Clinton: No Blanket Statements On Nukes

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 19:59


OK, I was clearly naïve in the post below this one. Clinton's frightening response to Obama on nukes:

Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He then added: "Involving civilians."

Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Clinton, asked about his remarks Thursday afternoon, took issue with them.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Let me try to put this in perspective. For over a year, Republicans have been saber rattling against Iran, even to the point where they indicate that the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran "is on the table." Then, Obama is asked whether or not he would consider using nuclear weapons against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and he says no. Given these unbelievably insane possible uses of nuclear weapons that would make Barry Goldwater look like a moderate, how could Clinton's response possibly be to say " I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

I have always tried to be a measured, thoughtful blogger.  However, I simply can't be one when it comes to this issue. Refusing to rule out pre-emptive nuclear strikes and the use of nuclear weapons against terrorist cells is just insane and utterly indefensible. If candidates refuse to rule out committing such heinous acts if they become president, maybe we should start asking them their positions on other crimes against humanity as well. Is Clinton trying to improve her Super Villain cred, or something?

Do I believe that Clinton would use nuclear weapons in this way? No. That is why I don't understand why she just can't come out and say she wouldn't use them in this fashion. I mean, if she does end up authorizing a pre-emtpive nuclear strike on Iran, I don't think the world's main concern afterward will be that she flip-flopped. This just doesn't make any sense at all.

Chris Bowers :: Clinton: No Blanket Statements On Nukes

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton: No Blanket Statements On Nukes | 81 comments
yup (0.00 / 0)
Yup, you were naive. But I forgive you because you are absolutely right on the underlying issue. The fact that Clinton won't take nukes of the table is INSANE and SCARY. Obama may not be perfect, but hey we could do worse.
The CW is nuts. Why aren't we laughing? (0.00 / 0)
I'm reminded of the debate in 2002 about Iraq, where we heard the words like naiveté an awful lot.  The Conventional Wisdom, even among Democrats, ruled the day, and a really stupid idea -- invading the wrong country to get at an enemy who wasn't at that address -- won the day.

The idea of using tactical nukes in this context is a lot worse than the idea of invading Iraq.  It's completely absurd.

It's such a dumb idea that I have to ask: can we make the idea funny.  Can we make Hillary and others look foolish for saying something like this with a straight face?

I'm reminded of the scene in the previous Harry Potter film where Prof. Snape gets put into Neville's grandmother's dress.

Any way we can put this ugly dog into drag as well?

[ Parent ]
it's just politics (0.00 / 0)
The point of Clinton's statement is not its content - not actual policy. It's to convey an impression, that Obama is acting like an amateur. Is the press going to follow up with her on this as if she had said, "Sure, I'd nuke the Pakis if I felt like it"? No. They will only ask about the politics.

These are the narratives that already exist in the media. It's to Clinton's advantage to supply raw material. Substance is irrelevant.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

In your guts, you know she's nuts (4.00 / 2)
Hillary is playing against the Conventional Wisdom here.  My problem is that her conventional wisdom is what Barry Goldwater's CW was in 1964.  Goldwater's slogan was, "In your heart, you know he's right."

LBJ's campaign did the famous (infamous, even) "Daisy" ad of a little girl getting nuked.  It was the most remembered ad of that year.

After that, people no longer said, In your heart, you know he's right.

Instead, they started saying, But in your guts, you know he's nuts.

The CW is crazy. How can we get the argument out of the political horse race/process level, and make people say "these people are crazy"?

[ Parent ]
I have to disagree (0.00 / 0)
In nuclear relations statements have been policy as much as anything else.  The reason I must say this is that while states and non-state actors alike have attempted to acquire nuclear weapons over teh years (with some acquiring them and others not) that they have not actually been used since the end of WWII.  That being said, it has been pertinent for any nuclear state to ACT as though they will use them in order for them to remain "legitmate" nuclear states.  As such, any kind of insinuation no matter how little or great, that we will use nuclear weapons is a continuation of a flawed policy that has been in place since nuclear dawn and something that should be at the forefront of any foreign policy is stating that we intend to drstically reduce our nuclear force and to help the rest of the world move forward in the same capacity.
[ Parent ]
Clinton's is percentage play (0.00 / 0)
Abstracting from the campaign, I find it hard to fault Clinton.The context is 60 years of Dems trying to square the circle between demonstrating a grip on reality and letting the testosterone rip.

(In 1964, that gave us the Tonkin Gulf business - just enough kill to show resolution and a willingness to use force, not too much so that Looney Tunes could welcome a new patient to his asylum.)

Just as on Iraq, my view is that there is no reliable popular majority for sanity on the nuking question. Policy on the issue of the use of nukes in Afghanistan cannot be sensibly debated - so why take the risk?

It's crazy - but then, so is the healthcare system - and there's no chance of credibly effective reform on that in the foreseeable future.

Deterrence (0.00 / 0)
I still don't agree with Clinton on this, but the point that she was making is that if you make a blanket anti-nuclear statement, you can't have a nuclear deterrent. There is a lot of value to deterrent - we weren't actually going to nuke the Soviets, but that we could have prevented WWIII. Obviously MAD is irrelevant with regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan, but the comment should be viewed in terms of the deterrent part of the comment.
The suiciders (4.00 / 1)
Obama never ruled out nukes in all cases, he was specifically talking about them in terms of terrorists in Afghanistan/Pakistan.  If the issue is using nukes as a deterrent, I don't think people who are willing to kill themselves for their cause are really going to be deterred by such things.

John McCain <3 lobbyists
[ Parent ]
But the suiciders *are* rational (0.00 / 0)
or at least, the people who train them and dispatch them.

Also, remember that rationality is relative to a certain understanding of "how the world works".  Osama's and Dr. Ayman's notion of this differs tremendously from ours.  But if you understand how they see the world, I think you'll find that what they do is reasonable from that point of view.

Which is why I firmly believe that reasonable people are capable of any crime.  All that necessary is to come from a twisted enough sense of reality.

The better question to ask is ask what the "reason"  would be to send a ship to New York Harbor with a "device" in the hull.

[ Parent ]
Not a word (0.00 / 0)
Please, don't dignify the Bushism "suiciders" in polite conversation. Next thing you know you'll be talking about "the spectaculars".

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968
[ Parent ]
The context is not deterrence in general (0.00 / 0)
Hillary Clinton knew that Obama's answer included use of tactical nukes in Afghanistan or Pakistan to take out terrorist cells. She was told as much before she answered. Her reply was "All options are on the table," which is absolutely insane. There is no conceivable reason to expose a civilian population to radioactive fallout when we have conventional weapons more powerful and precise than the nukes dropped on Japan. In today's counter-terror framework, there is no deterrence value in threatening transnational non-state actors with nukes. And contrary to Lil' Mrs. Bush-Cheney Lite's pontification, nuking Pakistan to hit a terrorist organization without a state-sponsor violates longstanding American foreign policy. In the final analysis, even if Lil' Mrs. Bush-Cheney Lite were right on substance, she's a flip-flopper.  Even the pro-Hillary National Review sees the blatant flip-flop.
[ Parent ]
Deterrence as a policy (0.00 / 0)
is something no longer exists as it did in the cold war sense.  Plus, the logic that deterrence and MAD were relevant states that the existence of nuclear weapons en masse is what has prevented them from being used.  Furthermroe, the only measurement of MAD being a legitimate and working policy is that no nuclear war has occured during its time frame without regard to whether or not it has been a prime driver to the current proliferation problem that we are having throughuot the globe.
[ Parent ]
Unstable Equilibria (0.00 / 0)
MAD worked, if you want to call it that, because there were two sides, and you could operate on the assumption that both sides were somewhat rational.  One side or the other made threats, but once this happened, a great deal of nervous energy got put into getting the US and USSR off the edge of the cliff.

Compare this with the arms race before WWI.  Multiple countries massively overarmed, with shifting alliances.  Some obscure archduke gets killed in Serbia, and for the next four years, troops are murdering one another on a scale never seen before or since.

I think a part of the problem is that the situation was so much more complex in 1910 and following that there was no way to keep the peace.  Too many other players to psych out or try to understand, too much room for mistakes.  An unstable equilibrium.

I think the situation with nuclear arms looks much more like Europe in 1910 or 1912 than US/Soviet relations in 1962.

We can't be sure the other side in a conflict will react "rationally", and we can't be sure weapons won't get used due to the rationality of the players.

We need to call out the CW on this one.

[ Parent ]
I agree, mostly (0.00 / 0)
First of, I have always found the notion of rationality and nuclear arms to be somewhat dis-satisfying beacuse the whole notion of nuclear weapons is in and of itself irrational.  Further, the idea that the mass creation of these weapons is the only way to ensure that these weapons are not used is quite irrational.  With that being said, I understand your point of rational actors.

--However, one of the other major points of pre world war I relations was the difficulty and untimely nature of communications, which is by and large signficantly different today than it was then.  Still, as you note today is much more fractured, much less of a binary system than the Cold War, but I really think it is too often ignored that the Cold War and the policies of MAD/Deterrence/Containment are what has by and large helped bring about the foreign policy crisis that the world is in today.  I don't think I can state it any clearer in this short space than this:

Nuclear deterrence emerged as a policy after the invention of the atomic bomb.  Many people argue that it was successful in preventing nuclear war.  Despite its success, this policy has led to the strategy of nuclear proliferation by several states.  In turn, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has led the United States of America to shift from a defensive policy of deterrence to an offensive policy of pre-emption.  Given the current risk of this policy and the increased probability of extreme consequences, the United States of America should seriously commit itself to abolishing all current and future stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
Banning the damn things really needs to happen.  The current US policy is completely counterproductive, however.

We're thinking in terms of deterrence, but so are states like Iran or North Korea.  But we're "deterring" different things.

We think that we can "deter" actions by these states by using the threat of force in general.  So the other side has evolved a strategy based upon working through proxies (say, Syria and Iran working with groups in Lebanon, for example).

They've also figured out that the threat of nukes is a wonderful "defensive" strategy against a US invasion.  And the more we threaten to invade, the better a deterrent that is.

As long as the US continues with its current foreign policy, states like Iran are going to stock up on nukes. It makes total sense.

The problem is that with so many states having the weapons, somebody is eventually going to make a mistake and use them.  Or will be stupid enough to give a weapon to a proxy and have them use it.

I have no idea how that will be handled, but I can understand why it keeps a lot of people in a lot of governments awake at night.

[ Parent ]
DETERRANCE (0.00 / 0)
She needs to be held to a standard on this just like the other candidates.

The problem is the MSM let's her get away with this type of rehotoric

[ Parent ]
No, the problem is we let the MSM get away with it (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Well, what are we supposed to do? (0.00 / 0)
I have been extremely frustrated with MSM coverage of Hillary.
[ Parent ]
Hillary Clinton Is A War Criminal (0.00 / 0)
Or, rather, would be, if elected.  But she's hardly alone.  Almost every "serious" candidate for President for the last 50 years or so has been a war criminal, because (1) starting a war is a war crime, (2) the use of nuclear weapons is a war crime--except possibly when the the survival of the nation is at stake, and even then they cannot be used against civilians. (3) Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is a war crime (even in deterrance, except against other nuclear weapons).

Starting a war is a violation of the UN Charter.  The other two points are derived from much earlier international law, in conjunction with the UN Charter.

UN Charter. Article 2, Paragraph 4:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

UN Charter. Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Earlier principles:


Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague, II), July 29, 1899

CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
The Hague, July 29, 1899

[Ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 14, 1902]

[excerpts]

ARTICLE XXII

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

ARTICLE XXIII

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:

a. To employ poison or poisoned arms;

b. To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

c. To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

d. To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

f. ...

ARTICLE XXV

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.

ARTICLE XXVI

The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.

ARTICLE XXVII

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

Virtually identical language was contained in the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague, IV), October 18, 1907, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 10, 1908.

Additionally, UN Resolution on Nuclear Weapons, November 24, 1961 (General Assembly Resolution 1653) state that:

(a) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the United Nations and, as such, a direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind and civilization and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity;

(c) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is a war directed not against an enemy or enemies alone but also against mankind in general, since the peoples of the world not involved in such a war will be subjected to all the evils generated by the use of such weapons;

(d) Any State using nuclear or thermo-nuclear weapons is to be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations, as acting contrary to the laws of humanity and as committing a crime against mankind and civilization;

This is hardly exhaustive, but it should certainly be sufficient to make it perfectly clear that the use of nuclear weapons is illegal, as is even the threat of using them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Except international law is customary and all treaties are contingent and revocable at will (0.00 / 0)
So the question isn't "is it legal"?

The question is "How would you use American power"?

Hillary's answer isn't "I would break international law" because derogation creates customs, i.e., derogation creates international law. Her answer is "I might nuke a civilian population FOR NO GOOD REASON." Put aside the technical question of whether it's legal:

WHY WOULD YOU NUKE A CIVILIAN POPULATION FOR NO GOOD REASON????????

[ Parent ]
You Are Wrong (0.00 / 0)
We are as highly bound under constitutional law to all international treaties we enter into as antyhing else, but there is no force out there to ensure that we follow through internationally as there is domestically.
[ Parent ]
No, I am correct: this is black-letter law (0.00 / 0)
1. You are correct that a treaty ratified by the Senate becomes domestic law, equivalent to a statute. You are wrong that only Congress may revoke it.

2. The President can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty.

3. Treaties are revocable under "changed circumstances".

There is no constitutional bindingness to a treaty. Nor is there any bindingness to a treaty the President has withdrawn from.

If you doubt this, I can point you to a book written by the former Senior Counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that is exhaustive on the point.


[ Parent ]
You Must Have Missed The Part (0.00 / 0)
Where it said:

[Ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 14, 1902]

Or where I wrote:

Virtually identical language was contained in the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague, IV), October 18, 1907, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 10, 1908.

And you must have missed the part in high school civics where they explained Article VI of the Constitution, where it says:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

We can, of course, withdraw from treaties.

That sets a nice example, now doesn't it?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Might want to check the Supreme Court Reporter... (0.00 / 0)
You must have missed the part about Presidents being able to withdraw from treaties without having to go back to the Senate.
[ Parent ]
Just Part Of The Unitary Executive That Needs De-Unifiying (0.00 / 0)
The Senate ratifies treaties.  No way the President should be allowed to withdraw from them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
The Senate ratifies treaties. No way the President should be allowed to withdraw from them. (0.00 / 0)
No offense, but that is at odds with the law (not to mention constitutional history and practice). It also ignores that the President is head of state, chief diplomat, and may make executive agreements in the absence of treaties. It's also just bad policy, as any foreign nation can withdraw from a treaty pursuant to "changed circumstances". It's also at odds with the Constitution, which specifically vests treaty ratification in the President and Senate (not the President and the whole Congress, meaning there's no reason withdrawal from treaties would require a Congressional repeal) and is mum on the withdrawal process (i.e., it doesn't say, "The President must go back to the Senate to void an obsolete treaty"). I think perhaps you concede these points by making a "should" argument, which has nothing to do with what the law actually is. In any event, your legalistic wrangling is beside the point, as the point is no matter what the law is, we simply shouldn't perform immoral acts. Stop arguing the law. Why can't you make a moral argument about our foreign policy? We're talking about electing the leader of our nation, not brushing up for the bar. Do you think nuking a village of Pakistani men, women, and children for no good reason is moral? That's the question. And Hillary flunked it. No matter what the law is.

[ Parent ]
We Got Segregation Wrong, Too (0.00 / 0)
Segregation is the best example of how deeply wrong our country can be on constitutional law.  This sentence is utterly absurd:

It's [my position] also at odds with the Constitution, which specifically vests treaty ratification in the President and Senate (not the President and the whole Congress, meaning there's no reason withdrawal from treaties would require a Congressional repeal) and is mum on the withdrawal process (i.e., it doesn't say, "The President must go back to the Senate to void an obsolete treaty").

My position is perfectly in line with the Constitution: whatever process is needed to make a treaty, the same process is necessary to unmake it.  This is the normal default position for any legislative process. It's the current practice that is at odds with the Constitution, and is a dangerous example of the imperial presidency at its worst.

I think perhaps you concede these points by making a "should" argument, which has nothing to do with what the law actually is.

First off, I don't concede anything.  Our practice in allowing presidents to void treaties is wrong, just as segregation was wrong.

Second, you're confusing two different issues here: what the law is, and how we've allowed Presidents to withdraw from treaties.  The point you're missing is that we haven't withdrawn from any of these treaties.  They are still the law of the land.

The president can no more violate them than he can declassify Valerie Plame's status as a covert agent and tell a subordinate to leak it.

Stop arguing the law. Why can't you make a moral argument about our foreign policy?

Why does it have to be either/or?  Countless men and women struggled to create a structure of international law that embodies principles of moral restraint.  There was a tremendous international organizing effort that went into the creation of the legal framework we are discussing:

The First Hague Peace Conference was not driven by the sudden conversion of Europe's rulers to pacifism, but by Russia's desire to escape the crushing burden of keeping up with Germany and England's armament pace in Western Europe. Although certain idealistic motives played roles, no progress was made on disarmament at the end of each day.

Nevertheless, the Conference was not without important results: First, it produced a convention for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes-which resulted in the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; secondly, an issue on Laws and Customs of War on Land known as "The Hague Convention" remains as the most important source of humanitarian law today; and a third concerning Maritime Warfare. The conference adopted "Declarations" to the effect that throwing projectiles from balloons and other aircraft had an indiscriminate effect on civilians, and the use of asphyxiating gases and dum dum bullets should be forbidden because of their inhumane nature (defenders of nuclear weapons, please note). They further expressed that another conference be held to deal with the unfinished portions of the agenda.

Civil society played a considerable role both before and after the first conference. It helped to overcome the initial reluctance of most governments to accept the Czar's invitation. The various peace societies led by the indefatigable Baroness Bertha von Suttner, Baroness Bertha von Suttnerkept up a veritable drum roll of urgings and entreaties. In England alone, over 750 resolutions endorsing the conference were sent to the Foreign Office by peace societies, religious groups, town and county councils, and in some cases, simply 'The People of Bedford' or 'Public Meeting at Bath'. At the conference, the voice of the people made itself heard. Belgium weighed in with a petition bearing 100,000 signatures, only to be bested by the Netherlands with twice that number.

Furthermore, organizing by peace activists was directly responsible for the continuation of the process:

It is a little known fact that the initiative for the Second Hague Peace Conference came from civil society in the United States. Prompted by a petition in 1903 from the American Peace Society in Boston, the Massachusetts legislature passed a resolution requesting Congress to authorize the President of the United States to invite the governments of the world to join in establishing a regular international congress to meet at stated periods to deliberate upon the various questions of common interest. The idea was taken up in St. Louis in 1904 by the Interparliamentary Union that recommended a conference to deal with the subjects postponed at The Hague in 1899. It led to the negotiation of a series of arbitration treaties among the various nations and the consideration of plans for a series of congresses-the kind recommended by the Massachusetts legislature.

President Theodore Roosevelt responded to this invitation by convening the Second Hague Peace Conference. It was held on June 15, 1907, after being formally convened by the Czar. This time, Russia proposed an agenda limited to improvements in arbitration and humanitarian law, while America suggested discussing the limitation of armaments and the use of force in the collection of debts.

Civil society was present in much larger numbers than at the first conference. The International Council of Women submitted a petition signed by two million women from twenty countries. The Belgian delegate reminded his colleagues of public opinion. Sovereign Baroness von Suttner in an excess of enthusiasm declared that public opinion should express itself with appropriate vigor, so that there is nothing the conference would not try to accomplish. Public opinion is the Master and God of the conference. While some progress was made on other agenda items, the disarmament issue again came up short.

America's Secretary of State, Elihu Root believed that successive failures were necessary for success. He responded to the criticism of disappointed peace activists in these terms: The question about each International Conference is not merely what it has accomplished, but also what it has begun and moved forward. Based on this belief, he instructed the American delegate-Joseph Choate, to obtain a resolution calling for a third conference to be held within another seven to eight years. The guns of August 1914 rudely interfered with the implementation of this resolution.

By all means, we shouldn't lose sight of the moral foundations here.  But it's equally foolish to ignore the ediface of international law that millions of ordinary people organized to help create.  You are the one who has sought to trvialize the importance of law here, and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to do that, since the law has been created to give force to the morality.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Right sentiment, wrong tactic (0.00 / 0)
I agree with Paul that using these weapons would be a criminal act. It would be a criminal act no matter what the international law was.

But I think that Paul's approach won't work from the political side, because it serves Hilary's goals, and that of the FP Commentariate.  They want this be an argument between to the cool, calm, Sensible People and the Crazy Leftist Dirty Hippies.  I don't know how long Paul's hair is, but the post plays into this.  Not good.  It's never good lose arguments when you're right, and Paul is right.

No, you need to sound as cool, calm and rational as possible, and do what you can to make the Sensible People look like babbling idiots.  Given that they are talking about the free use of nukes, that shouldn't be as hard as it seems.

How do we do that?

[ Parent ]
Yeah, The Dirty Fucking Law & Order Hippies! (0.00 / 0)
I just want to point out that the above comment was posted on Open Left.  It was not made on CNN, much less Fox.

It also contained rather extended quotations from documents that have the force of law.

So I fail to see why I "need to sound as cool, calm and rational as possible" when I'm confronting the normalization of mass murder, and when I'm already quoting chapter and verse from international law that has been ratified by the US Senate (and thus made into US law as well).

Quite the contrary to the above logic, the rightwing understands very well the need to go ballistic, and the efficacy of doing so:  It serves to make the batshit crazies who speak softly seem sane and moderate--and it pulls the entre spectrum sharply over in their direction.

This is yet another example of where the Democrats--this time grassroots Democrats---have internalized the double standards of the rightwing and the M#M, and made it impossible to become politically effective.

Finally, I should point out that only the subject was the least bit imflammatory.  This indicates substantial depths of self-censorship at work that are well worth taking a look at.

After all, what did I say that was so crazy?  Nothing at all.

What I said was blunt, not crazy.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
You're very sane (0.00 / 0)
and I would not say otherwise.  You're misreading me completely.

Yes, it's blunt.

I'm not suggesting that you aren't right.  You are right, and I make it a habit not to argue with people who are right.  So I'm not going to argue with you.

Keep a distinction here between what you're pushing for (sanity), and what you need to do (undermine the conventional wisdom).  Moral outrage is the normal, sane response to what Hillary and the folks on CNN are saying. Because I completely agree, what Hillary and the folks on CNN are saying is raving, looney, and bonkers.  But it gets repeated as if it were sane.

So the question here, is what will change the conventional wisdom.  I share your outrage, or if you prefer, bluntness.  But I think we need a little less Thomas Paine right now, and frankly, a little more Abbie Hoffman.

This is a difference of tactics, and not of principle

[ Parent ]
Moral outrage is the normal, sane response to what Hillary and the folks on CNN are saying. (0.00 / 0)
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
[ Parent ]
I Think We Need Whatever We Can Muster (0.00 / 0)
I never think we need less Tom Paine.  And we could always use a little more Abbie Hoffman.

But what, exactly, do you have in mind?

I'm all ears.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Kinda figured you'd say that about Paine (0.00 / 0)
You may even be right, too.

As to the more Abby Hoffman part: I started working on a comment, and ended up with a diary, which I'll post later.

Short answer: know your Paine, but learn the value of occasionally dumping tea into Boston Harbor.  Or when the right venue is a soap box or a tavern.

John Adams was good at the former.  His cousin Sam was good at the latter.

[ Parent ]
RW Communications Strategy Is Layered (0.00 / 0)
Quite the contrary to the above logic, the rightwing understands very well the need to go ballistic, and the efficacy of doing so:  It serves to make the batshit crazies who speak softly seem sane and moderate--and it pulls the entre spectrum sharply over in their direction.

And you are right to point this out.

But they don't send the batshit crazies to get interviewed on Pumpkinhead's show on NBC.  They send David Broder.  Who makes all that bat-shit-craziness sound... safe.  While he's beginning to drool a bit, which doesn't help him, he doesn't raise his voice.

Rush Limbaugh's gig, and those of some of his imitators, is a sort of satire.  We may not find it funny, but it's a technique of making sane opinions risible, and insane opinions acceptable.  For whatever else we can say about the morality of the technique, we have to concede that the technique is effective for certain issues and certain people.

This is a layered communications strategy.  It works.

Yes, we should talk this way among ourselves.  Here, for example. You're talking what deserves to be called radical sanity, the polar opposite of batshit-crazyiness.  It needs saying and you are saying it well.

But I'm also interested in how persuasion works psychologically, and if you're familiar with the literature, you know that cognitive dissonance is a powerful changer of opinions.

Moral revulsion and passion you see in someone else can trigger this, and if you're going to a public meeting of a candidate (or even a private one), you're totally on the mark.  Giving Hillary or Biden a facefull of it at a public meeting may not sway them (although it might; this is starting to work with congressional stands on the war and on impeachment), but it certainly will persuade certain people in that particular audience

On the other hand, there's a reason that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have such a following.  The shows actually get across quite a bit about the day's events.  But the fact they make the CW look stupid is probably one of the reasons that people's opinions about certain things are changing.  We need to make fun of the idiots a lot more than we do.

Making fun of someone else's belief structure can also cause cognitive dissonance.

We're also going to need to have people to be our "David Broders" -- people who can articulate a new conventional wisdom.  One, that for a change, is actually wise.

[ Parent ]
You're Preaching To The Choir When It Comes To Satire (0.00 / 0)
As a young teen, I put together a "New World Songbook" with tunes like "Puff, The Magic H-Bomb" and "Michael, Close The Shelter Door."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
So I'm guessing you know the tune, then (0.00 / 0)
I meet so many people who are so damn... earnest.  Nothing wrong with it, I guess. But it's worth remembering that The Importance of Being Earnest was a comedy. I love earnest people.  But Lord Almighty, are earnest people easy to lampoon.

But if I had to leave you with a quick slogan, use your old tools and apply them to the question WWMMD.  As in, What Would Michael Moore Do?  Or ask yourself how the Stiffest Man In Politics put global warming on the map by filming a slide show, of all things.

Humor's a piece of this, and using the standard communication mind set of message, medium and audience is another.  But common sense is eminently malleable.  We often argue, when we are better off persuading, which is both a rational and an emotional process.

The "Daisy" commercial worked for this in 1964.  How can we make the cold blooded discussion of using nuclear force as objectionable today as it was in 1964?

Message, media, and audience. How do we undermine the narrative that Hilary and other are using?

[ Parent ]
It would be a criminal act no matter what the international law was... (0.00 / 0)
No, that isn't necessarily true.
[ Parent ]
Morally criminal is often legal (0.00 / 0)
sad, but true.

I can't see a use of atomics that would not be criminal in some way.  Even a so called "defensive" use, like using tactical nukes against an invading army.  Which is the most likely way they'd get used against the US, ironically enough.

[ Parent ]
Immoral as hell (0.00 / 0)
Yes, this is exactly my point. Hillary made a profoundly immoral statement. She might nuke civilians for no good reason? Why aren't we evaluating that morally?
[ Parent ]
Why Are You Such A Dualist??? (0.00 / 0)
It's really irritating.  You're displacing your anger at Hillary onto us.

And God knows why you're so angry at her.  All the major candidates of both parties believe in using nukes, too.  And you can't use nukes without killing people.  You ought to be angry at the whole lot of them.

So why Hillary specifically?

And now, why us?

This is really a counter-productive progression on your part.  Unless it's just about feeling morally superior.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Deterrence (0.00 / 0)
So...the threat of obliterating thousands of civilians preemptively has been a successful deterrent for decades?  I'd say so.  I bet if we had threatened to torture their children, that would have worked too.  It's irrelevant whether the nuclear threat has "worked" or not -- it's obviously utterly evil.  It's one thing to threaten to nuke Russia if it nukes us first; but to maintain a credible threat of nuking some secondary country is, well, pretty damn bad.  Heck, I'd bet Cheney et al worry about that "credible" part -- the threat is no good if no one believes it, and why should they believe it when we've never done it?  Yet another motivation for nuking Iran.

This is another example of Democrats putting pragmatics ahead of principles.  It's what's doomed the party for decades, and, speaking from the pragmatic point of view they understand, although Dems on this issue are still better than Republicans, I'm going to have a hard time voting for any presidential candidate who takes this position.

See also mydd.com, which has some good quotes from Biden and Dodd on this.  They are so determined not to lose their pragmatic/tough-guy credibility that I don't think they've ever really thought about this as an issue of principle.  Before, I've had to grope a bit when someone asked why I hated these two guys as candidates; now I have a quick answer.  But I guess I'll resist pouring any more fuel on the HRC fire...

Clarification (0.00 / 0)
I suppose I should clarify that what I'm interested in here is how "deterrence" seems to no longer mean only, deterring Russia from a nuclear attack.  It seems to have been horribly broadened as part of the ongoing redefinition of the cold war, so that we now praise our nuclear arsenal for having deterred all manner of smaller, non-USSR threats.  Why, without nukes, not only would Russia have annihilated us, but who know how many rouge states would have engaged in terrorism?  The idea that the threat of nuclear attack has been broadened into, essentially, a tool of international policing, is what is most disturbing here.  If the candidates can swear off torturing terrorists, why can't they swear off nuking them?
[ Parent ]
Simple: We Want A Monopoly On Terror (0.00 / 0)
If the candidates can swear off torturing terrorists, why can't they swear off nuking them?

Why should the terrorists have all the fun?

We should terrorize people too!

(The best way to win the "war on terror" is to switch sides!)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It's madness (4.00 / 1)
Mohammed Atta was in Hamburg, Germany. Would we nuke Germany if  somehow Bin Laden found his way to Hamburg? Is that option on the table? Or is it just people in tints of brown and yellow that we consider nuking? Keeping nukes 'on the table' against stateless terrorists is madness.

How nuclear annihilation is supposed to act as a deterrent to a cell of SUICIDE BOMBERS escapes me.

John McCain

Could it be even simpler and more shallow? (4.00 / 1)
Is it possible that, conciously or sub-, Senator Clinton is compelled to be more hawkish to prove that she's as "tough" as a man?

By contrast, is it too far-fetched to imagine that the right-wing cottage industry that already exists (and has existed since approximately 1992) for hating Hillary would have a field day painting her as a "flower child" if she was to say that there was no circumstance in which she'd use nukes, either pre-emptively or defensively?

Personally, I loathe the very idea, but I'm not so idealistic that I would be willing to utterly discount the possibility.

Remember: the opposite of this is someone like Tom Tancredo, who publicly stated in 2005 that we should tell the Muslim world that Mecca turns to glass at the first evidence of ANY Muslim culpability in "another 9/11."  Tancredo won't be nominated, but he and others will drag the dialogue to the right.  After all, dragging the dialogue to the right is how we got where we are today.

Republican politicans play to their hard right-wing base and then try to take America along for the ride. 

Democratic politicians pander to an imaginary "center" and the make-believe "moderates" and avoid the left at all costs. 

De-legitimizing leftward issues is precisely how the debate has skewed so hard to the right-wing.

That's why no Democratic candidate (with the exception of Kucinich) has the guts to foreswear the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.

Mostly, it's that shallow (0.00 / 0)
Sad to tell.

Words get repeated so many times that people accept them as fact, no matter how deranged they are.  They repeat them like a mantra, without thinking.  "We will take no option off the table" is one of those mantras. 

This part of an old, sterile debate on foreign policy in the Democratic Party going back at least into the 1960s.  The US foreign policy consensus, as dumb as it is, won out in the party.

We need to open up the debate again, and change the terms of the debate to our advantage.  Dennis, unfortunately, may not be the best messenger to help us do that.  Even when he's right.

[ Parent ]
the entire quote explains the matter (0.00 / 0)
The entire quote by Clinton explains the matter easily. I've bolded the parts you left out.

A smile darted onto Clinton's face Thursday when she was read Obama's comment during a Capitol Hill news conference several hours later.

"I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," she said. "And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. But I think we'll leave it at that, because I don't know the circumstances in which he was responding."

(1) She was read Obama's statement and responded spontaneously.

(2) As seen in the last sentence, she was unclear on what circumstances he was discussing.  (Indeed, without seeing the full transcript, I'm still unclear exactly what circumstances he was discussing.)

In that light, her restatement of the general principal that presidents should not make blanket statements as to the use of non-use of nuclear weapons makes perfect sense.

Is it "perfect sense" (0.00 / 0)
to say that the United States, the one nation on earth that HAS used nukes offensively, will never do so again?

Can any one of us here (the average IQ of whom is clearly more-than-presidential by current standards) say that there is even ONE instance in which the use of first-strike nukes by the U.S., be they strategic or tactical, would be justified, outside of an alien invasion from Planet Norkzoob?

It's worth remembering that we managed far more death and destruction with the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo than we did with nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Whether it's Korea, Vietnam or Iraq, we have proven that we can rain grim, hellish death from above in a conventional capacity on a scale to make some nukes pale by comparison.

When a presidential candidate intimates that he or she would be willing to use nukes in a first-strike capacity, it indicates a profound lack of understanding of history AND policy AND the working effect of conventional munitions.

[ Parent ]
first strike? (0.00 / 0)
Obama's quotation said nothing about first-strike.  It simply said "It would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstances....involving civilians."
[ Parent ]
OK (4.00 / 1)
And your point?

Isn't the operative phrase "involving civilians?"  Isn't that at least a smidgen of weasel-room for Obama, even if we all realize that it's hard to nuke someone without roasting a few (dozen/hundred/thousand/million) civilians?

As between Senators Clinton and Obama, isn't this a distinction without a difference?

Senator Clinton didn't pull nukes off the table, and neither, ultimately, did Senator Obama.

I guess that shows they're each tough and bloodthirsty enough, each willing enough, to roast the occasional brown person (or million), to be POTUS.

That's a heckuva standard.  We sure have come a long way from George Washington and "avoid foreign entanglements."

The saddest thing is that this race to be the most murderous isn't done for the Left or those imaginary "moderates."  It's done strictly and exclusively to impress a group that will never vote for either: the far right, since the far right dictates the terms of the debate via Phlush, InHannity, the Savagte-Weiner, et al.

To recall Kurt Vonnegut: "Nice, nice, very nice!"

[ Parent ]
BobKincaid is by the Hillary Camp Paid $$$$$ (0.00 / 0)
Did Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson bribe you with that Vilsack kind of money, Bob?
[ Parent ]
You're hilarious (0.00 / 0)
If you take from my comments that I somehow support Senator Clinton, then I suspect that nothing short of "Die, Hillary, Die" is satisfactory to you.

My point, since I clearly need to explain it to you, is that both Senators Obama and Clinton are engaged in a race to the abbatoir where willingness to kill and slaughter is concerned, and that they're doing it not on the left's account, or liberals, or progressives, but in order to appeal to a mythical "center" made up of imaginary "moderates."

I've spent more hours on the air blistering these wishy-washy candidates than most people have written words about them, whether it's Obama saying he would not support impeachment, or Clinton saying she'd leave troops in Iraq in a South Korea-style investiture of force.  I hammered Edwards for his "all options are on the table" b/s when he made that remark to AIPAC regarding Iran.

I must admit, however, it sure would be nice to have some of those wishy-washys' cool campaign cash.  If you've got the phone number, fork it over!

[ Parent ]
Involving civilians... (0.00 / 0)
I agree completely.
When I read Obama's clarification about nuking but not involving civilians I thought what planet is he on?
[ Parent ]
Clinton knew exactly what the context of the question wa$, $o how much i$ $he paying you? (0.00 / 0)
Not true. She was told that Obama was responding to a question about terrorist cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://firstread.msn...

"Clinton was asked if she agrees with Obama that nukes should be off the table when dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan. "I'm not going to answer hypothetical's, but let's find Osama Bin Laden and his leadership first," she said. "I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons... I don't believe that any presidents should make any blanket statements with respect to use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Also:

http://news.yahoo.co...

"The Illinois senator, in a speech Wednesday, warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he would use U.S. military force in Pakistan even without Musharraf's permission if necessary to root out terrorists.

Asked about Obama's speech and his comments about nuclear weapons, New York Sen. Clinton chided Obama for addressing hypotheticals.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Asked about the idea of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership, Clinton said: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."

Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, responded: "If we had actionable intelligence about the existence of high-level al-Qaida 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."

Clinton knew exactly what the context of the question was.

See also:

http://www.abcnews.g...

And, Clinton flip-flopped on Pakistan:

http://campaignspot....

[ Parent ]
How's your poker playing? (0.00 / 0)
She did not say she would use nuclear weapons, or not rule out using nuclear weapons or even leave all options on the table.  She did not say what you are accusing her of.

She was making a simpler point. Presidents SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY statemnts on the use or ...non use of nuclear weapons.  It should just be "NO COMMENT"  "I do not respond to questions on the use of nuclear weapons" "Presidents traditonally have not made any comments on nuclear weapons and I think I should uphold that tradition."

Obama should have said some variant of the above.  But he felt he had to respond to the actual question asked....NO he doesn't and he shouldn't have.  He did the same thing at the Youtube debate....he responded to the actual question, he wanted to please.

His series of qualifiers after the fact....well at the moment he reminds me of a car driver who swerves to miss something and then does a series of overcompensating adjustemnts to recover from the swerve. 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

She flip-flopped on Pakistan, you can't trust anything she says (0.00 / 0)
And if she doesn't want to nuke Pakistani children, she should come out and say so, instead of playing tired Clinton War Machine Triangulation Games and complaining about her saggy breasts, stupid haircuts, and ugly coral jacket.
[ Parent ]
keep your cards close to your vest (0.00 / 0)
don't show your hand.  Basic rules of poker and a lot of big power relations.

Steve Soto makes these points really well

"When Hillary was asked to comment, she cut Obama some slack while refusing to give an absolute answer to a hypothetical.

QUESTION: Senator Clinton?, Senator Obama? today said that the use of nuclear weapons would be off the table in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I'm wondering if you agree with that.
CLINTON: Well, I'm not going to answer hypotheticals. But let's find Osama bin Laden and his leadership first.
And I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.
But I think we'll leave it at that, because I don't know the circumstances in which he was responding.
Note how Hillary kept the focus on not answering a hypothetical and the need to find Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership.

Regardless of any well-founded objection Obama has to using nuclear weapons, committing to getting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden is more important than making an anti-nuclear statement. There is no reason to send any specific message at all on this, and a seasoned approach would be to say:

1. I won't respond to hypotheticals;
2. We expect all countries in the region, especially our allies (read: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) to do everything possible to step up their efforts to fight and eliminate Al Qaeda, and
3. Unlike the current administration, I will do whatever is necessary to find and eliminate Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's leadership. There will be no Tora Boras or weak knees in going after the 9/11 criminals on my watch.
That's it; say nothing more."

read the whole thing, a very good explanation

http://www.theleftco...

http://www.theleftco...



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Your bluffing rationale is absolute nonsense that Howard Wolfson bribed you to spout (0.00 / 0)
There is no value to bluffing in this context, because there is no deterrence value to the possibility of nuking Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Pakistan is a state. Afghanistan is a state. Both states are our allies.

Al Qaeda is a non-state transnational organization. It is not affiliated with or sponsored by Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Nuking our allies, or the threat of it, does not deter al Qaeda.

Your after the fact "justification" of Hillary's response just shows it is full of crap. Especially given that she flip-flopped on Pakistan: http://campaignspot....

It makes much more sense to take nukes off the table unless an identifiable state, or non-state actor operating with state succor, threatens us to the degree that making a threat is necessary. Hillary is saber-rattling for no reason, and suggesting she might nuke innocents in Pakistan for no reason. That is not poker: it is immoral.

As you have seen above, there is a valid (though unsound) case that it is a crime. Even worse than wearing an ugly coral jacket to cover up your large ass.

Worst of all, it actually misrepresents American foreign policy. We do not nuke allied states for the acts of belligerent organizations within their territory; we have never even nuked a rogue state that sponsored proxy terrorist groups within their therritory. Hillary would know that if she were as experienced as she claims.

[ Parent ]
You Really Need To Leave This SIte (0.00 / 0)
Your name alone tell us that you are not about building a progressive movement, you are about attacking one candidate in particular.  The subject line of your comment accuses a community member you don't know of taking bribes.

I know it's hyperbole, but you use hyperbole like it was gas and you're a Hummer.

You've made some interesting points, but your overall atttitude is so clearly at odds with the site, there's simply no place here for how you're conducting yourself.

Besides, until you arrived, I don't think anyone here was much interested in defending Clinton.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
bribery is not hyperbole (0.00 / 0)
I was not literally accusing Howard Wolfson of bribing that person, but do I think the Clinton camp puts concern trolls in progressive bolg comments? Certainly. Do I think the Clinton camp bribed former Iowa Governor Tom Vilack by paying off his campaign debt? Yes, I do. (So do plenty of reasonable people.) Do I think that Clinton pays bloggers to say nice things about her by steering adverts their way? Yes, I do. Those are facts. Not hyperbole. Or gas in a Hummer, or whatever your silly analogy was. Perhaps you should stop sniffing gas fumes.

Is my attitude somehow anti-Hillary? Listen, sir, if anything, I defended Hillary Clinton against your false and ridiculous charges that the woman is war criminal for chatting with the press. I defended Clinton against you.

But do I think Hillary Clinton is batshit insane for suggesting we should nuke Pakistan and Afghanistan for no good reason? Yes, I do. And so do top foreign policy analysts:

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."

"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.

http://www.washingto...

That explains the handle. Not some evil conspiracy to tear down Hillary Clinton. If she renounced all her crypto-realist positions, I'd support her. If she stopped playing the gender card in her campaign, I'd have more respect for her candidacy. She hasn't, and she won't. And she's not a progressive, despite whatever she blathers to the press. She quotes from Nixon's speeches. I'm not even making that up, I can show you where she has quoted from Nixon, verbatim, without attribution.

Am I somehow not dedicated to building a progressive movement? Sure I'm dedicated to that. But that doesn't rolling over and letting people spoout the Conventional Wisdom when it is crazy. And it doesn't mean kowtowing to Paul Rosenberg's idiosyncratic opinion. The basic principle is you don't silence people you dislike, or speculate as to their intentions, you debate them in good faith. Learn the principle.

[ Parent ]
The cheap misogyny in cracks (0.00 / 0)
about HRC's "saggy breasts" and "large ass" does a lot to detract from your larger points. Yuck.
[ Parent ]
Mocking one particular woman for her hypocrisy is not misogyny (0.00 / 0)
1. I mocked her haircuts because she uses a poster of her many hairdos to fundraise. At the same time, she lambastes the media as sexist for reporting on her many hairdos. That is hypocrisy of the highest rank.

2. I mocked her saggy breasts because she is using her cleavage to fundraise. At the same time, she lambastes the media as sexist for reporting on her use of cleavage to bond with professional women and fundraise. That is hypocrisy of the highest rank.

3. I mocked her large ass because it is a fact that she wears pantssuits and overcoats to hide it. Is that mean? I suppose, but it's also firmly within the American tradition, e.g., "Tubby Taft". Indeed, her husband was called "Slick Willie" all throughout his terms as President for his adulterous ways and smooth-talking Southern charm. Do you think a man with an ass as large would have a shot at the nomination? Serious question. The answer is no, because we have a double-standard in politics. We want male Presidents to be tall and strong and well-dressed, but a female candidate can be out-of-shap and come to the debate in an ugly jacket. And if you point it out, you must hate all women. That's unfair, and Hillary Clinton is using it to avoid tough questions, suppress scrunity of her policy positions, and raise money. It is fair game.

[ Parent ]
Tall, strong and well dressed men. (0.00 / 0)
You want a male president to be tall, strong and well-dressed? How serious are you about these requirements?
[ Parent ]
We was a general statement (0.00 / 0)
Look at social science, e.g., scientific studies on impression management. Perhaps I should have said "the American people" instead of "We". Thanks for the pointless parsing.
[ Parent ]
HRC may be deflecting from serious issues, (0.00 / 0)
but that just doesn't make the case that her "saggy breasts" and "large ass" are germane to the discussion at hand.

It's still cheap, and it still speaks to a societal misogyny, given that it was the MSM that raised those issues originally.

The ads were a savvy,  way to generate empathy from women who are rightfully tired of comments such as yours. 
 

[ Parent ]
Idiotic clarification (0.00 / 0)
You clarified you statement to say, "'We' want male Presidents to be tall and strong and well-dressed'". A very brilliant observation. Thanks for speaking for all of us.
Romney should be your favorite.
Kucinich is out - too short.
[ Parent ]
A Pro Obama and And Anti Obama Poster Mix It Up (0.00 / 0)
News at 11.

These debates really are more fun on Kos or MyDD.

The people running this blog are trying to make OpenLeft "safe" for any of the Democrats running.  It's a good idea, because there aren't that many places where you can get the whole range of Democratic Party opinion, and a bit more around the edges.

Discuss policy here, but the partisan BS is out of place.

You'll both be flaming me, but there you go.  You're flaming already; at most, I've just changed the topic.

[ Parent ]
The Steve Soto post only confirms that Hillary knew exactly what she was being asked!!!! (0.00 / 0)
"QUESTION: Senator Clinton, Senator Obama today said that the use of nuclear weapons would be off the table in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I'm wondering if you agree with that."
[ Parent ]
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/08/obama_them_back_to_the_stone_a.php (0.00 / 0)
Read this.
Clinton's statement targeted at reassuring national security establishment that she knows her lines (0.00 / 0)
Clinton's statement is not surprising and quite logical within the mainstream national security establishment of which she is part.

It has long been the policy of the U.S. to remain ambiguous about the situations in which it would employ its nuclear arsenal -- thus Clinton's statement that "Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Keep two things in mind when listening to this debate: 1) the U.S. is the only country that has used these weapons; and 2) they are mostly useless in the real world, except as expensive symbols of power and, in the imagined (and dubious) sort of power to influence opponents by the use of ambiguity (i.e. "push us too far and we just might be crazy enough use one of these.")

Now, in the case Obama was referring to, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the power to effect bin Laden through a policy of nuclear ambiguity reaches for the outer limits of credibility.  One really can't argue that bin Laden will be effected by that!

However, in the case of Iran there are certainly many policy  makers who do argue that our (an Israel's) nuclear weapons can have coercive diplomatic effect.  I believe that threatening posture just makes Iran want the nukes more, but then Clinton and pals don't take my advice.

One other comment.  Clinton misuses "deterrence" in her response.  The theoretical deterrent effect of possessing nuclear weapons is not reduced by a "no first use" policy.  The U.S. has steadfastly refused to declare a no first use policy.

Charles Knight
co-director
Project on Defense Alternatives
http://www.comw.org/...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/03/303197.aspx (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Madness, madness, madness (0.00 / 0)
Dropping atomic bombs: how do terrible bombs deter terrorism?

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue
Obama - bombing on the table (0.00 / 0)
Obama said he would leave the option of bombing Iran "on the table" during the first democratic debate. He and Clinton both did. It is what moved Gravel to say that he found these frontrunners scary. I do too.

In fact, Obama mentioned sending  "surgical missile strikes" into Iran as early as 2004. He said it was a "viable option".

It's ok to dump on Clinton but why the amnesia vis-a-vis Obama?

Perhaps he has changed his tune - but I don't trust him for a minute.

Surgical missile strikes are not NUKES (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Surgical strikes are not nukes? (0.00 / 0)
During the debate in which both Clinton and Obama talked about leaving
bombing Iran "on the table" - Senator Gravel stated that he found their
statements scary. He also said to the public that we should know that
they are talking about the use of Nuclear weapons. Nobody - not Clinton,
not Obama denied it. The best Obama could come up with was he was
not advocating the use of nuclear weapons....right now.
[ Parent ]
Mike Gravel is a nutcase. (0.00 / 0)
Obama made clear he has no plans to nuke anyone and that if he hasn't mentioned nukes are on the table, then they're not on the table.
[ Parent ]
Are you supporting Obama? (0.00 / 0)
Just curious.
Are you supporting Obama or just posting to trash Hillary Clinton?
[ Parent ]
The Barking-Mad Option and the Rube-and-Hayseed Vote (0.00 / 0)

Any POTUS who ever uses a nuke to take an individual terrorist would be judged barking mad, after the fact.  To suggest he's wet behind the ears for not taking the barking-mad option off the table, _before_ the fact, is just nuts.

Hillary is not stupid.  Perhaps she merely takes to heart the old anecdote about Adlai Stevenson.  After delivering a thoughtful, well-crafter campaign speech, Stevenson was told it would earn him the vote of every thinking American. Stevenson allegedly replied: "Unfortunately, I need a majority."  The _only_ way Hillary's comments on this nuke business make any sense at all is this:  Hillary is smart enough to know that most Americans are stupid.  One day she says a Predator hit on Usama in Pakistani territory without Musharaf's approval would be too rash; the next she says nuclear hit on Usama in Pakistani territory should not be off the table.  Just whose votes is she trying to get?

At least Tancredo's "nuke Mecca" suggestion has a certain logic to it.  Threatening to nuke Mecca "after the next 9/11" is an attempt at deterrence.  A clumsy attempt, to be sure, but at deterrence -- not pre-emption.  The whole point of deterrence is to _not_have_to_carry_out_your_threat_.  But Hillary purports to "leave on the table" the possible pre-emptive, or even punitive, use of a nuke.  Perhaps her position reflects another disturbing realization: our nukes are a waste of money and aggravation, if we can't even _threaten_ to use them against our allegedly most dangerous enemy of the moment.

-- TP

Obama's Confusing Nuclear Posturing (0.00 / 0)
Actually I find Obama's comment on using nuclear weapons every bit as posturing as Hillary Clinton's. Obama is perhaps posturing for the primaries as much as Hillary's eye is on the general election.

Obama noted as you said "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He then added: "Involving civilians." If he was being serious he would have then followed up by promising to get rid of America's entire nuclear weapons arsenal. Otherwise why make such a categorical statement? Would that not be the logical and honest follow up to such a morally certain comment?

Obama is running for the position as President and that other menacing title that comes with it: Commander-in-Chief. So as the country's prospective military leader tasked with making tactical decisions about warfare is he removing what might be a tactical and psychological tool?  Again, if he is serious about this he ought to say how he is going to begin to dismantle the nation's nuclear arsenal. Will he do away with the "Black Bag?" Will he set up a commission to advise on beginning to get rid of American's nuclear arsenal? Given his categorical statement he should be asked these questions.

Obama's follow up comment "not to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance....involving civilians" was also disingenuous. Nuclear weapons by their very nature will always spread their radio active fallout. Just ask Helen  Caldicott about those "highly targeted" tactical uranium tipped bombs dropped in targeted areas of Iraq and the environmental fallout and the subsequent impact on the nearby population. The science of nuclear fallout is that it is always bound to spread beyond its intended military target.

In many ways Hillary Clinton's comment that President's should never comment one way or the other on the use of nuclear weapons is more honest. She knows she is running for the position of Commander-in-Chief. More than that she understands that America is the country she has, not the country with wishes to have, to paraphrase Rumsfled. In other words she understands that it would take a monumental psychological, social and political effort to achieve military, congressional, and electoral consensus to rid American entirely of its nuclear war arsenal. The very foundation and identity of post-war America incorporates its nuclear heritage. To change this is probably a generation or more's work. Of course she is not going to use nuclear weapons, but is it really worth possibly staking the entire election by bucking the conventional and relatively begnign response of ambiguity regarding use of nuclear weapons? Especially if having committed yourself not to use them, you then have no plan to rid the nation of them. So, principled as Obama may be, he has put himself in the worst possible position for the general: 1). He has called into question his ability to fulfill his role as Commander-in-Chief, by giving away tactical and psychological advantage. 2). He has declared he will never use nuclear weapons but has no plans to begin a nuclear draw down, further confusing America's enemies and friends.

"So, principled as Obama may be..." (0.00 / 0)
I agree with your post - except for your having accepted the premise that Obama is principled.

His support for Leiberman in 2006 was unprincipled.

His sponsorship of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act in the Senate (2007), described by the Sierra Club as promoting an "industry would double the global warming emissions of regular gasoline" was unprincipled.

As you pointed out, "Obama's follow up comment 'not to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance....involving civilians' was also disingenuous". You say "disingenuous". A Webster's definition of "disingenuous" is "deceitful". His hedging about the use of nuclear weapons is obvious posturing and pandering to the right wing, in my opinion.

I see no reason to give any of these candidates the benefit of the doubt.

[ Parent ]
Chris Bowers is still naive. From the open literature: (0.00 / 0)
It may be hard to nuke someone without roasting a million others, but we have a bomb especially designed to do so.  It is the Air Force's deep penetrating nuclear bunker buster.  It explodes so deeply underground, even if the ground is rock, that there is little effect on the surface.  The people killed would be those enemy combatants hiding in a VERY DEEP, VERY well hardened cave or bunker.  Hitler's "furherbunker" would be too shallow a target.  People on the surface nearby not in hardened structures could continue their daily business unaffected.  This weapon definitely targets military and leaders only.  Nobody else would be in a bunker like that.  Conventional weapons would be useless and pointless against the type and depth of bunker we are talking about. 
Clinton: No Blanket Statements On Nukes | 81 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox