence all they want. Truth be told, the only country that doesn't have nuclear weapons and could be threatened by Bin Laden having a nuclear arsenal is Iran. In the very unlikely scenario that Iran came to us and asked us to protect them, I might seriously consider it.

[ripple]

50. What I posted was correct.

I wasn't talking about Iran, nor was Obama. I agree that one shouldn't take all options off of the table when it comes to a legitimate government that one is attempting to negotiate with- until we can get a mutual non-proliferation agreement, anyway. With Iran, it is unfortunately a necessary bargaining chip.

Not so with al Qaeda. Obama is talking about strategic conventional strikes, something that if effective, might actually keep al Qaeda from getting their hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Using the threat of hitting al Qaeda strongholds with nuclear weapons is completely absurd. Not that I think such an option is truly on the table for Hillary. She was merely trying to outshine Obama by hawkishly announcing that she's more than willing to murder far more civilians than he. Color me unimpressed.

[Raine1988]

51. So

So nuclear huh? why not put it to good use and make electricity out of it (much more better use then war)