Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Return to MAD

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this statement from Senator Clinton in the Democratic debate of April 16th is being so completely ignored. Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann discussed it in a segment on Countdown on the 17th, and I saw one blog post about it around that date but cannot find it now.

In response to a question of “Would you extend our deterrent to Israel?” Clinton jawboned as usual, but within her response was the following,
Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

…we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.

The emphasis (bold) is added by me.

Last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, in response to a question about Isreal being attacked by Iran, she added,
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

This is not “George Bush lite,” this is George Bush on steroids. She doesn’t just rattle the saber, she pulls it out of the scabbard and waves it around.

Our latest NIE states that Iran has halted its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Bush’s rhetoric claims that we don’t know, and have no way of knowing, whether they have restarted it and must therefor be afraid of Iran having
“the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons.” Even he has enough sense, in light of that NIE, to cease the rhetoric about Iran actively trying to obtain them.

Not so Dick Cheney and, notably, Hillary Clinton. Both are still using rhetoric that Iran is “pursuing nuclear weapons.” Even Dick Cheney is not saying that we should begin making overt threats of nuclear retaliation.

Not only that, her proposed policy is illogical in the extreme. She proposes to “create an umbrella of deterrence” of our nuclear weapons over Israel, despite the open secret that Israel has some 200 nuclear weapons of its own and the means to deliver them. If Israel’s nuclear weapons are not a deterrent, exactly why would ours be? Or does 200 weapons constitute insufficient retaliation to suit her thirst for vengeance?

Let alone the utter insanity of her plan to extend that “umbrella of deterrence” and commit us to a NATO-like posture of automatic mutual defence with a host of other nations, most of them dictatorships, in one of the most unstable parts of the world.

And, standing with saber in hand, threatening and blustering about the bloodthirsty use of nuclear weapons against anyone attacking an ally, bloodthirsty because that ally has weapons of their own, she says that she is going to begin a major diplomatic initiative.

Theodore Roosevelt said to, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Hillary Clinton only heard the “big stick” part of that, and she didn’t understand that while speaking, which she is not doing softly, you weren’t supposed to be waving the “big stick” in the other person’s face.

Why is no one other than Keith Olbermann talking about this?

The United States has not openly threatened to use nuclear force since the end of the Cold War, when that threatened use was a countermeasure to the enemy’s actively deployed nuclear weaponry. Bush has hinted at it with his “all options are on the table” rhetoric, but not even he has openly stated a desire to return to the days of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Now here is Hillary Clinton talking openly about threats to “obliterate” another nation, about a nuclear “umbrella of deterrence,” and using the language of Mutually Assured Destruction. And no one seems to notice.

Just Olbermann, “one still small voice, crying in the wilderness.”

If we want to become a nation at peace we could not elect a worse person than someone who, for the past seven years in her pursuit of the nation’s highest office, has been on a constant quest to prove how “tough” she is. We could not do worse than someone whose campaign is now built around the rhetoric that she is “comfortable in the heat of the kitchen.”

We could not do worse than one who talks of “obliterating” another nation.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous10:17 AM

    my first thought was when Ms Clinton said "she likes the heat of the kitchen" was back in 1992 when Bill was running against Bush41.. and there was comparison between first lady styles.. she was not the cookie baking type of wife & mother. And now she likes the kitchen? Of course that was not the point, but I digressed...

    Yes, I think she was trying to score points re: her "toughness", which I think is bulls*t. There is so much wrong with her, I don't even know where to start. And you're right, even Bush 43 & Cheney with all their BS talk have not stooped to that level of .. of.. innuendo, bravado, whatever. Just another peice of evidence thts he will do anything, say anything to get elected. Please spare us from this politician.