Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Losing the Moral High Ground




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Kucinich Calls Out Clinton’s Nuclear Blunder

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 11, 2007
Kucinich and Clinton
AP Photos / Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Jeff Roberson

At odds:  Democratic presidential hopefuls Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

By Kasia Anderson

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.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
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.

 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Chimpun-k, August 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.

Report this

By samuel burke, August 12, 2007 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.

Report this

By felicidad, August 12, 2007 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

Okay, I’ve been saying this a lot lately, but Yea, Kucinich! He’s still saying the things he’s always said, and still making sense.
Just to illustrate why so many of us are willing to be labelled as “knee-jerk peacenicks”, I found these pics in a yahoo image search. Please be advised not to look if you are overly-sensitive to graphic images, even grainy black & whites from 1945.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?

An aside to Felicity: I am pretty new to posting here and very unintentionally sort-of stole your screen name-sorry:)I just wanted my name to convey a positive message, and I happen to be a Spanish teacher.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 12, 2007 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

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. wink

Report this

By felicity, August 12, 2007 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

#94288 lilmamzer

OK.  You have defined how you think I understand pre-emption but you have yet to tell me how you understand it, which I have politely asked you to do.  Speak.

Report this

By Crimson Ghost, August 12, 2007 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

In the final analysis there is no chance of real peace in the Mideast or an America first foreign policy until the Israel lobby is cut down to size by whatever means necessary.

A harsh truth but undeniable.

Report this

By Skruff, August 12, 2007 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

#94297 by weather

The fact remains before Israel, Islam was of little concern to America.

The facts of America’s involvement in the Middle East, and of its antagonistic attitudes and relationships with Arabs and Islamic cultures extend back more than 200 years, as I’ve already posted.

For starters, read Mark Twain’s The Innocents Abroad or The New Pilgrims’ Progress which he began writing in 1867 while on a trip through the Middle East. And that’s just a beginner’s introduction. If there’s any intellectual curiosity in you (a dubious proposition from the written evidence at Truthdig), you will find so much more at your local library.

Read up. Learn. It’s good for you.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment

#94293 by Bill Abernathy

I think we are close together in our ideologies

You just compared me to Hitler, and now you say we are close ideologically? You are incoherent as well as inane.
—————————

however I could never align myself with your radicalism

Radical? I’m as close to the mainstream as you’ll ever see on this far-left rag. You wouldn’t know ‘radical’ if it hit you in the face.

I don’t think you can align yourself to anything until you can cobble together the semblance of a coherent argument.

Report this

By weather, August 12, 2007 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

illa-monster.

You can take cheap, shallow and specious shot at me anytime you wish. The fact remains before Israel, Islam was of little concern to America.

This link w/Israel, its not a relationship, its extortion. A very carefully choreographed bribe and like all things germane to Israel its comes at great expense of others. So slide up and take a bow, you must be proud?

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 12, 2007 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

Isn’t it wonderful how lilmamzer cooperates by immediately proving what I said about him! smile

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!

Report this

By Bill Abernathy, August 12, 2007 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

#94290 by lilmamzer on 8/12 at 1:36 pm

I gave you an argument that you dismissed based on your prejudice, and I have witnessed your behavior to the others who commented i.e. Aggressive and fanatical patriotism.

I think we are close together in our ideologies; however I could never align myself with your radicalism.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, August 12, 2007 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

Like what happend in Japan way befor WWII, our politicans are going to be guided, even controled by special interests when doing their decider stuff.  For Japan, the military controled the government and called the shots, the people had no idea what was going on.  Sort of like here in the good old USA. 

Trusting any politicans spewings is blind trust.  Hillery has her bet on the money to get her in office, if you do not think she is obligated, you are an idiot.

Mkke Gravel is correct about the military complex having way too much power, right after world war II Ike called it.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

#94289 by Bill Abernathy

#94281 by lilmamzer on 8/12 at 1:21 pm

So, we have a real live social-chauvinist, Hitler was one too.

When you run out of anything valid to say, just play the Hitler card.

You have nothing to say, and no argument. How vapid.

Report this

By Bill Abernathy, August 12, 2007 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

#94281 by lilmamzer on 8/12 at 1:21 pm

So, we have a real live social-chauvinist, Hitler was one too.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

#94285 by felicity

They understood pre-emption.  Do you?

Yep.

But it seems you only understand in a very narrow and ideological framework.

And that’s why it’s good that Kucinich and like-minded lightweights will never get a chance to lead.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

#94278 by GodSend

lilmamzer:

You are an obscenity in more ways than one!

You want to see obscene? I got something for you right here <gestures to his HUGE zionist cock>

Come and get it!

Report this

By felicity, August 12, 2007 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

#94265 Lilmamzer

Pre-emption?  Better decide if we’re willing to do what it takes to win first.  With conventional weapons we could wipe out Iraq from the air in about 2 months.  Insurgents?  What insurgents?  Al Qaeda?  What Al Qaeda?  Oil?  Still in the ground, still there for the taking.  Hey, it’s a win-win situation for us. That’s the only sane rationale for pre-emption.

Pre-emption American-style?  You tell us what that is, and be sure and use Iraq as a prime example.  While you’re at it, check out Khan, Alexander the Great and a few other pre-empters throughout history.  They killed everybody in their path and even those who might someday be in their path.  They understood pre-emption.  Do you?

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

#94280 by RadicalPriest

Heu uh Lilmanzer,
YOU are out to lunch fella.
The Sumerians wrote thier tablets in 6,000 BC and the Muslims wrote theirs before Moses even stumbled out of the Sphinx. Duh.

Duh? Are you a complete moron?

Sumerians were not Muslims.

Islam was founded by Mohammed in 622 AD. The Koran was written decades after that.

Jews had already been around for thousands of years, and Christians for nearly 600 years.

Go and learn something instead of blowing it out of your ass.

On second thought, keep going - it’s very amusing.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

#94275 by Bill Abernathy

#94265 by lilmamzer on 8/12 at 12:22 pm
There is an agreement against pre-emptive war for members of the UN.

Anything coming out of the UN isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

You will never see a president of the United States take pre-emptive military action off the table. He or she may SAY that’s what they are doing, but in the world of realpolitik, it’s always there, and always will be.

Nations which subsume their sovereign right to defend themselves against external aggression under the aegis of corrupt and illegitimate entities such as the UN eventually cease to be sovereign.

That’s just the way the world really works. Deny it all you want, it won’t change anything. Nor should it.

Report this

By RadicalPriest, August 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

Heu uh Lilmanzer,
YOU are out to lunch fella.
The Sumerians wrote thier tablets in 6,000 BC and the Muslims wrote theirs before Moses even stumbled out of the Sphinx. Duh.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 12, 2007 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

lilmamzer:

You are an obscenity in more ways than one! You MUST be a Zionist (and not just a shill, either!) wink

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

#94268 by weather

Again, the sad, firm and irrevocable truth remains: Before Israel, Islam was of little concern to America.

Before Israel?

You’re an idiot: 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.

But that’s OK, put the brown paper bag back over your head and return to your little fantasy world of Zionist hobgoblins.

Report this

By Bill Abernathy, August 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

#94265 by lilmamzer on 8/12 at 12:22 pm
There is an agreement against pre-emptive war for members of the UN.

Whether war is waged is a legal matter and not at the sole decision of the President; otherwise the President runs the risk of being accused of committing a Fascist act…as Bush has exemplified.

His critics have, often in obscure ways, alluded that the motive was Fascism of capitalism.

War creates markets that otherwise would not exist. Destroying infrastructure that then requires reconstruction. Fascism then can provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

Why any Politician would risk that is beyond logic, makes me wonder about their Political Consultants.

Report this

By RadicalPriest, August 12, 2007 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

With so many weirdo’s running this time, I can’t trust any of them.
I mean look at these guys. “Hillarious”, can’t make up her mind about anything; does that happen every 28 days? Who and What is she going to say next week? and let’s face it, Bill she is NOT!
And Obamarama, ya know, he’s a sweet kid, but he’s just trying too hard and he’s out of his league. These two want war so bad I CAN TASTE IT !!

Now “Howdy Doody” Edwards. PuhLEEEZE !!
$400 haircuts ?? That is a total insult to anyone skimping pennies for medcine or food.
AND he’s a lawyer, and everyone already knows about lawyers. Can’t trust’em.

Or lessee, ” Hollywood” Joe. He’s a sleaze.
” You know what I like about YOU Dennis;
Your WIFE “
What a slimebag !!

Or ” Got Guns?” Richardson ??
Forget him.
So we move to

” Throw the Baby out with the Bathwater” Ron Paul
HA! HE promises future war even worse that Obamarama or ” I am a Tupperware Queen ” Clinton, and sure governments broke, it just needs to be fixed, NOT shipped out to China for scrap like an old car.
AND what is HE NOW ?? Oh a Rape Public can in libertarians clothing??
What’s he going to be NEXT week?
It gets worse. We have the ” 9/11 Opportunist philanderer” Giuliani, and ” I STILL want to kick Viet Nams butt” McCain, and another guy who can’t keep his morals in his pants Romney, and .........
AW HELL !!!
There’s ONLY one, ONE decent person in the whole bunch,
Unca Denni.
He’s real, he’s genuine.
He’s still the same guy he always was.
He hasn’t changed his stance one time, except to improve, never to retract and do a 180 degree u-turn on the freeway.
He wants Single payer health.
We wants to restore American industry and cancel NAFTA and the WTO scams.
He wants out of the ” WE’re spying on EVERYONE ” Patriot Act.
He wants to re-open 9/11 and have a REAL investigation,
AND there’s MORE
Here, read this nice little outline and join us at Kucinich Action
http://action.dennis4president.com/

-Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Insurance Act.
-The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
-Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
-Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
-Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
-Fostering a world of international cooperation.
-Abolishing the death penalty.
-Environmental renewal and clean energy.
-Preventing the privatization of social security.
-Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
-Creating a cabinet-level “Department of Peace”
-Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
-Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
-Protecting a woman’s right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
-Ending the war on drugs.
-Legalizing same-sex marriage.
-Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
-Ending the H1B and L1 Visa Programs
-Restoring rural communities and family farms.
-Strengthening gun control.
-Balance Between Workers and Corporations
-Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
-Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms.
( copied from)
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3086

Peace Out,
Radical Priest,
Rev. Michael Valentine Goldsun
http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html

Report this

By Frank Cajon, August 12, 2007 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

Thank you, Lilmamzer 94255, for clarifying for all of us that because Dennis Kucinich is unwilling to nuke Iran or Pakistan, his presidency would mean that American women would face female castration. The connection is obvious. Also that the ‘Constitution would be trashed’, and America would be on it’s way to being an Islamic hellhole. Newsflash: the Consitution is already being trashed, and America is being turned into a Neocon hellhole. While the US can turn military targets in Iran and Pakistan into craters with conventional weapons within hours should a crazed need arise, maybe we should try your solution, nuke countries with allies that have overkill-level nuclear response capability in the hope that the only problems that will come out of it will be mass civilian genocide, radiation poisoning on a global scale, and turning our global warming into radioactive rain continents away. Don’t let the door to your bomb shelter hit you on the way down.

Report this

By weather, August 12, 2007 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

Again, the sad, firm and irrevocable truth remains: Before Israel, Islam was of little concern to America.

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

#94264 by Bill Abernathy

Am I getting this right/

Are all of the candidates for President Nationalistic to the point of justifying pre-emptive war?

What a great post, Bill Abernathy. Very telling.

Why would you want it any other way???

Pre-emption is justifiable under certain circumstances. Why would any sane American take that off the table? It is the duty of the president to defend this nation (hence: nationalistic) even when the use of force as a first-strike is warranted.

You are a fool if you believe otherwise, just like Kucinich. And that is why fools like Kucinich are going nowhere.

Report this

By Bill Abernathy, August 12, 2007 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

Am I getting this right/

Are all of the candidates for President Nationalistic to the point of justifying pre-emptive war?

Report this

By Reality Checker, August 12, 2007 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

Here’s a little song I wrote for all the first strike cowards of the world.

It is called ‘I ain’t afraid’

i ain’t afraid of communists
i ain’t afraid of jews
i ain’t afraid of muslims
and i ain’t afraid of you
the only thing that scares me
is what God’s gonna do

i ain’t afraid of guns
i ain’t afraid of bombs
i ain’t afraid of porcupines
or dirty little blondes
the only thing that scares me
is the God inside of you

i ain’t afraid of doctors
not even a disease
i ain’t afraid of technology
or gettin down on my knees
only thing that scares me
is what God’s gonna do

i ain’t afraid of black
i ain’t afraid of white
i ain’t afraid of rich
i ain’t afraid of poor
the only thing that scares me
is the God inside of you

i ain’t afraid of jealousy
i ain’t afraid of greed
i ain’t afraid of truth
or having to bleed
the only thing that scares me
is what God’s gonna do

i ain’t afraid of generals
and their plans for genocide
i ain’t afraid of devils
and their dirty rotten lies
the only thing that scares me
is the God inside of you

Report this

By lilmamzer, August 12, 2007 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

Good thing Kucinich is so fringe he will never get elected to anything beyond his current seat in Congress.

Imagine a Kucinich presidency - within two years Sharia would be the law of the land, our daughters would suffer genital mutilation, the constitution would be trashed, and life as we know it in this contry would be well on it’s way to being an Islamic hell-hole.

Bye, Dennis. Thanks for running. You have thrown the loony left into relief for the vast majority of clear-thinking American patriots, and done your part to keep the Truthdig crowd inconsequential in the real policy debates.

Don’t let the door hit you on the ass n the way out.

Report this

By felicity, August 12, 2007 at 10:24 am Link to this comment

Mr. Chalmers - and any others if the shoe fits - where is it written that Hillary is the most qualified, the most senior, the most experienced candidate running on the Dem ticket?  Is it because she says she is? 

Dodd?  Biden?  Kucinich?  Her ‘experience’ amounts to one term plus in the Senate.  Is it her marriage to a former president?  Well, I’m married to a civil engineer but only an idiot would cross a bridge I designed.

Bush has taken nuclear disarmament off the table replacing MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, with NUTS, Nuclear Use Theories. It would seem that Hillary, yet again, concurs with our esteemed Commander-in-Idiocy.  Build your back-yard bunkers; stock-pile food and water - can’t grow anything in the surrounding soil for 100 years following nuclear detonations. Or, reflect on what Eisenhower said, “Use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere will wipe out the Northern Hemisphere.”

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, August 12, 2007 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Please watch this John Edwards video:

When asked by Barbara Walters on the night of September 11, 2001 if the 9/11
attacks were carried out by forces within the U.S., 2008 presidential
candidate and then senate intelligence committee member John Edwards becomes
evasive and refuses to answer the question, after having spoken to CIA director
George Tenet earlier that day.  «

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-886644060632694627&q=edwards+9/11+wal
ters&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, August 12, 2007 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

God Bless You Cindy Sheehan!

http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/

Report this

By Skruff, August 12, 2007 at 9:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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!

Report this

By Sharon Ash, August 12, 2007 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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”.

Report this
newsuperhuman's avatar

By newsuperhuman, August 12, 2007 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

God bless Kucinich. Unfortunate he’s too intelligent and has too much integrity to become president.

Report this

By GB, August 12, 2007 at 9:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 12, 2007 at 4:23 am Link to this comment

#94181 by KYJurisDoctor on 8/12 at 1:55 am: “...Romney wins Iowa straw poll, but the whole charade means nothing for him…”

The least unintelligent GOP??? Let me guess at the meaning of your screen name - should we just call you ‘jellybaby’ - does that mean you would stick up for Condi Rice as a latecomer instead???

But back to the main topic, both Hillary and Obama had said that they “would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force” but this hasn’t deterred Kasia Anderson from making out that Hillary has somehow gone further. Its strange that people want their president to be in charge but then also to make a compromising statement about the country’s military capabilities. Perhaps the Washington Post is equally as irresponsible for running the story with that in mind…....

Quote Washington Post - Friday, August 3: Clinton Demurs On Obama’s Nuclear Stance: “...“Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Del.) said in a statement. “He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.” .......U.S. officials rarely rule out nuclear attacks as a matter of diplomacy, preferring to keep the threat as a deterrent….”

What is worse, though, is that Truthdig’s associate editor Kasia Anderson has quoted deliberately from the Washington Post piece which was already 8 days old when she posted this story on Aug 11. That means that she has avoided discussing or bringing into question the controversial events surrounding Obama’s aggressive assertations on Pakistan in the intervening period. That is irresponsible and unconscionable journalism and especially for a so-called award-winning political blog!


Somehow, even Fox ran a more balanced story on Hillary despite the recent vicious “left-wing blogger” scandal also being promoted by the Murdoch media in the past week. It makes one wonder just exactly what a Master’s degree in English literature and sociology is for if honesty and reliability are not present in the forthcoming journalism merely because the story is being published on the web.  I wonder what Kasia Anderson’s Ph.D. with a dissertation about celebrity and politics will eventually amount to?

Then again, perhaps after she has apologied to Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party and everyone else,  Ms. Anderson could try dedicating her Ph.D. to Hillary’s current political campaign as a celebrity in politics. No doubt, Kasia Anderson would rather wait until she sees that Hillary does win not only her party’s nomination but the presidency as well before her rampant jealousy would subside enough to allow her to make the effort?

Report this

By KYJurisDoctor, August 12, 2007 at 2:55 am Link to this comment

Romney wins Iowa straw poll, but the whole charade means nothing for him!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/gop-holds-straw-poll-in-iowa-should.html#links

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, August 12, 2007 at 1:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.

Report this

By P. T., August 11, 2007 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment

We’re killing too many civilians already.  Under what scenario would nuclear weapons be necessary to deal with terrorists?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 11, 2007 at 11:11 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE Kasia Anderson: “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.  ............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.” .......

...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….”————————————————————>>>

I’m sorry to see that Kasia Anderson’s introductory comments are blatantly dishonest and misrepresent Hillary Clinton’s position intentionally with more favorable reference to Barack Obama. The fact that Kucinich has gone along with her on that tells us something, too.

What is worse, Kasia Anderson then goes on to again dishonestly portray Barack Obama as pacifist in regard to “targeting terrorists in Pakistan” by only inferring the nuclear military option part of his inflammatory statements. She couldn’t be floundering in bed with him, could she?


It was correct of Hillary as the senior Democrat to describe Obama as “a foreign policy neophyte” and it was appropriate for her to make the statements she did with regard to how a president should or should not speak about the “use or non-use” of nuclear weapons with regard to the global diplomatic implications.


Kasia Anderson has then had the cheek to offensively and dishonestly misinterpret that as Hillary somehow being pro-nuclear or militarist although she would know that is a necessary position for the “commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States” to take. How stupid, KS!

This is not some fantasy about Hillary as “the decider guy” but her as the most experienced and most qualified PERSON for the Democrats’ candidacy for president. Fo a woman to then insult her as a woman running for president and as merely being “a virtual girl” is pathetic, to say the least.

This ‘shit’ came from truthdig?!?!?!

Report this

By Enemy of State, August 11, 2007 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

I suspect she’s actually unlikely to use them. That doesn’t eliminate the damage that such talk can cause, however. Especially to nuclear non-proliferation, which is essentialed rendered deat by such retoric.

  I think the problem isn’t just a few candidates, its the fact that way too large a chunk of the voting public public falls for this I’m tougher than the other guy/gal act. When are we going to outgrow testosterone?

  Frank: amazingly something like 10% of current US nuclear power is being generated by consuming material from Soviet Nuke weapons. There is a better way to dispose of this material, then burying it.

Report this

By rjones2818, August 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.

Report this

By Frank Cajon, August 11, 2007 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

While the remarks by Billary may have been taken out of context, this is one more reason why it is a real danger to all of us that she is a ‘front runner’. This whole ‘nukes on the table’ concept puzzles me. What possible positive outcome would come from the use of nuclear weapons, even as a second response in the so-called ‘limited nuclear excange’ scenario? Kucinich’s point about climate change doesn’t even go into the potential danger to the entire planet from the radiation that some of the geniuses in the ‘Nuclear Community’ have stashed into their warheads. The ‘nukes’ belong buried in lead at the bottom of deep mines or the Mariana Trench, not any where near ‘the table’. I did my college thesis on the idiot decision to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima (on a Sunday morning at the same time as the Pearl Harbor attack, when civilian casualties would be maximum), and Nagasaki (an inexcusable second horror). The Hiroshima bomb was a toy compared to the horrors used now, and it killed 160,000 people, mostly women, children and elderly (don’t believe the published casualty estimates). That Clinton is even mentioning the possibility of considering using nuclear weapons is enough reason, if there wasn’t enough already to get her the hell out of this race and get someone with some sanity in.

Report this

By atheo, August 11, 2007 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

Challenging Bush’s Reality

by Gordon Prather

Americans increasingly realize – despite a dearth of reporting by the mainstream media – that there is a widening gulf between reality and President Bush’s characterization of it. And what’s scary is that Bush may actually believe his mischaracterizations and act upon them, perhaps even nuking Iran, a signatory to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation Weapons, and practically certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency not to possess nukes or the makings, thereof.

So scary is that prospect that last week, Agence France-Presse, until now a consistent neo-crazy media sycophant, uncharacteristically began its report of a news conference held by President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karsai thusly;

“U.S. President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons – an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran.”

Bush made an inaccurate accusation?

Great Zot!

What was it?

AFP quotes Bush thusly;

“It’s up to Iran to prove to the world that they’re a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon.”

But AFP reporters well knew that the Mullahs running Iran have proclaimed over and over that they have no desire to acquire nukes and that even desiring them, much less using them on their fellow men, would be seriously contrary to Islamic law.

So, in an effort to find out whether Bush was a dimwit or simply flat-out lying to them, the AFP reporters accosted White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, who claimed Bush had been referring to “Iran’s defiance of international calls to freeze sensitive nuclear work.”

Now, if Bush truly believes that Iran’s refusal to suspend, indefinitely, programs – which the NPT recognizes to be Iran’s “inalienable,” God-given, right to conduct – constitutes a proclamation of “its desire to build a nuclear weapon,” then he certainly qualifies as a dimwit.

Johndroe’s explication of Bush’s charge continues;

“After keeping their nuclear program secret for a decade, the Iranian government has refused the offers of the international community to provide [them] nuclear energy and continues to flout the inspectors of the IAEA.”

Three more “inaccurate accusations,” proving that Bush’s spokesman – if not Bush, himself – is either truly ignorant or a bald-faced liar.

full article:

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11433

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook