Clinton Gets More Hawkish than Bush

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:13


She's crazy.

"I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel," she said. "Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States."...

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

A massive new security commitment in this volatile region is just insane.  And the belligerent rhetoric - 'totally obliterate them' - what the hell?  It's like 7th graders with nuclear weapons.

I'm having a harder and harder time seeing the difference between McCain and Clinton.  Perhaps Clinton will be more saddened than McCain's gleefully militarism as she launches an attack on Iraq, but that's just tone.
Matt Stoller :: Clinton Gets More Hawkish than Bush

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Gets More Hawkish than Bush | 76 comments
What happened to last year's Clinton? (0.00 / 0)
The one who knew the right diplomatic words and when not to be specific.  She did at least seem experienced and Presidential.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
It's pretty shocking (0.00 / 0)
After Wolfson said that 'massive retaliation' wasn't code for nuclear weapons, she went on Olbermann and said so in even more explicit terms.

Very, very disconcerting.

You're pretty slow. (4.00 / 2)
Hillary is really bad news. I am shocked that there has been the support for her on this blog that there has been.

Her entire campaign has been founded upon non-progressive appeals. She has been the bane of whistleblowers in the federal agencies. And her understanding of "diplomacy" is based entirely on sticks and not at all on carrots. She's still a Republican at heart.

She didn't merely vote for Bush to invade Iraq, but she also voted against the Levin Amendment which would have required that Bush not invade Iraq unless U.N. weapons inspectors were blocked by Saddam Hussein or else found WMD inside Iraq and Iraq prohibited the destruction of those WMD. (The Levin Amendment required that, though "the United States has at all times the inherent right to self-defense," the President would have no authorization to invade Iraq until "the President shall submit to Congress a report" on Iraq, and until Congress responded to that report with a specific authorization to invade Iraq.) Without the Levin Amendment, the Iraq War resolution was a bill to invade Iraq, and that's precisely what Hillary voted for.

She also voted against the Durbin Amendment, which would have restricted the war-authorization to only a subsequent finding of "an imminent threat" from "weapons of mass destruction" discovered by U.N. inspectors in Iraq, or else Iraq's not permitting U.N. inspectors back into Iraq.

In other words, Hillary could have voted to authorize an invasion under only restricted circumstances, but she didn't; she refused to. Hillary wasn't just a Democratic Iraq-War hawk; she was extremely so: an Iraq super-hawk, on an unwarranted and vastly harmful, actually catastrophic, U.S. invasion of a country which had done us no harm, and which posed no real threat to this nation.

Barack Obama was correct when he told an audience in Westerville Ohio on 2 March 2008, just two days before the Ohio primary:

"She ... supposedly has all this ... foreign policy experience. [But] when it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation - the decision to invade Iraq - Senator Clinton got it wrong. She didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate. ... [The following remarks weren't in the prepared speech, but were extemporaneous:] I have enough experience to know that if you have a national intelligence estimate, and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee [who was Democratic Senator Robert Graham of Florida] says you should read this - this is why I'm voting against the war [and Bob Graham did vote against the Iraq War] - then you should probably read it."

The Resolution for which she voted stated, in its key phrase, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to" attain its stated goals concerning Iraq; but those goals weren't the key here; the unlimited authorization was, because of that phrase "as he determines." From this moment forward, he alone would make the judgment as to whether to invade Iraq. He could even do it with zero international allies, but he nonetheless sought such allies in order to present a better political face to the U.S. public, to have less domestic opposition going in. That's why this was the bill the President had sought.

There is no reason for a progressive to prefer Hillary's candidacy. And if you think that her healthcare bill in 1993 wasn't whored to the then-emerging HMO industry (but killed by their competitors the health insurance companies), you live in a cloud. And her current health-care proposal is actually not quite as good as Obama's, though the difference is minimal. Krugman is dead wrong.

Hillary is an authoritarian liberal, and that's not much better than an authoritarian conservative such as McCain. If the general election were between McCain and Hillary I'd stay home. Sure McCain's Supreme Court picks would be disastrous. But even worse would be for Democrats to get the blame for the coming Depression, having an incompetent Democrat in the White House raising dissension instead of getting us out of the mess.

Obama would be another FDR, and a restoration of Democratic hegemony. Hillary would be the Democratic Party getting the blame for Bush's catastrophes, and thus a continuation of Republican political dominance into the future. McCain would be another Herbert Hoover, and would thus mean the end of the Republican hegemony.

She's worse than crazy. (0.00 / 0)
She's a Republican.

Seriously, how can anyone in his or her right mind look at the state of affairs in this country and decide that Republicans have the ideas to move forward with?

I guess spending your Sundays with the nuttiest of the neocon nutters can really screw up your thought processes.

I think you are seriously wrong (4.00 / 1)
Matt

A nuclear Iran is not a threat to us, but it is perceived as a major regional threat. (I believe Chris Bowers just posted from Israel about how obsessed they are in that country with Iran.) My understanding is that despite having between 100-200 nuclear weapons, (some mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles and some on medium range cruise missiles on submarines), the Israelis fear that a Iranian nuclear first strike could completely wipe out their tiny nation, thus severely limiting their response capability. That appears to be the crux of the problem, that is why Israel is so paranoid, and why the Israel/Iran situation is so regionally destabilizing.

The Clinton solution seems to me to be a sound one, based on the Cold War era Mutually Assured Destruction theory that kept us and our allies from nuclear armageddon with the old Soviet Union. Clinton explained it well on Keith Olbermann last night, that she doesn't buy into the [Likudnik/Krauthammer] argument that the Iranian leadership is irrationally hell-bent on Israe's destruction at any cost, even their own destruction. Clinton wants to assure Israel and other nervous actors in the region (Saudi Arabia?), that NATO-style, any attack on them by Iran will be responded to massively by the US. This is basically the same committment we made to Japan and Western Europe to keep them, post WWII, from going nuclear in the face of perceived threats from China and the Soviet Union.

If you can think of a better solution to a nuclear arms race in that region once Iran has nuclear weapons, I'd like to hear it.

I'm no military expert but this part doesn't sound right... (4.00 / 3)
My understanding is that despite having between 100-200 nuclear weapons, (some mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles and some on medium range cruise missiles on submarines), the Israelis fear that a Iranian nuclear first strike could completely wipe out their tiny nation, thus severely limiting their response capability

If they have weapons on submarines, how are they to be stopped from responding?

I think the whole notion that Iran would nuke Israel is total nonsense.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
jumping the gun (and the shark) (4.00 / 8)
It also seems a bit premature to threaten to annihilate Iran based on the hypothetical possibility that they might someday have a substantial nuclear arsenal - enough to wipe out Israel - when they still don't even have a single nuke.

Premature and, of course, morally repugnant.

[ Parent ]
Think... (0.00 / 0)
The Israelis believe their nation and its land based capability to respond would be destroyed in an Iranian first strike. They have 3 submarines. The Israelis surely believe Iran would likely have a solution to the problems they would create before the ayatollahs ever pushed the button, unless they are buying into, or developed, the neocon fantasy that the Iranian leadership is suicidal.

I also think the idea that Iran would nuke Israel is nonsense, but you are missing the point: the Israelis are paranoid (rightly or wrongly) and think it is a distinct possiblitiy.  That is the tail that's wagging the dog.

Clinton is calling BS and posters here are calling her a hawk. She is trying to prevent a nuclear buildup/war!

[ Parent ]
paranoia is a form of mental illness (4.00 / 1)
And if the Israelis are crazy, it's our job to indulge that?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Clinton is posturing--in the worst way (4.00 / 1)
She needs to believe that she is being perceived as tough, that she has the 'stuff' that makes a good, strong, commander in chief.  And she is quite comfortable saying whatever must be said to give that impression.  Her willfulness to use nuclear weapons only exacerbates an already testy situation.

This type of bravado isn't new, nor is her penchant to shock voters into her notion of reality by using key buzzwords and ideas.  Notice that she invoked the 3am message just before voting in Texas, she has also invoked Farrakhan just before Ohio, and now Osama bin Laden just before Pennsylvania.  

Let's put Israel in context.  Let us suppose that Iran does attack Israel.  If Israel has 100-200 nuclear weapons and she also has submarines with nuclear weapons, then the only way Iran can assure their own safety from a retaliatory attack from Israel is to destroy Israel--to completely wipe-out the nation and people of Israel.  Now I ask you, given the need for Iran to attack with the intent to destroy does our pronouncements really have any meaning?

Think about it; if Israel and its people are destroyed do you not think that the entire world would rise up against such aggression?  Do you really think Iranians are stupid?  Does Clinton's proclamation to destroy Iran with nuclear weapons have any positive impact--to deter aggression, to advance diplomacy, to promote peace?  Hell no!  Clinton's proclamation can only be viewed as either intimidation or bravado.  I swear, she is a republican in democrats cloths!  

[ Parent ]
Bravado!? You are not getting it (0.00 / 0)
Israel and Saudi Arabia are panicking about a nuclear Iran, not us (except for Kristol, Krauthammer and the neocons of course). What are they contemplating as a result of this panic?

Israel is considering a military first strike to set back a nuclear Iran (that would most certainly have to involve tactical nuclear weapons).

Saudi Arabia is considering building up its military and aquiring its own nukes.

What Clinton is saying is, "don't do anything rash, we'll protect you from Iran." She is trying to tamp down the panic and prevent a big nuclear build-up in the region.


[ Parent ]
If that's what she is saying she should say it (4.00 / 2)
until then this is just speculation about her motive.  More than anything it strikes me as a pander to the conservative jewish vote. Bravado indeed. She has it.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
She did say it. (0.00 / 0)
She spelled it out in full last nite on Keith O.
[ Parent ]
you coulda saved a lot of time by just linking to it... (0.00 / 0)
here are the videos of her on Olbermann in case anybody wants to see them:

HERE is here discussing just specifically the Iran nuclear thing (youtube)

And here is part 1 and 2 of the whole interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... - Olbermann Interviews Hillary - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  - Olbermann Interviews Hillary - Part 2



End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
What makes you think (0.00 / 0)
she does get it?  The fact is Clinton is attempting to win a very tough campaign, and she is grasping for anything that shows she is a strong commander in chief candidate.

You may disagree, but I do get it.  Clinton isn't trying to protest the U.S. and Israel from Iran---she is trying to win a primary election.  It really is that simple.

[ Parent ]
You mean Hillary is playing into the BS (4.00 / 1)
Clinton is going right along with this ridiculous idea that Iran has any intent of ever openly attacking Israel, or that its going to be shipping nukes around to nut jobs like Hamas or Hezbollah - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Gaza, Kuwait, and Iranians themselves, et al are going to all be mighty pissed off receiving nuclear fallout down wind.  The nuclear scare is simply preposterous. This is to say nothing of the fact that Israel and the US would wipe Iran out even if they launch a conventional attack on Israel - thats nothing new - Hillary is not covering any new ground. Iran will however continue to fund Hamas and Hezbollah gorilla activities - but these are gnats on the back of Israel's existence.

I think Hillary and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who's name Hillary doesn't even know) should make a love nest, because they are both blow hards.

What an Iranian nuclear buildup might mean is that it becomes more complicated to initiate a bomb strike on their country in retaliation for covert Iranian funding of Hamas, Hezbollah and gorilla activities in Iraq.

IMHO the real problem is Hamas is a bunch of idiots who are stuck in their self righteous and strategically ill conceived opposition to Israel's existence. If they wanted to get an edge up at the negotiating table with the US and EU they should have recognized Israel after winning their election. But rather than do what is good for their people the leadership is holding out for a ego driven emotional victory. Dumb. More than Iran's intent, I think it's Hamas idiocy which should motivate us toward undermining Iran's nuclear pursuits. A nuclear Iran will only further delay progress in reconciling the Hamas Israel conflict.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
She's not "going along" (0.00 / 0)
with the idea that Iran wants to annihilate the Israelis, she's trying to realistically/peacefully address the regional paranoia.  Whoever is elected pres of the US will have to address it, or the ME could be reduced to nuclear fallout.

People are distracted by Iraq. The true point of ME tension is between Iran and Israel/Saudi Arabia/Sunni states.

It is now up to us, the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, etc to try to defuse this situation ASAP. But especially us, we have created/exacerbated the crisis...

[ Parent ]
for what its worth... Jimmy Carter said: (0.00 / 0)
that Hamas agreed to recognize Israel and their right to exist if they would negotiate with them directly about returning to the 1967 borders.

Carter: Hamas Ready To Live Beside Israel

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
MAD (0.00 / 0)
If that's the idea, then why is her campaign saying she didn't mean nuclear retaliation?

Also, you say right in your comment that Israel has nuclear weapons on submarines. How is Iran going to wipe those out?

[ Parent ]
Totally agree (4.00 / 1)
that Iran is ALREADY a major regional threat to the region and to our own security vis a vis oil.

I just don't get people like Matt and many others who just can't come to terms that there are dangers to others and ourselves in the world today.

How can one not see that in that region we not only have a belligerent Iran who is seeking the Bomb and that is already causing chaos in the region via Hezbollah and Hamas who they both sponsor? Are we just to let them have their way and throw the region in further turmoil?

On top of Iran you have nuclear Pakistan who with a region in chaos could turn even more militant via an al Queada and other fundamentalist takeover making the region a total mess.

Nuclear Iran partnered with Hezbollah and Hamas - A fundamentalist Pakistan - al Queada and the single biggest oil producing region in the world...

And Clinton is crazy to to threaten them? Tell Israel and the Jews of the world that and they will laugh in your face.

What about Obama saying he would unilaterally bomb Pakistan if he located bin Laden? That is not crazy?

The double standards here regarding who is crazy are crazy. The Clinton witch hunt had made people lose are perspective of sanity. One person threatens the biggest threat in the world at present who is in the most important region of the world regarding today's energy source and they are crazy...

And then their guy threaten to bomb a nuclear country Bush Style Unilaterally and nothing is said. That makes no sense at all.

This primary and taking sides has reached a new level of absurdness.

But bottomline here if some really believe that Iran is not a threat to all that I mentioned above - plus Israel then they have no connection to reality at all.

If Iran is not the biggest threat in the world then who is?

[ Parent ]
That all pretty much sounds like the tripe (4.00 / 6)
arguments that got us into Iraq.

The "biggest threat" to the world is from those world "leaders" that can managed to see any answer other than war and destruction.

Scratch that - the "biggest threat" to the world is from people like you who will make apologies for the hawks and absolutely never question their intentions, motives, or chances of producing a world in which we can actually live.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Your response doesn't (4.00 / 1)
even warrant a response as you have not even tried to address the very real issues little on what I said in my post.

Tripe my ass. You are clueless to world threats.

[ Parent ]
You asked (0.00 / 0)
"If Iran is not the biggest threat in the world then who is?"

And if it doesn't warrant a response, then why did you respond?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
and what reply did I get? (0.00 / 0)
that 'we' are the problem?

As if we ignore what is happening and do nothing then Iran will just stop what they are doing. Ridiculous. And void of all reality. A reality that you obviously cannot see yourself.

You know when there is a bully in the playground and you choose to walk away there still remains a bully on the playground that is going to bully someone else.  

[ Parent ]
Dear Super, (0.00 / 0)
Is it true that you wear a cape?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
tell the truth Super Delegate... (0.00 / 0)
were you originally in favor of the Iraq War?

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps he didn't respond to your issues (0.00 / 0)
because they aren't as real as you want them to be.  For instance:

"How can one not see that in that region we not only have a belligerent Iran who is seeking the Bomb"

Can you please cite a source for this Very Real Issue of yours?  Because I can think of an NIE that says the exact opposite.

[ Parent ]
Ignore my post (4.00 / 3)
I read some of your other comments in this thread, which led me to other threads, which led me to conclude that you contribute nothing of value here and hang around only to launch insults.  So I tell ya what, why don't you just ignore my question to you and go on crapping all over the board to feel better about your candidate.
[ Parent ]
One question (0.00 / 0)
When Iran nukes Israel and - blows up all their nuclear warheads, where does the fall-out land?

Wouldn't that "first strike" be so devastating to the entire region (not to mention the entire planet) - the water, the arable land, the major cities, all contaminated by the postulated Iranian aggression - that one does not need to seriously consider a counter-strike?  It seems to me that Iran would, basically, be nuking itself.  All that would be needed to counter a first - and UNPROVOKED - nuclear strike by Iran on Israel is a sustained PR and diplomatic campaign aimed at getting their regional neighbors to condemn Iran for turning the Middle East into a nuclear wasteland.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
It's fairly simple .. (4.00 / 1)
as anyone with half a brain knows ... Iran wants nukes for self protection .. they see who the US invaded .. and who they didn't ... besides ... if Iran were to ever launch nukes .. the fall out would spread across Jordan .. Syria .. and likely Egypt(right away anyway) .. and I doubt any of those three countries would be pleased about it .. in the end .. it's all just bellicose talk .. trying to out hawk Obama
[ Parent ]
It's not just bellicose talk (0.00 / 0)
Iran does want nukes as a deterrant.

A nuclear Iran will be no threat to us, but genuinely freaks out Israel and Saudi Arabia, our two biggest allies in the region. But especially it freaks out tiny Israel.

THAT's the problem. We have to come up with some way to keep our allies from panicking. Clinton is proposing this: if Iran attacks you Israel, we will obliterate it, thus (hopefully) preventing Israel from going ballistic on Tehran. It is saying to the Saudis and others: no need to have nukes of your own, we'll protect you from a nuclear Iran.

I have yet to see anything else proposed, here or anywhere else, that keeps this situation from spiralling out of control.

[ Parent ]
you really are trolling. you dont gotta say it 10X either. (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Whose the most nervous right now? (0.00 / 0)
Iran is now the most nervous actor in the region and raising the stakes only makes them even more paranoid.  They are desperate to get nuclear weapons to protect their position or failing that they need some major carrots to keep their program in check.  Saudia Arabia and Israel may have peed in their pants a little over the past 7 years, but Iran has completely shit in their's!

We have so thoroughly and utterly screwed ourselves by invading Iraq that additional saber rattling is counterproductive.  Our only real hope is to have Russia or China complete a mutual protection pact with Iran in exchange for not pursuing nuclear arms.  That would at least act as protection from what looks to be an increasingly bellicose government here.

[ Parent ]
Iran is in the Drivers Seat (0.00 / 0)
And we put them there. Iraq was Iran's biggest counterbalance militarily until we took them out. Back in the 1980s Iran/Iraq fought a bloody 8 year war until Iran was defeated.

Bush/Cheney dragged us into Iraq for the very same reason we invaded Viet Nam: to establish permanent military bases. In Viet Nam they were to serve as a counterweight to rising rising regional hegemon China, in Iraq to counterbalance to a rising Iran. Iraq may have even been intended as the springboard to Iran, as Kuwait was to Iraq.

Naturally, the Iranians HAD to bog us down in Iraq (for their own protection), and that has proved remarkably easy to do, as almost anyone could have predicted. They have done it by smartly pitting Iraqi militia vs Iraqi militia and Iraqi vs US troops. As for how much political juice Iran currently has in Iraq, consider the recent military dispute between Sadr and his Mahdis vs Maliki and his Dawa/Badr crew. When the crisis came to  a head, both sides appealed to Iran (not us!), specifically the Brig General who heads the Quds force, to negotiate their ultimately successful truce.

Iran has the location, the oil, vibrant economy and military force to be a regional powerhouse and would be a valuable ally for us. I would hope our next pres would reevaluate our interests in the region, but doubt that will happen.  

[ Parent ]
do you have an account at hillaryis44.org? n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Deterrence As A Policy is Crazy!!! (4.00 / 2)
The whole premis is that we make weapons not meant to be used, but threatened to be used.  It is a illogical logic paradigm that only spawned more and more nuclear weapons in the past.  Bad idea, STOP IT.  Penn voters put an end to this nonsense today please!!!
It is also old politics (0.00 / 0)
Mark is right.  Deterrence is a policy based on safety and peace emerging out of fear; the threat of mutual destruction as a key that somehow assures peaceful co-existence is a mad solution--pure madness.  It may have worked during the Cold War, but the world's politicians have become a little more astute in manipulating policy and forcing adherence to their ideas.  And certainly, these times are very different than the 50's and 60's and 70's.  

Mutual destruction, for some people, is a ticket to some promised land, a land of milk and honey and virgins--for both Islams and Christians.  This is not a workable policy in this post-modern world of ours.  To rely on policies that are grounded by the old notions of Deterrence and Detente' are simply not enough--we need diplomacy, we need to be appreciative of other cultures and traditions, we need to promote education and economic independence, we need policies that respect other peoples and that invite other peoples to become more open-minded.  These must begin here at home.

[ Parent ]
Aerie faerie crap (0.00 / 1)
Of course we need to respect other peoples!  But that's how you want us to respond to the problem between Iran/Israel and Saudi Arabia?

Make no mistake, Bush hastened/created this problem...Iran now sees having nukes as a absolutely essential to its survival post-Iraq. And Israel and Saudi Arabia (and possibly Eqypt and other Sunni states) are reacting in panic. The Saudis are threatening a huge military buildup, including getting their own nukes, and Israel is threatening a military first strike that would likely have to include tactical nukes.

So what do we do, stand by and urge Iran, Israel, the Saudis et al to "be appreciative of other cultures and traditions?"  That's your solution? At least Clinton's proposal addresses the problem and proposes a solution that prevents further escalation of tensions and hostilities.

I credit with Obama with having some major foreign policy chops, but  I'm beginning to think the Obama Wing of the party is completely clueless...

[ Parent ]
Your Solution Appears (0.00 / 0)
to state that you are for the further creation and threatend use of nuclear weapons.  If I am wrong, I apologize and expect a corection.  If not...

First I'll ask if you are prepared to use the nukes.  Second, I'll state taht the creation of nuclear weapons will lead to the creation of MORE nuclear weapons.  It always has in the past and it will continue to in the future.  The creation of nuclear weapons and the use of them in diplomacy is the use of threats and fear.  This is quite different from the economic principles that have fostered the global era of economics and which not coincidently could help bring about greater and more significant international cooperation than we have seen in the past.  

Why is it never stated that the state of the economy is directly tied to the war?  That the longer we are at war the worse our economy is going to get and the aside from any moral obligation against using obscenely destructive weapon, that we will hurt ourselves economically.  We are not willing to overfund schools, but we are willing to create horrid weapons of mass destruction????

For a moment I even forgot that simply creating the weapons is against International Law as is?  If we don't follow the NPT then why should we expect ANYONE else to follow it?  If we call out other states for being in violation of the NPT or other international treaties relating to the proliferation of nukes why should they listen if we don't follow the rules ourselves?  The only logical conclusion is out of fear of being nuked and I for one am not willing to be a party to that policy.

[ Parent ]
This is getting very frustrating (0.00 / 0)
HRC's solutions means she would use our existing arsenal to threaten Iran with retaliation so panicky states like Saudi Arabia don't develop their own and thus precipitate an Middle East arms race.

And she is trying to reassure Israel that we would obliterate Iran should Iran ever launch a nuclear first strike against Israel. Because right now isreal is so panicky over a possibly nuclear iran that they are contemplating a crazy pre-emptive first strike of their own on Iran...

It is the very same policy we initiated to keep Western europe and japan from going nuclear in the face of perceived from the USSR and China respectively.

People here are having quite a difficult time grasping this, but it's Geopolitics 101.

[ Parent ]
Again (0.00 / 0)
I hope that it is not the exact same policy that prevented Japan and Western Europe from not going nuclear SINCE the states that did not go nuclear had a huge amount of US military forces residing within their borders....

I really and truely believe that it is high time to begin to cease using these types of policies, to lead forward.  Further, Im not so sure that the US threatening to bomb the shit out of Iran will not precipitate more "panicky middle eastern states" from banning together in their attempt to achieve nuclear status.  Really, I could be wrong, but I'm not sure how this policy helps us.  

Also, please keep the slander to a minimum, I am quite certain that I understand geopolitics 101, and if this were truely a class room setting the disagreement wouldn't seem so hostile to you.

[ Parent ]
The issue is not Iran's standing army (0.00 / 0)
First off. Both Democratic nominees have stated categorically that they oppose permanent military bases in Iraq.

The issue here is nuclear weapons (although Israel's most recent foray's into Lebanon showed that its ground troops displayed some stunning weaknesses -- if Israel be panicky over that too, we are in for a whole passle of trouble!). Iranian ground troops are not immediately threatening the borders of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Clinton's umbrella is a "nuclear umbrella" only.

That, of course, complicates our exit from Iraq as the Saudis are already making noises about a Shia-led pro-Iran Iraq and we can probably safely assume it threatens Israel, too. That's why Clinton has proposed a "Concert of the Middle East" involving all the regional players and I would assume Obama has something similar in his game plan. That would involve all the regional players in fashioning some sort of regional solution to the mess in Iraq that Bush has unleashed. In other words, we will have to work with all the nervous actors in the region to calm their fears (and keep them at bay) while the Iraqis sort their problems out.

 

[ Parent ]
Yeah, right. (0.00 / 0)
Let's just hit the people we disagree with, and knock some sense into people who don't see things our way.  What the hell are you talking about?  This world bel8ngs to everyone, not just people that think the way YOU do.

As the only superpower we have a responsibility to ensure all people are served justly.  This INCLUDES those who do not agree with us.

You need to open your mind so you can see others' viewpoints..., and then begin to appreciate different cultures.

[ Parent ]
Sickening! (0.00 / 0)
Hillary, how should we retaliate? Maybe we should kill the children first in front of their grandparents? Or torture them? Kill them slowly? Or just blow them all away-poof?

It's one thing to have a nuclear threat to hold over the Iranian's heads. But to say this? There is not an ounce of morality in Hillary at this point. I wonder if her Jesus told her to say this to win? We should ask to whom does this crap play and why is it seen as a useful political statement?

Clinton-Jumped-The-Shark n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
Not pretty (4.00 / 1)
This is what despair looks like in an heir-apparent who finds herself derailed on the way to the coronation.  

Can it happen here?
[ Parent ]
Who is she trying to appeal to? (4.00 / 2)
That's what I want to know. I mean, I know we're supposed to believe that Pennsylvania voters are a bunch of redneck simpletons who vote solely on the basis of bowling scores and guns. But they are nonetheless Democrats, no? Are there especially many Democrats looking around who think what this country needs is to do more obliteratin'?

I now have one more reason to support Obama: he's the only remaining candidate who is Anti-obliteration.

Who??? (0.00 / 0)
Ask Israel and Saudi Arabia and all the other Sunni oil producing countries in the region who she is appealing to. Don't you pay attention to world politics?

Ask the rest of the world who very much currently depends on the oil of that region who she is appealing to.

I read the comments in this thread and people seem divorced from reality of just what is going on over there outside of Iraq and what the consequences of a nuclear Iran means. People seem divorced on the constant threatening of Israel by Iran which has been going on like forever.

I take all the Clinton comments with no reference to the real dangers in that region as purely domestic partisan rhetoric with not an ounce of reality to what is happening regarding Iran in that part of the world.

Yeah I know - Obama is going to go to Iran and sweet talk them into not wanting to be a nuclear regional power and world power and they are going to say - yeah man you are cool - no Problem whatever you say. Then after that he is going to go bomb bin laden Pakistan like he said whose fundamentalist population is more aligned with fundamentalist Iran than us and Iran is not going to use that to their advantage. Yeah right.

There really is a valid reason why the Left is viewed as weak on security and you can see that by many of the posts in this thread.

[ Parent ]
As an Middle Eastern myself (4.00 / 3)
who is a native Arabic speaker..let me tell you how those foolish remarks are received...

with total shock and disbelief!
it's you who apparently don't pay attention to world politics, if you think those remarks will go down well with the majority of Arabs , Israelis, and Iranians

bringing up the nuclear option isn't even resonating with the majority of Israelis...and no...those who Hillary targets( the hawkish Likudists) are not the majority.

Hillary just exposed the fallacy of her "experience" meme....she doesn't have the character or the judgment to take such decisions
Thank God she will be no where close to the red button to take such a disastrous step.

[ Parent ]
I got news for you (0.00 / 0)
the nuclear threat is always there whether spoken or implicit.

Israel a nuclear power themselves and they are the last ones who want to see Iran with the bomb but would use theirs if pushed.

The thing you don't understand is that big brother USA always speaks on behalf of Israel so we can take the heat instead of Israel.

the world is very complicated and it does not just revolve around the few points you made in your post. hopefully you know that.

[ Parent ]
I see... (4.00 / 1)
In my post, I took a bold stance against the obliteration of nations.

In your response, you said that this sort of stance is why "the Left is viewed as weak on security."

...

Don't have much to add to that. Just wanted to clarify the positions.

[ Parent ]
you also said (0.00 / 0)
Obama is the only candidate who is anti-obliteration.

Yet he has said on several occasions that he would bomb that nuclear hornets nest of a country called Pakistan UNILATERALLY - which could turn that country on it's head with a fundamentalist revolution ending up with them having the bomb and the nuclear technology...

And you say nothing about that. Sorry but that is laughable. What you are doing is playing politics for "political gain' here. You give Obama a pass for saying something just as bellicose. It's sickening.

[ Parent ]
Pakistan had its fundamentalist revolution (0.00 / 0)
It involved a general named Zia ul-Haq, who virtually created political Islam in Pakistan. His appointees still run the ISI, which backed the Taliban and doesn't exactly have a good non-proliferation record.

Where have you been these past twenty years?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Don't be an a** (1.00 / 4)
everyone knows there is still a fundamentalist movement in that country that it is a big problem and in fact that they are probably harboring bin Laden so quit with the trite comments already.
[ Parent ]
What's trite? (0.00 / 0)
I'm saying that the lunatic fringe in Pakistan already has its tendrils wrapped tightly around the ISI and plenty of generals would prefer theocracy to democracy.

The fundamentalist problem lies less with the militants (powerful only in remote areas that central government has never controlled well) who don't appear to have sufficient numbers to topple the government (turnout was pretty high in recent elections, and Jamaat-i-Islami or whatever it's called didn't do great) than with those elements who are already inside the system.

In the unlikely event that US airstrikes within Pakistan would spark a revolution, we'd just have a Pakistani security service that was openly conspiring with our enemies.

Seriously, I'm not being facetious. Look up A.Q. Khan and do some reading on the ISI. The Saudi Arabianisation of Pakistan isn't a new thing.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
she's running for McCain's veep (0.00 / 0)
She voted for the Iraq AUMF. She voted to declare Iran's military a terrorist organization. Why is anybody surprised by this? This is completely consistent with her neocon record.  
Not Crazy (4.00 / 1)
I wish posters would think a little before posting some of these comments.

I'd like to flesh out my above comment more.

Clinton is proposing an alternative to what McCain and the neocons propose to do which is bomb, bomb...bomb bomb Iran.

Again, the crux of the problem is that paranoid actor Israel does not believe (in spite of being nuclear armed to the teeth, via land and submarine-based intercontinental missiles and medium range cruise missiles) that it can respond to a nuclear first strike by Iran, because it is so tiny any nuclear first strike will wipe it out. Most everyone agrees that Iran will eventually have a nuclear capability, weapons-wise, so what to do?

Right wingers in Israel and neocons here believe the solution is to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions now, militarily. The problem with that (among others) is that we won't be able to achieve that by conventional means. That any military action will almost certainly end with either us, or Israel, going nuclear on a non-nuclear nation (Iran). We would at best wind up international pariahs, if not war-criminals.

Clinton argues for a Middle East version of our NATO/Japan-style post WWII Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) pact. MAD is a theory of deterrence where the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to keep your nuclear empowered enemy  from using his on you. It kept us and the Soviets from blowing up each other and the planet, and our cold war assurances to defend Western Europe and Japan this way too, kept them from going nuclear.

Clinton is trying to now extend that "umbrella" to Israel and other allies in the region who are freaked out by a nuclear Iran, because the alternatives (first strikes against Iran; nuclear proliferation, think Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc) are so awful...

BTW, the neocon argument against MAD working in the Middle East is that the Iranian leadership is "insane." Hellbent on Israel's destruction at any cost. (Recall how our media charactered Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a crazy  anti-semite). That the only solution is to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age now.

Perspective, please.

M.A.D. "worked" because BOTH sides had nukes (4.00 / 1)
so, to make M.A.D. work in the M.E. - we should arm Iran.

No?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
No, Iran is intent on arming itself (4.00 / 1)
And we have given them ample reason to do so (think Iraq).

And that in turn has made countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia very paranoid (rightly or wrongly.)

This is what Bush has unleashed, and it will not be a very pretty problem to solve. MAD worked before because the consequences were too awful. I see few other options vis a vis Israel/Iran, a problem which could eventually dwarf Iraq.  

[ Parent ]
OH God! (0.00 / 0)
"we should arm Iran. No?"

You really do not have a clue. Why don't you just move on to another thread because your last post was one that could not even be considered serious discussion.

Your like saying don't build the levees by the river until it starts raining hard for 40 days.

[ Parent ]
I know sarcasm is not your strong suit (0.00 / 0)
so I'm not surprised you didn't understand.

The idea that the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) approach might be applied in the M.E. situation is ABSURD.

I simply drew the most ABSURD conclusion, so as to highlight the ABSURDITY.

BTW - MAD was absurd during the Cold War as well.  Did we have a nuclear conflict with the Soviets? No.  But we (and the Russians) certainly managed to contaminate portions of our nations in our struggle to build up the WMD arsenals that we always assumed we would never even consider launching - this bankrupted the Soviet Union a few decades before it bankrupted the US, so we all conclude that our Savior Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War.  But, what did we "win"?  A huge national debt, a legacy of contaminated sites, an invigorated military/industrial/congressional complex that dominates our nation, world-wide proliferation of nukes, and a nuclear arsenal that we (and the Russians) cannot account for and that is READY-MADE for the folks that frighten you to capitalize upon.  

If you want to proceed with such ABSURDITY - be my guest.  I'd rather try something else, and that starts with voting against those that would seek to extend the past absurdities into the future.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The Insane Card (0.00 / 0)
You wrote:

"BTW, the neocon argument against MAD working in the Middle East is that the Iranian leadership is "insane." Hellbent on Israel's destruction at any cost. (Recall how our media charactered Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a crazy  anti-semite). That the only solution is to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age now."

That is the same argument used against Stalin.  Just saying...

[ Parent ]
Clinton(NeoCon-NY) has gone nuts (0.00 / 0)
She has been campaigning from the right and now she has jumped the shark!  YIKES she is crazy!
Please see my above comments (0.00 / 0)
You are wrong. The neocon solution to a nuclear armed Iran is to bomb it to smithereens now (including the use of tactical nuclear weapons).

MAD, as a Cold war era deterrant strategy to a nuclear USSR, was developed by Democrats. As opposed to trying to blow the USSR to smithereens. Clinton's expansion of our nuclear umbrella from NATO countries and japan and Korea to include allies in the ME, is very much in the tradition of Truman and JFK.

[ Parent ]
Why does she get "progressive" support? (4.00 / 2)
This kind of intemperate speech only gives validation to the militarist right wing line. I can't imagine why anyone who calls themselves progressive would excuse this, or even support someone like this having their finger on the nuclear button. I absolutely don't want someone like this in power. The Dem. party needs cleansed of this kind of thinking. This is certainly not the kind of policy or irresponsible speech that Wes Clark advocates.
My question would be: (0.00 / 0)
Why doesn't she get "progressive support' on this?

(Please see my above comments).

My impression is that she's not getting "progressive support" because knees are jerking. And I find that very disturbing.

[ Parent ]
Just because you post on lefty blogs doesn't mean you're progressive (0.00 / 0)
I don't think Hillary has much 'progressive' support.  Her main demographics are seniors and blue-collar workers, not big bastions of progressive activism. The only progressive support she has are from female progressives and even a lot of them have dropped her over her hawkishness.  

Progressives have seemed to move to Obama since he is at least has shown better judgment in foreign policy.  Most progressives I know think neither candidate is very progressive on the broad policy spectrum. The fact that Edwards and Kucinich were the two favs on a lot of sites early in the process seems to bear this out.  

[ Parent ]
Little Tent Democrats (0.00 / 0)
I thought that the word progressive came back into vogue because the Democrats were scared out of being called "liberal."

Hilary is at least if not more progressive/liberal in domestic policy than Obama.

She does seem to be to the right of Obama on foreign policy.  

That is a perfectly valid reason to not support Clinton as the nominee.  But it isn't a reason to call her crazy or a Republican or expel her from the ranks of liberalism/progressivism.  

The fact is that the Democrats have suffered in every election cycle as being weak on defense.  It may be an unfair characterization, but it has worked during the Bush years.  Maybe everything has changed in the last 4 years, but that's hardly self-evidebt.

It is possible for someone to be far to the left of Clinton and Obama on domestic policy and to the right of them on foreign policy.  It is also possible for someone to be more dovish than either on foreign policy, and to the right of them on domestic policy.  There is a place in the Democratic party for Hilary's positions, both in the hearts of the voter she connects with and in the realm of strategy.  She has consistently attracted a large share of the Democratic electorate.

This site has gone steadily downhill.  Matt's post wasn't an invitation to discuss foreign policy, but just another knee jerk CDS rant.  People can agree with Clinton and still be progressives.  They can still be Democrats.  Democrats who disagree with you aren't "crazy."

Openleft has become a narrow-minded, divisive site, just an instrument to drive a wedge through the Democratic party by its strident intolerance.  It is no more useful, honest, reality-based, or informative than freerepublic.  

[ Parent ]
You would have been banned by now on freerepublic! (0.00 / 0)
Neither Clinton nor Obama are progressives and not even close. But I would say hawkish foreign policy, especially one that seems predicated upon following the path of the current administration in regards to the Middle East is about as far right as one can go and still call themselves a Democrat.  As a progressive I am now left trying to push out of power the DLC-wing of the party.  Obama is the only option in that regard and it certainly doesn't hurt that he has been against the Iraq war from the start.

If Obama were running ahead of a real progressive I would be right in the thick of trying to beat him.  To me the attacks on Obama by Clinton supporters is narrow-minded and strident intolerance considering how little she is offering in her domestic agenda when compared to Obama, especially when you throw endless war into the equation.  Clinton has been defeated and those like you who think 'war all the time' is good policy are the ones trying to drive a wedge through the party.

[ Parent ]
Opinions. (0.00 / 0)
Objectively speaking:

DLC Democrats are Democrats.

Blue Dog Democrats are Democrats.

Far left pacifists are Democrats.

Single issue voters (abortion, gay rights, etc) are Democrats.

They are Democrats because they vote Democratic in large numbers, have substantial representation in the government, and fund and participate in think tanks, lobbying groups, etc. that support Democratic candidates.  If Democrats want to win elections, they need to stick together - not play games of labelling people DLC corporatists or Bush Dogs and trying to vanquish half the party.  When you talk about Clinton, you are talking about close to half the party.

Your own personal opinion of what constitutes a Democrat, or where the line is on what opinion someone can have and call themselves a Democrat, means precisely zero.  

My comments are directed at this board, and nothing else.  On this board, some Democrats are crazy and unacceptable, and some are sane and can do no wrong.  Some get called Republicans.  Specifically, Clinton is always unacceptable, and Obama is always saintly - regardless of the fact that they are largely interchangeable on policy.  If there's a pro-Clinton board that expels the Obama supporters from the Democratic fold, that's a shame as well.  But Openleft has no purpose for existing anymore other than to promote division and intolerance among Democrats.  It's a rerun every day of the same cartoon.  Opening the post with Clinton being crazy is out of bounds, but it's become typical for this site.

And btw, the word "progressive" doesn't seem to mean anything, other than being anywhere from slightly left of the centrist platform to being on the far left.  So, when you say you are a progressive, no one has any way of knowing what you mean.  

[ Parent ]
Its Not Crazy, It Smart (0.00 / 0)
I really do think its a good idea worth exploring and evaluating and not rejecting in knee-jerk fashion.  When did it become "Progressive" to be blind to potential world problems?  That wasnt JFK's style of progressive politics for sure.

If we accept for the sake of argument that Iran wants nukes and we cannot stop them from getting them, and we accept that to "have" nukes you must test them, i.e., explode one, we will be able to tell when they actually have nukes.  Then, the notion that you better not use them on your neighbors aggressively or we will smash you down becomes perhaps the only real deterrent to their wanting to use nukes at any time.  It is no risk to us, because Iran could never in our lifetimes have enough nukes to survive a retaliatory strike and hit us back, nor could they be in a position to hit us first.  So it is a real security guarantee that Iran will not be allowed to ever use nukes aggressively.

I see nothing wrong with this proposal and think it is worth careful and deep analysis.  Its actually a clever way to resolve the Iran-nuke crisis with no bloodshed or real threat of same.   I have not heard a better idea yet.

Just because one does not support a policy based on (0.00 / 0)
dropping (or threatening to drop) bigger and better bombs on every nation that does not agree with us (or our allies), does not imply that one is "blind to potential world problems", does it?

To me, the "world problem" is not "potential" - it is here, right now, on our planet.  It consists of political "leaders" and their apologetic minions that see no answer other than more bombs.  The position expressed will do NOTHING to impede Iran (or any other nation) from seeking to establish that they have a nuclear "deterent" capability.  The idea espoused by Hillary Clinton assures a continued nuclear arms race - IF ANYTHING, I predict that it will make the Iranians REDOUBLE their efforts to produce a nuclear arsenal.

It is an ARCHAIC thought to analyze such in terms of Iran "surviving" a nuclear strike.  It matters very little which Middle Eastern nation gets nuked - the fallout will contaminate them all.  There are NO SURVIVORS.  Oh, people might not get killed in the initial blast - but which of those nations is going to "survive" 15-25,000 years during the cool-down period?

It amazes me that such a policy is considered "careful and deep analysis", while an idea like, say, TALKING to the Iranian leadership is considered "naive".


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Archaic? (0.00 / 0)
Tell that to the Israeli military. Because some of them are itchy to go all pre-emptive on Tehran. Clinton just gave Israel's PM a reason not to.

[ Parent ]
Give me their number - I'll call them (0.00 / 0)
But, let's be clear - a pre-emptive strike by Israel at this moment would not be nuclear.  My point was concerning the idea that any M.E. nation can actually survive a NUCLEAR attack.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Not true (0.00 / 0)
Israeli military commanders don't think conventional air strikes can't get to Iran's concrete enrichment facilities built way underground beneath solid rock.

Their plan is to open tunnels into the facilities using conventional laser-guided bombs. Then tactical  nukes would be fired into the tunnels, exploding deep underground, supposedly to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout. Ugggh.


[ Parent ]
Oh, geez (0.00 / 0)
Those "tactical" nukes are gonna get the world into alot of trouble.  

This kind of scenario only underscores why the approaches that have not worked in the past should not be touted as solutions for the future.  What I get from Clinton (and McCain) is a strong sense of the past - which, obviously, has not produced any fundamental advances toward peace.  

It seems we need to not only talk about preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear armed state - we need to de-nuclearize Israel - and the entire M.E.

(actually, the entire world - and the US should lead by example by dismantling our own nuclear weapons research infrastructure)

How much longer do you think a wealthy state like UAE, or Saudi Arabia is gonna sit on their bank accounts and not start joining in the nuclear arms race?



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Clinton Gets More Hawkish than Bush | 76 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox