Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hillary Pushes the Button
What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin? So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?
In response to the 9/11 hijackers, armed with weapons no more sophisticated than $3 box cutters, American military spending, with Senate Armed Services Committee member Clinton's enthusiastic support, has catapulted beyond Cold War levels. Sen. Clinton has treated the military budget as primarily a pork-barrel target of opportunity for jobs and profit in New York state, supports increased money for missile defense and every other racket the military-industrial complex comes up with, and still feels no obligation to repudiate her vote for the disastrous Iraq war.
Given her sorry record of cheerleading the irrational post-Cold War military buildup, do we not have a right, indeed an obligation, to question Clinton's whether Clinton is committed to creating a more peaceful world? Don't say that we weren't warned if a President Hillary Clinton further imperils our world, as she has clearly positioned herself as the leading hawk in the Democratic field. What other reason was there for first blasting Obama for daring to state that he would meet with foreign leaders whom Bush has branded as sworn enemies, and then for the attack on Obama's very sensible statement that it would be "a profound mistake" to use nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the attempt to eliminate bin Laden?
Isn't that a no-brainer-or can Clinton conceive of an occasion where even the threat, let alone the actuality, of a nuclear attack in the immediate neighborhood of nuclear-armed Pakistan and India would send the right message? And what about the dangerous message of Clinton's assault on Obama; "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." Huh? Just exactly how does one make a compelling case to other nations against the proliferation of nuclear weapons when members of the nuke club, particularly the president of the one nation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people with two of these ungodly weapons, will not, at the very least, promise to abstain from first use of a weapon that could quite easily eliminate most life on this planet?
Of course Obama was right, and it was no different than Sen. Clinton's statement in April 2006, when she said, "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," in relation to preventing Iran from developing such weapons. Back then, she recognized that nuclear weapons are weapons against civilization, not a means of ensuring its survival. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age," she said. "I think that's a terrible mistake." Yes, indeed-and Hillary's supporters will no doubt insist that this statement reflects her true feelings on the matter and that "militarist Hillary" is just an act to get elected.
Act or reality, it's working. Pundits for the National Review, The Weekly Standard and other pro-war outlets have come to applaud Clinton. A host of political scientists and other campaign hustlers have also approved this image makeover; as a recent Boston Globe headline put it, "Tough talk drives Clinton effort: National security stance seen adding to image of strength." One political scientist from Texas stated: "She's come off as credible and serious on national defense-an issue that two years ago most of us would have thought would be a liability for her." The Globe noted that "When Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, she was dogged by questions about whether she could 'push the button' to launch an attack if the Cold War turned hot." The paper then quoted Ferraro as saying that Clinton, whom she supports for president, has passed that test: "You can't do that with Hillary Clinton. Hillary is in a totally different place."
Great, so forget the hope that a woman president might prove to be more enlightened than macho men in the matter of peacemaking, and instead rest assured that Hillary would have the cojones to "push the button" that would kill us all. Once again, the old Clintonian tactic of triangulation: positioning oneself politically instead of taking a position of integrity.
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2007 TruthDig.com
41 Comments so far
Show AllApparently this old gal will say just about anything to get elected. A sad representative of womankind. Just a little bit of collateral damage to get one bad guy eh? She disqualified herself as a serious leader by this stupidity alone, though there are many more reasons not to vote for the war happy hag. No offense ladies.
Hillary Clinton is a corporate opportunist politician. She is convinced that she has to show how militaristic and "strong" she is to counter the fact that she is female. This will not stop if she is elected. She is as dangerous as any repug. If you'd vote for her you'd vote for Leiberman. If you'd vote for either, please stay home!
What's behind the Democrats' failure to stand up to BushCo?
The fundamental issue is the Democrats' historic role as a party of U.S. imperialism - one just as committed as the Republicans to maintaining Washington's world dominance.
Both parties are committed to maintaining status quo.
There is only one party in America. The Uncle Buck Party. All its members are whores.
Hoa binh
Reading the next to last paragraph in the article almost made me physically ill. Like others have surmised, all these jackass pundits will turn around and tear her to pieces once she's the official candidate.
I may have to be seriously sedated once that time comes. "Scotty.... Scotty?... SCOTTY! BEAM ME UP NOW!!! fer cryin' out loud."
Nice insight from Paul Craig Roberts along these lines:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08152007.html
And that place is apocalypse NOW! You and eye for an eye Hitlery's atomic bombo eruptions should be stopped dead! Switch to Kucinich, instead!
Clinton is the Republican choice for opponent.
Again we'll have no real choice.
Kucinich all the way! Down with the center, and down with the DLC! It's time for real progressive values to win an election for a change. Clinton is as power-hungry as it comes!
One more thought: Can we, as Americans, just think a minute about how stupid we look to the rest of the world because we are actually contemplating yet ANOTHER legacy Presidency in this country? Are we serious? It is truly embarrassing. I was in Hungary recently on vacation and the subject came up more times than I can remember. They all wanted to know what the hell we are thinking about when we contemplate electing the former first lady as President. They all think we are nuts. I agree.
Before it is too late, let's throw our support behind Kucinich. Honestly, what do we have to lose? The country is so bad off now that it will scarcely get better just because we replace on corporate hack for another that happens have a D behind her name. Kucinich! Kucinich! Kucinich!
Her original idea was to get defense credentials so that no one could say that she was soft on defense. This is the one area where Democrats in general and her husband in particular were vulnerable. I think it was a smart thing to do. Head off the flood of criticism before it begins, so that you can talk about other issues and not have to yell above all the insults.
Her original idea was to get defense credentials so that no one could say that she was soft on defense. This is the one area where Democrats in general and her husband in particular were vulnerable. I think it was a smart thing to do. Head off the flood of criticism before it begins, so that you can talk about other issues and not have to yell above all the insults."
This is SUCH BULLSHI!
The invasion was a folly and a sham and most people recognize that fact now. You don't come up swinging like you are a bigger fool than the idiot who created a quagmire that is draining the treasury and lowering the standard of living and opportunity for most Americans while making us despised throughout the world. Yeah, that is real intelligent.
How out of contact with reality is that?
It doesn't cost anything to dream, but it can get old. Kucinich is a great guy, and probably any rational, well-informed non-corrupt American would come up with policy positions close to his, but we are so far from a Kucinich presidency. Hell, Edwards took one small step to the left, or towards rationality, and the corporate media hacks pounded him so relentlessly one would think the sky fell on him.
The slim hope for a future that is not completely nightmarish rests in electing a president who will not:
(1) restrict the Internet or otherwise make it useless for political dialogue;
(2) suspend the Bill of Rights or a good portion of it;
(3) further corrupt our elections;
(4) create a high risk of thermonuclear war, probably by trying to control energy resources.
To have a fighting chance to build a third party over time, or to take over the Democratic Party, there must be a US president who meets those criteria, as minimal as they are.
The neocrazies LOVE Hillary. How does that not tell us all we ever need to know, on top of all the other reasons Mr. Scheer laid out for never again allowing someone with the name Clinton into OUR White House?
Wake. Up.
The Republicans, the DLC, the Blue Dogs, and others have corporate money, the M$M, and whatever universities and colleges that can be bought.
But a person can hand out fliers and talk with people. There are more workers than ceo's and more youtubers than television stations. There is strength in numbers. Get out there and support your candidate. Wake the giant. Once you get the giant to listen, you may change the world. It's waiting to happen.
KUCINICH ALL THE WAY!!!
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE MIKE GRAVEL TOO... HE'S GOT BALLS, WISDOM, & EXPERIENCE!!!
I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE... THEY SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!
SCREW ALL THE REST WITH THEIR POLITICAL POSTURNG... JUST ANOTHER LYING MASK!
hozies, clinton is just stating what's been privately known in DC and the world since august 1945: amerikkka will drop the big one if they percieve it's in their interest. the american elite will destroy the planet to preserve "the american way of life" (a sucky life anyway for 90% of americans, but that's another story).
the american elite are just becoming more verbal about their nihilistic imperialism (listen to tancredo, eg, or any of the rethugs), their our way or planetary death methods.
it is very dangerous, but not actually anything new. change will come when you see americans dismantling their own nuclear weapons, e.g., no anytime soon.
AL GORE.....WHERE ARE YOU!!! PLEASE RUN, AND SAVE THE WORLD.
TYRANNY!!!
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!
DEMOCRAT = REPUBLICAN
GOVERNMENT = CORPORATION
We, THE PEOPLE, have no say in the functioning of "our" government.
It's time for CHANGE.
Kucinich '08
Peace to you and yours.
"So is there an answer to the age old question "what is to be done?" Yes, but it puts people too far outside the comfort zones that Americans are in, requires whatever remains of organized labor to sever all ties to corporatism, and involves the assumption of a great deal of personal and community sacrifice and even risk. Only a coordinated and sustained civil resistance program, a long-term mass obstructionist campaign, a dedicated and relentless nation of conscientious objectors integrated into every element of daily American life, will have any impact.
Unfortunately, the vanguard working around these themes are finding no real support amongst the population of progressive believers. It's time for that to change."
People generally undertake these measures only when the electoral approaches have clearly failed; it takes some time for the people to gain faith in their power over that of "representatives".
"AL GORE…..WHERE ARE YOU!!! PLEASE RUN, AND SAVE THE WORLD."
Gore's running mate in 2000 was . . . Joe Lieberman. Gore has not changed, he merely looks better by contrast with the Smirk.
Robert: I propose a very simple test for Presidential candidates of both parties. Questioner: "Sir, or Madam, if you were to be elected President of the United States would you apologize for dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th, 1945.?" Ask them this and watch them wiggle, squirm, back and fill! - Bill Witherup w.witherup@att.net
As "kivals" said above, we really don't need a third party, at the moment. We indeed have a candidate who represents the values of many people on this site: Kucinich (I still need to inform myself about Gravel, and would welcome Gore as long as he can maintain his state of enlightenment if/when he is back in the political game). Now, the only reason why I can imagine any progressive thinker (anti-war; pro-labor; anti-corporate consolidation; pro-environment; pro-human rights etc.) would not support Kucinich and would bother with Clinton or Obama is that I think many Democrats are neurotic in the precise psychoanalytic sense: neurotics actively organize and bring about their own dissatisfaction. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they actually got what they wanted. It's a strange analogy, but it's like always dating the wrong people so that you can avoid getting into a relationship while telling yourself that you want to be in a relationship. Hillary should be judged based upon her deeds, not on what she might do (it's like saying a violent guy might change once you've married him...)
Let the neurotics spin their wheels, organize their own "disappointment," and let the rest of us get behind Kucinich (and hope there's enough of us).
PS: I just saw the new Iraq documentary, "No End in Sight": I left more certain than ever that, quite frankly, any Democrat who voted to authorize this war has blood on their hands. We should not trust any candidate who had the failure of judgment to authorize that war, apology or no apology. Do we want someone in office who might make such a "mistake" again? What a joke! Judge them all on what they have done, not on what they "might" do. Talk is cheap.
Voting is like the toddler sitting in the back seat turning the fake plastic steering wheel thinking he is steering the car when all he really is just along for the ride!!!
Please think -- "quite frankly, any Democrat who voted to authorize this war has blood on their hands. We should not trust any candidate who had the failure of judgment to authorize that war, apology or no apology. Do we want someone in office who might make such a "mistake" again? What a joke! Judge them all on what they have done, not on what they "might" do. Talk is cheap." This in my view is the central truth. So -- who can be elected AND is not disqualified on Please Thinks' test? I will work for him or her.
at last a commondreams article telling it about this lady like it is!!
nauseating.
. The true division in american politics is not republican versus democrats but rather between the imperialists and the anti-imperialists. Those opposed to empire include a portion of the american left and right ie; Robert Scheer, Pat Buchanan, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul. These people have but marginal influence on people like Hillary Clinton who is an enthusiastic imperialist differing only with Cheney on tactics.
I don't see the purpose of this kind of article. It echoes the rash of articles a few weeks ago about the alleged "foreign policy dispute" between Clinton and Obama about talking to official enemies and non-aligned countries. Their positions were barely different. She merely said that she would not promise a meeting with no conditions. If Obama becomes president, he will learn to adopt the same cautious policy just like every president does. Has any president had an open-door policy for official enemies?
The current distinction-without-a-difference is similar. Clinton says she would not make public statements ruling out a strategy.
Put the two positions together: she is saying she will not be bound by any restrictions (e.g., the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), but she reserves the right to impose some pre-conditions on others that might want to deal with her. This is how someone behaves when they are negotiating from a position of strength. Every president does this. Obama will do it too.
The distance between the positions of so-called "top tier" candidates like Clinton and Obama in terms of support for militarism and imperialism is trivial compared to the distance between their position and that of a peace-and-justice progressive. If foreign policy is your issue, why spend your time trying to distinguish between these two?
Hilary can push my button anytime she wants. I wonder how she'd push it: a quick stab of the finger; a gentle, caressing push; an indifferent press; a long, teasing nudge?
The mind boggles!
"Don't say that we weren't warned if a President Hillary Clinton further imperils our world, as she has clearly positioned herself as the leading hawk in the Democratic field."
Along those same lines, don't say you weren't warned. I read today that Hillary has managed to get her records sealed from her eight years in the White House with her husband as president until after the 2008 election.
She touts her time in the white House as making her more experienced than her competitors but doesn't want you to know what she did until after she is already President. "Vote for me and I'll let you know what I think and what I'll do after you are already stuck with me for four years".
Again, don't say you weren't warned.
Lobo Gris
Apparently, someone hasn't been pushing Hillary's button enough lately. For God's sake, get the woman a vibrator!
vern,
I find that when people use profanity, they usually do not know what they are talking about. They are just trying to use harsh language to force people into believing what they are saying.
sjc: No, it is simply a measure of how passionately angry I am. I assure you, I know exactly what I am talking about--and you? If you just want to cheer on your partisan team there are sites limited to that. Here the issues rate a greater consideration and are not compromised by party loyalty, popularity contests or cult followings drummed up by a corporate media for the corporate candidates.
It is a deadend street that sooner or later will become such a trap that people will be searching for a way out of the DLC party vs the NeoCon party.
A nuclear weapon will devestate the environment and destoy life on an unprecidented scale. To even suggest their use is irrational.
Hillary Clinton does not have the moral fiber necessary to lead this country. Given the current candidates, the only logical choice is Dennis Kucinich.
The corporate press is once again choosing for the American Public who their bosses want as the next Bush: Hillary Margaret Thatcher Clinton. See --
"Act or reality, it's working. Pundits for the National Review, The Weekly Standard and other pro-war outlets have come to applaud Clinton. A host of political scientists and other campaign hustlers have also approved this image makeover; as a recent Boston Globe headline put it, "Tough talk drives Clinton effort: National security stance seen adding to image of strength." One political scientist from Texas stated: "She's come off as credible and serious on national defense-an issue that two years ago most of us would have thought would be a liability for her." The Globe noted that "When Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, she was dogged by questions about whether she could 'push the button' to launch an attack if the Cold War turned hot." The paper then quoted Ferraro as saying that Clinton, whom she supports for president, has passed that test: "You can't do that with Hillary Clinton. Hillary is in a totally different place."
AND you know that if the papers say it is so . . . it ain't!
The integrity of Kucinich, the infatiguable courage of Edwards, and the focused truth telling of Obama, that's what the public wants. They are the ones that are etching their names and their platforms on the public's mind.
Dan8855,
I have to disagree with you there. I think if Rudy Giuliani were a woman, he'd be Hillary Clinton. If Bush were a woman, he'd be Katherine Harris.
sjc_1 Neitzsche said stare into the void and you become it. Or less poetically if you mirror your opponent to become palatable to inside the beltway pundits from the MSM how do you differ from your opponent other than the fact that the name of your party begins with D instead of R?
Peter Dale Scott's new book, The Road to 9/11 (U. of California Press, 2007) has just been released, and has a lot of new information on the relationship between CIA and ISI, that is so important to our current relationship to pakistan.
Few people care to debate Peter Dale Scott on the history of U.S intelligence agencies and foreign policy.
His new book, published by the University of California Press, has just been released.
See the reviews of his work. It should be quite informative for even the most well read students of U.S. foreign policy.
"Scott's brilliantly perceptive account of the underpinnings of American governmental authority should be made required reading. The book vividly depicts the political forces that have pushed this country toward an abyss, threatening constitutional democracy at home and world peace abroad. Its central message can be understood as an urgent wake-up call to everyone concerned with the future of America."--Richard Falk, author of The Great Terror War
"Peter Dale Scott is one of that tiny and select company of the most brilliantly creative and provocative political-historical writers of the last half century. The Road to 9/11 further secures his distinction as truth-teller and prophet. He shows us here with painful yet hopeful clarity the central issue of our time--America's coming to terms with its behavior in the modern world. As in his past work, Scott's gift is not only recognition and wisdom, but also redemption and rescue we simply cannot do without."--Roger Morris, former NSC staff, under Johnson and Nixon
http://www.amazon.com/Road-11-Wealth-Empire-America/dp/0520237730
_________________
Operation Mockingbird Spartacus:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
Operation Mockingbird Education Forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5142
PS: Just to add that re the fundamentalist religious "empire" which helped bring us to the point where we are now . . .
I think progressives want just the opposite. Not a single-minded belief system; especially not a "one god" patriarchal outlook -- but perhaps the reverse.
Reversing overpopulation, reversing polllution, reversing "Man's Dominion Over Nature" and "Manifest Destiny" -- reversing exploitation of natural resources and nature and animal-life?
That means progress based on a much different "value" system that that held by the religious movement.
Additionally, when we speak of movements or wars, there will be no group more obsessively dedicated to their beliefs -- their movement, their war -- than religious fanatics.
WHOA!!!! Talk about mangling the candidates words and positions. Clinton chided Obama for saying he would use nuclear weapons to get Osama. If you can't even get the facts right because they don't fit your preceonceptions, stop writing. I am a progressive democrat in good standing and this article is drivel. One gets tires of the right distoring positions. Do we have to see it happening on the left as well. I mean is this a deliberate distortion? Once again. Obama said he'd nuke Osama. And Clinton said he was nuts--in a nutshell :)
Lin
dougrambo: just saw your post, way back up there. That was great and that image will probably stick in my mind all day. If a progressive organization ever had enough money to buy TV ads, that would be a powerful image.
Thanks.
I really hope nobody's going to order me to "hold your nose and vote for Hilary." I might just lose my temper.
I've been hearing this lesser of two evils stuff at every single presidential election in memory.
How many times must I be ordered to hold my nose? Until I am dead in the ground and no longer have a nose to hold?
Hey here is a neat thought. Maybe we can all jump behind Kucinich so a year from now he can tell us to support Hillary Clinton. It makes such perfect sense because it worked so well with John Kerry in 04.