Why Hillary Clinton Has Jumped The Nuclear Shark

[DrFunkenstein]

One of the key reasons I supported John Kerry so strongly was his lifelong record on the dismantling of nuclear weapons. Unlike Rumsfeld and the Bush administration, I do not believe there is a "strategic" use of nuclear weapons. They represent more than simply "big bombs." Like the use of torture, they represent a moral threshold for humanity.

If the United States crosses that threshold, we become the very monsters that we fear exist.

Every strategy that employs nuclear weapons is hopelessly short-sighted. Whatever gains we could hope to achieve will ultimately be returned in a new callousness in the world that will eventually harm ourselves deeply and tragically.

The battle against terrorism can only be won through small, calculated attacks matched by enormous global efforts to repair hope in an exhausted world. Only by representing a higher standard, striving to become that city on a hill, can we possibly make a dent in this terrible, terrible evil the world - very much including the United States - has created.

I have long feared that Senator Clinton was capable of using international, violence leading to the death of thousands, to bolster the "toughness" of her image. She has strengthened my convictions at every turn, as she actively reinforced the beltway perception that bellicosity means strength.

I must admit, though, that I had no idea that she would sink so low into the moral quagmire. I would no longer be surprised if she suggested that torture was a necessity for the 21st century. Outraged, perhaps, but no longer surprised.

Coupled with her open desire to extend the powers of the executive branch, her nuclear option has just taken me off the table.

Yes, of course, she represents something better than, say, Mitt Romney - and I would vote for her in a general election. But that is saying so little that it is simply pathetic to bring up. I would vote for her, but I will do everything in my power to oppose her attempts upon the nomination.

It would truly be a sad day, if I could not applaud Obama's refusal to back down from his position or applaud the efforts by Edwards to oppose the military-industrial complex's sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia (which is somehow to be justified by selling even more weapons to Israel).

[illinoisprogressive]

1. keep applauding both Obama and Edwards. men of conscience and purpose.

[jeff30997]

3. Yep!

Hillary smells funny.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Hillary sounds like that crazy general Curtis LeMay

who told JFK to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. Kennedy sacked him a few months later.

[Cha]

2. Recommended~

Nice to see you back Dr Funk!

[IndianaGreen]

4. Since the end of World War II, it has been US policy to reject nuclear first strike as policy

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while justified by some, have left a lasting legacy that no civilized nation would ever launch a nuclear first strike against another. During the Cold War, when two nuclear superpowers competed for global influence, it was the policy of the Soviet Union and the United States to not be the first to launch a nuclear strike against the other. In fact, it was US policy to ride out a first strike by an opponent and then launch a massive nuclear retaliatory strike that would obliterate the aggressor from the face of the Earth (and much of the planet along with it). This Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the peace because everyone knew that any use of nuclear weapons would lead to everyone's destruction.

Bush has tried to change all of that. It is Bush who has pushed for a new generation of bunker buster atomic weapons, and it is he who wants to use them preemptively against anyone that displeases him. Remember Seymour Hersh's recent expose of Pentagon plans to strike Iran with tactical nukes to destroy any nuclear program they may have?

Today Hillary joined the GOP in distorting Obama's remarks in which he disowned use of atomic weapons against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Just as Hillary joined the GOP bashing of Kerry when he made a joke about going to college or ending up in Iraq, she is now joined the GOP in a similar hatched job on Obama. But this is not the first time that Hillary has openly spoken of first use of atomic weapons.

On a speech to AIPAC earlier this year, Hillary 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.

Today 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!

[earthlover]

8. Why would she want a nuclear first strike "on the table"?

Doesn't she realize it would destroy the table?

Keeping one's options open makes sense. However, nuclear first strikes should NOT be an option. Period.

[many a good man]

9. Big correction: US has never signed on to NFU

The United States has NEVER signed on to international agreements to disavow the first use of nuclear weapons. There have been some administrations that mumbled words to the effect that they don't think it's a sound policy, but none has gone so far as to sign the accord.

The People's Republic of China, the former Soviet Union, Russia, India, North Korea <1>, have pledged not to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict, while the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, France, and Pakistan have not. Historically, the reluctance of the NATO allies to pledge to not initiate nuclear attacks during the Cold War resulted from the numerical superiority of Warsaw Pact conventional forces and the belief that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would have been required in defeating a Soviet invasion. (See, e.g., T.B. Millar, The East-West Strategic Balance (1982).)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

[IndianaGreen]

12. The deployment of nucler tipped Pershing missiles to Europe by Reagan Administration

was a very controversial decision opposed by people on both sides of the Atlantic. Even if one were to accept the premise that the USSR was going to invade Western Europe, we must realize that the use of tactical nukes was to be in response to a large conventional invasion. This is not what Bush and Hillary are advocating! Their first use of nuclear weapons is not in response to an attack by a vast conventional force, but as a response to any perceived threat from some nebulous "terrorist" group operating in any country.

If one considers that the 9-11 plotters hatched their plans in Hamburg, Germany, what Bush and Hillary advocate is to nuke Hamburg.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

11. Actually, I don't think that's true.

To my knowledge, the US has never rejected first strike as a policy. If I recall correctly, it refused to do so even after the USSR did.

The way I look at it, ANY use of atomic weapons (first strike or not) is a crime against humanity.

On edit: apologies to TorchesAndPitchforks. I didn't see that you had already made the point.

[sandnsea]

5. A clear moral standard

will do 100 times more on the world stage than the continued military bluster and posturing. I hope beyond all hope that Obama continues being straight forward with his views on global security and prosperity. It's the change we need for sure.

Good to see you around, hope all is well with you.

[Egnever]

6. OMG not Funkenstein!

Glad to hear I am in agreement with you so far this time around. I still have scars from the battles we had last time.

Welcome back !

[karynnj]

10. It hurts to even hear a major Democratic candidate takr the position Hillary did

It also confirms the feeling that I have always had that she sees the problems in the middle east and near east as a game of chess, rather than actions that will save or destroy hundreds of thousands of lives. It hurts that with a fairer voting process or a fairer media, we might still have incredible problems to deal with, but we would have a Democratic President with the morality and the compassion for others to seek compromises that could move the world from the edge of the cliff it is on.

I also think that the country is sick of these despicable attempots to twist everything said into major controversies. It is sad that as the country rejects that and hopefully swiftboating, it may be Democrats doing it.

[Ethelk2044]

13. Amen

[Exultant Democracy]

14. Clinton has proven herself to be a moral black hole.

[DrFunkenstein]

15. Hillary's Spokesman and Response By Obama Camp...But More Importantly...

Clinton:

"Sen. Clinton believes that presidents should not brandish the nuclear option, nor should they forego that option, which is as a critical part of this nation's defense and protection of this country and of our allies."

Obama:

"If we had actionable intelligence about the existence of high-level al Qaeda targets like Osama bin Laden, Senator Obama would act and is confident that conventional means would be sufficient to take the target down. Frankly, we're surprised that others would disagree."

http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/hillarys-response-nukes

-------------

In no way does the follow-up by the Clinton camp suggest that she would make the reduction of nuclear weapons a priority, or even an issue, in her Presidency. In fact, it seems to strongly suggest that we remain "in the forefront" on the issue, which is usually how the U.S. government talks about why they keep pushing nuclear weaponry far beyond the capacity of any other country.

I apologize for being so strident, but I cannot see how more sabre-rattling will ever contribute to decreasing the forces which feed international hostility and violence. After 8 years of Bush, I would really like to see someone in office that actively moves towards peace, and not simply towards security.

While I don't withhold support for other candidates at this point, it seems like Obama has a chance at making peace a credible option. I have to admit that I am impressed by the way he makes otherwise unthinkable stances on key issues seem like perfectly common sense.

I am convinced that hope is the only weapon that can defeat terrorism. While I am hardly one to buy into campaign talk about "hope," which is worth about as much as Reagan's talk about "optimism," I have to admit that I sometimes find myself imagining someone approaching the Middle East with this in mind.

Only by directly fighting the economic problems and troubled quality of life in the region, while stepping away from needless bellicosity, can we begin to - as John Kerry put it - "drain the swamps of terrorism."

[AtomicKitten]

16. "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down" isn't a strategy.

[beachmom]

17. Actually, a Hillary Clinton presidency WOULD allow torture according to her own words:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/10/16/2006-10-16_mccain_team_mocks_hil_torture_loophole.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows about "an imminent threat to millions of Americans" - making an exception to her opposition to torture ... "If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said in a phone interview Friday, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board. She said the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers. "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said. "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."



Nothing like the "ticking time bomb" exception, which of course, opens the floodgates for torture, as we have seen in our own country and in others.