  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Kucinich Calls Out Clinton’s Nuclear BlunderPosted on Aug 11, 2007
A year ago, Hillary Clinton said she “would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table” when it came to confronting Iran about its expanding nuclear program. That comment contrasts conspicuously with her more recent statement, on Aug. 2, in response to fellow Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s similar statement that nuclear weapons were “not on the table” for him in a hypothetical discussion about targeting terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. “Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons,” Clinton countered later that same day. “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.” Once again, as with her stance on the Iraq war, Clinton’s record has been inconsistent when it comes to how, when and against whom she would take military action were she to become the U.S. commander in chief. Perhaps she has decided, or been urged by her advisers, to strike an aggressive pose in order to compensate for being a woman in a race for the presidency, a situation that some voters might view as virtually irreconcilable. But balancing “I’m your girl” wink-wink affability with “I can play with the big boys and their big guns” credibility is one thing, and going so far as to introduce even the dim possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in a notoriously volatile region is entirely another. In their coverage, such as it was, mainstream media outlets largely focused on Clinton’s apparent self-contradiction—as her campaign reps gestured at contextual differences in an attempt to integrate her two remarks—or on her bids to cast Obama as a foreign policy neophyte. However, for Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the biggest issue raised by Clinton’s comments isn’t so much consistency as it is her character, and by extension her ability to effectively serve as America’s president. Here, Kucinich sounds off to Truthdig’s Associate Editor Kasia Anderson about his concerns about Clinton’s nuclear politics and their global implications. Kasia Anderson: What’s your reaction to Sen. Clinton’s comeback to Sen. Obama about the possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan? Dennis Kucinich: I think that that single comment by Sen. Clinton raises questions about her fitness for the presidency. In a week in which we observe the [anniversaries of the] tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, any American presidential candidate who rattles the nuclear saber must be viewed with the greatest amount of skepticism. Given Sen. Clinton’s commitment to the neocon doctrines of pre-emption, unilateralism and first strike, all Americans should be very concerned about how she would use the power of the presidency. There’s another question here, and that is: Is she unaware of the fragility of conditions on the Asian subcontinent with respect to nuclear parity and first-strike concerns? Does she really mean what she says, and is she ready to take responsibility for potentially catalyzing a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan? Has she really thought this through? This really raises questions about whether she has the thoughtfulness to be able to lead the nation. Given her willingness to attack Iraq without any evidence whatsoever, without having read any of the documents, without having done any of the research—is she that susceptible that she’s willing to reach for the nuclear football? Anderson: Can you say more about first-use doctrine in this context? Kucinich: There’s a doctrine of first use which really is a violation of international law. The first-use doctrine is the prelude to Armageddon. We live in a time where the entire world understands the imperative of getting rid of nuclear weapons, and Sen. Clinton’s lack of awareness of the danger of that kind of rhetoric legitimates the first-strike doctrine among all nations. And so, in some ways, her comments necessitate a deep discussion within the Democratic Party about what we stand for. I believe in strength through peace, through enforcing the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty, which at its heart calls for nuclear abolition. We should be talking about nuclear abolition, not about first strike. This desire for aggressiveness with nuclear weapons is chilling and requires the most intense scrutiny of someone’s position on the most basic issue of survival of the planet. Jonathan Schell was writing about these things decades ago—about the effects of the use of nuclear weapons. I don’t understand why [Clinton] feels this need to look tough with respect to weapons. What kind of calculations could she possibly be making? Everyone knows that there is no survivability from a nuclear attack, and that the use of nuclear weapons brings about ecocide. At a time when we’re worried about the health of the planet, that someone would talk about using nuclear weapons shows a willingness to misuse power that could lead to the destruction of the planet itself. We can all have these discussions about global climate change, and we all want to work together to improve the quality of life on the planet. But the first-strike doctrine changes everything, because it invites the use of nuclear weapons, which destroy not only the target nation but the nation that uses them. I think that what we’ve seen in the past is a real weakness that comes from a willingness to use deadly force without regard to the facts. This is not only a political question; this is a question of character.
Previous item: British Losses Rise as Troops Prepare for Basra Exit Next item: You Have No Rights Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
«1 2
3
»
By bluejeanne, August 12, 2007 at 3:34 pm # Dennis Kucinich and Dr. Helen Caldicott should run on the same ticket. Is Dr. Caldicott, Australian, though ? I heard her speak eloquently in the late 70’s in opposition to nuclear armament. A physician who actually grasps the enormous danger nuclear weapons pose. On the-other-hand the bravado which Kasia Anderson detects coming across in Hillary’s attitude towards being prepared to “nuke our enemies” is distressing. Why is it that our Planet seems to be more destabilized and threatened than ever. How can a woman sound so aggressive and expect other women to trust her. Hillary is sounding more and more like (Dr.) Condaleezza Rice-- a first class war-monger. Is this the best that “feminism” could produce? Male-wanna-bes ? We’re back to Freud, I suppose; and the penis-envy manifests itself in the desire for power and aggression as presented in phalic symbols in the form of missiles, bullets and bombs. Way-to-go ladies.
By Chimpun-k, August 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm # Apart from the many moral concerns, on a military level, the idea of using nuclear weapons against mountain villages full of goatherders is, well, pretty absurd. So why is this hypothetical absurdity even being discussed? Other than this being the summer silly season in news.
By samuel burke, August 12, 2007 at 3:14 pm # in islam, the west has found an unflinching enemy that will not compromise its principles. the west has no principles by which it governs itself other than whats expedient for the moment.
By GodSend, August 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm # Crimson Ghost has uncanny perception - for a ghost! Yahweh has the Ways and Means to cut not only the ‘Israel Lobby’ but ‘the rebellious house of Israel’ itself ‘down to size’. Actually, though, it’s not so much a matter of cutting as it is of MELTING in His furnace! (Ezekiel). Is a ‘Greater Israel’ Desert Glass parking lot down enough and the right size? Just about.
By Skruff, August 12, 2007 at 2:45 pm # 94276 by lilmamzer on 8/12 at 1:09 pm “Israel predates Islam by more than 2,000 years.” “You should also do some BASIC historical research. This nation has been fascinated, repelled, obsessed, antagonized by, and in conflict with Islam since pre-revolutionary days. Read some Mark Twain. Ever hear of him? Read about the Barbary Wars.” I agree with lilmamzer. Not only has our nation been obsessed with anything non-xtian, but particularly with Islam. The nations we emerged from, France, England, and Spain also had long preoccupation with Islam LONG LONG before Oil or the new Israeli State were considered. One particular event, The Crusades, set the stage for the situation we have today. The first “crusade” took place between 1095-1099 and was launched under the support of Pope Urban II and the Roman Catholic Church. The Crusades continued for almost 200 years, and caused a basic upheavel in both worlds. Somtimes called the conflict of cross or cresent, the Hebrews also felt the winds of war during the second Crusade which resulted in the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187. When discussing events and causation, it helps to know what one is discussing.
By GodSend, August 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm # Isn’t it wonderful how lilmamzer cooperates by immediately proving what I said about him! Hey, lilmamzer, I’m sure that the only thing HUGE about you is the vacuum in your skull! Bet your mummy is proud of her son and his vast 4-letter word vocabulary. Do they also have 4-letter words in Yiddish and Hebrew? Why not just crawl back in your hole and shut up - you made it perfectly obvious that you’re a big prick!
By GodSend, August 12, 2007 at 1:17 pm # lilmamzer: You are an obscenity in more ways than one! You MUST be a Zionist (and not just a shill, either!)
By Skruff, August 12, 2007 at 8:42 am # 94185 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/12 at 3:23 am Regarding your disertation on Hill-the-business-shill: You appear to smart to believe anything happens in politics by accident. Maybe once, but now (particularly among “front-runners” every sylable is nuanced, parsed, and approved/disapproved by a panel of experts before any word is uttered. Sometimes these “panels” head in errent directions, either believing public sentiment to be other than it is, or guessing some outlandish statement will be answered incorrectly by other candidates. My big complaint about politics in the USA is that everything is so “mapped” and “planned” that questions posed by real working folks get lost. Even the Youtube” debate had “handlers asking potential participants “the nature of your question” and keeping actual streams 1/2 minute behind live play. Hill-the-shill and Obama are waltzing for the entertainment and attraction of potential primary voters. It’s all choreographed!
By Sharon Ash, August 12, 2007 at 8:31 am # I understand how very popular Kucinich is with Truthdig and why they continually try to feature him in a positve light. I happen to agree with Kucinich, and in “my world”, he would be an ideal president. But here in the “real world” he is not going to fly with mainstream America. The radical right would have a field day with Kucinich if he became the candidate, but he won’t. Since we all have to live here in the “real world”, perhaps we should consider spending more time building up, rather than tearing down, people like Hillary or Obama, who have a very real chance of winning the presidency. I sincerely believe, unless we can free our country from the grips of the radical right, our “real world” is about to become really, much worse. Something within the Republican Party is so wrong, it is almost sinister, and we need to busy ourselves with slaying that dragon and then set out to make other changes. And, that is not a statement about all people who are a part of the Republican Party, as some of the best people on the planet, are in the Republican Party, but they are not currently running the show and they are just as damaged as the rest of us by the fascists who have taken over their party. Just my thoughts from here in the “real world”.
By GB, August 12, 2007 at 8:09 am # Lets not forget most of, if not all the so called “war on terror” as Bush and Cheney present it is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. The wars going on now in the middle east are direct action desired by the Project for a New American Century drafted by the likes of Dick Cheney and other neocons in the 1990’s. No intelligent leader would fight terror by sending in a conventional army to destroy the country who had nothing to do with agression against our country. George Bush has in his past gambled and failed at other oil businesses and now he is using our treasury and our troops to fail at yet the biggest loss ever. Bill Clinton and George Bush senior hang out together. This alone should send out a signal to people who want possitive change in America that Hillary would be business as usual but the mainstream media, especially FOX will push for business as usual and will make her look like the front runner in the Democratic primary run so you think a man like Kucinich who has better ideas is not electable. Why can’t the people of this country have a leader they really want? Someone who’s not bought and paid for by corporate interests and arms dealers.
By THOMAS BILLIS, August 12, 2007 at 12:49 am # Maybe Hillary can ride the nuclear weapon down ala Dr Strangelove.She will talk to no one and wants to keep the nuclear option on the table.Who is writing her debate points Karl Rove.This is great another Republican vs Republican lite presidential race.If a third party emerges the democrats in a generation will go the way of the Whigs.They are becoming the party that represents no one.
By rjones2818, August 11, 2007 at 7:38 pm # Unless a candidate takes the use of nuclear weapons off the table, I would think we should take them off the table. I don’t trust Hillary, Obama, John Edwards, Biden or Richardson on the issue. The great tragedy of the current Bush administration, and to be honest we shouldn’t be surprised that this has happened since it’s been headed this way since Reagan, is that the use of nuclear weapons is back on the table. Each time the candidates say they can be used under such and such circumstances other than nukes being used against us by Russia or China (ie Nuclear Armageddon) makes it that much easier to rationalize their use. We know Dennis wouldn’t use them, I’m pretty sure Mike wouldn’t either. The others I wouldn’t feel safe with under any circumstances. Add Your Comment |
|
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article