Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiToday, Senator Barack Obama will propose setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world. This proposal should be be celebrated. It is a sign of Obama's commitment to a sane security and foreign policy -- consistent with an understanding that the US is safer when it respects international rule of law and cooperation.
This is not a radical proposal--a characterization you're likely to hear from many inside-the-beltway pundits and security analysts. They may try to label Obama as a candidate disconnected from reality. But then they could level the same charges at Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn. All four men, earlier this year, called for a revival of Ronald Reagan's vision of " a world free of nuclear weapons" in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.
As our Peace and Disarmament correspondent Jonathan Schell wrote, "the oped marks a sea change in established opinion, which previously (with the hugely significant exception of Reagan) had formed a solid phalanx of opposition to nuclear abolition." What is increasingly clear, Schell goes on to point out, is how "the nuclear danger is ripe and overripe for public rediscovery, which has in fact already begun. This time, it's clear that the goal of all efforts would not just be amelioration--a freeze or reduction or a test ban--but the long-deferred holy grail of all who have struggled against the danger for more than 60 years: the abolition of nuclear arms."
Obama is a leader who appears to understand what is at stake if the US squanders the post-post Cold War opportunity to build a nuclear-free world. What is encouraging is that he is not alone. According to Peace Action, more than 70 percent of Americans support the global abolition of nuclear weapons.
And in May, Senator John Edwards, in an under-reported event at the Council on Foreign Relations, announced his support for a nuclear-free world. Obama and Edwards understand the imperative of ridding our planet of weapons of mass destruction. Isn't it time to ask the other leading Presidential candidate where she stands on the issue?
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2007 The Nation
45 Comments so far
Show AllIf these two really 'got it' on nuclear weapons they would be raising public awareness of how totally dangerous (to the whole world) it is for us to have used/continue to use depleted uranium weaponry ANYWHERE.
the only way they will ever be gone, is after they set them all off.
One of the best pieces of politcal satire on American elections was a short simpsons holloween special called "Citizen Kang" where the two space aliens Kang and Kodos take over the 96' elections between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. That short 10 minute piece of animated genius really says it all, watch it if you haven't seen it and have yourselves a good laugh. I pretty much feel them same about the elected representatives over here in Ireland too.
The former leader of the green party Trevor Sargent walked into the Dail waving a building contractors check and asked "who else got one of these?", caused a bit of a stir i can tell you. Of course though the populace decided to vote in the came corrupt corporate stooge party as before...sigh as the women at my local shop said to me "better to vote in the crooks you know...". I just don't buy it, but now that we have money over here a good number of the population do.
Welcome to the me first society, all these problems are not just American problems they are a species wide problem as rampant corporate greed and empty consumerism take over everything. You might wonder then why modern societies have so many cases of mental illness, we have sold ourselves hook line and sinker.
I might sound highly negative with my comments but i think people are slowly but surely realizing the folly of all this and that we still have the oppurtunity to get it together.
Lobo Gris: "If however he has any chance at all by the time we have our late primary I will cast a vote for him."
Cast it for him anyway!!!
"I really would love to see Kucinich in power, he's the nearest thing you have to a Socialist candidate. But I'm a realist too, and I doubt that even with a third party running it would do more than muddy the waters, and weaken whatever Democrats remained in power (not that they aren't weak-kneed enough already!)."
I like Kucinich also and I also don't see much chance of him getting the Democratic nomination. If however he has any chance at all by the time we have our late primary I will cast a vote for him.
As for third parties, everyone says they can't win which quickly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If everyone that won't vote third party because "they can't win" would they could indeed win.
Lobo Gris
Ok.. Why is there this media blackout on Kucinich???? What happened to him? I never ever hear from him anymore. It is like he just doesn't exist as a candidate anymore!??
What a stupid country we live in!
Good.
You guys get it.
Oboma the Abortion. It's typical "Read My Lips" B.S. that's never going to pan out. The dems smell anger at the betrayal of all us saps who swallowed the last bucket of moron bait: hook, line and sinker and voted Dem to put the brakes on Bush. Remember Polosi: "George Bush is going to pay" turned into: "impeachement is off the table."
So they've got another pie-in-the-sky fantasy that they think is going to fool you; after all, who in their right mind wouldn't be against banning all those nasty nukes?
Fool me once.... shame on me.
Fool me twice, and we wake up in the "Planet of the Bushmonkies"
Forget it. Vote third party or you are stupid.
I'm sorry. That won't work either. Diebold voting computers will always make the executive/fortune 500 branch win by a scant 51%.
Your only Alternative?
NATIONAL STRIKE
been here before baby,
pac
In 1960 a world without nuclear weapons was still possible. Now nobody knows how many there are, or where.
Americans love to believe that everything can be fixed, no matter how badly they may have messed it up. This is a mental disease.
The proper attitude for Americans is repentance and self-loathing. Anything else is just another flight from reality.
For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through
Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry
mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from
his fierce anger, that we perish not?
Seems I saw Obama was in favor of nuclear power. Can't have one w/o the other. Time to put the Genie back in the bottle: go renewables (solar and wind, conservation) and bring the arsenals down.
Don't know about Edwards or the Big DK (the only candiate to visit my state in '04, and boy does he answer questions directly and succinctly, and his answers resonate with me!!)
Bush has asked for $189,000,000,000. for ONE year in just two countries, all bent on destruction and death. $512,000,000. per day. Then he veto'd the Child Health plan.
It's all out of whack. Go rent and watch "An Unreasonable Man" , on Nader. Once Hilary get's the nod, ponder a REAL alternative ticket, and NOT a throw away vote .... Nader? Kucinich? Gravel? RuPaul? The election's a l o o o o n g way off... So much of this lead up is designed to keep our eyes OFF the ball.
Hang in there and try to find the smile in the moment...
Edwards leads (May), Obama follows (Oct).
Hillary? She's following the money.
Edwards/Obama 2008!?
Trouble with the policy of abolition of nukes is that without nukes our country, the USA, will have the excuse to continue to build and maintain a huge standing military.
A practical policy on nukes may be that the USA will reduce its stockpile to say 500 total and store them. Just like the prudent firearm owner stores the firearm and the ammo separately, it reduces the chance of accidental or impulsive firearm use.
I would almost bet that Hillary will stand with the "status quo" on the nuclear arms issue. I would be happy if I were wrong about that.
kristina40: "I would not vote for a "pro-life" candidate, EVER! That doesn't even touch on his racist, asshole remarks. The guys just another evangelical wing-nut that believes in white supremacy and patriarchy."
Sorry, I don't really know much about Ron Paul (and would never actually vote for him). Just illustrating a point. Being an evangelical (and "pro-life" by default) pretty much instantly removes my support from anybody.
Want to see the Democrats' impotence in action (or inaction, rather)? Look at what they do with Bush's veto today of healthcare for millions of children. What they should do is scream "Bush hates children!" and shout "Why do you hate children, Mr. Bush?!" They should do it for days, until they're hoarse, all over the media. They should obsess over it. Because that's exactly what all stripes of the right would do, and why they're so much more successful. Watch, and you will see from the Dems a profoundly mouse-like response.
Any of the Ron Paul supporters out there should know, were he by some miracle to become POTUS, any supreme court nominations he made would effectively overturn Roe vs Wade.
I would not vote for a "pro-life" candidate, EVER! That doesn't even touch on his racist, asshole remarks. The guys just another evangelical wing-nut that believes in white supremacy and patriarchy.
neomonk, you've got it. Unfortunately, about the only articles The Nation puts out showcase the problem perfectly. Hitler could rise from the grave and call himself a Democrat, and a good chunk of the US would vote for him simply because he's not part of Bush's tribe. Conversely, if the socialist-progressive equivilent of Alexander the Great happened to be a Republican (for fiscal reasons, say), endless droves would tie him in with Cheney. Politics aren't sports. It seems very unwise to choose or stick to a team at this point. The more fully independent "swing" voters, the better. I'd choose Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton any day ...but then I'd choose, and probably will vote for, the unknown Green Party candidate over either of them. So many choices when you're not stuck to a team.
Thanks Vern. http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon10032007.html All Kucinich people shoul read this!
As of this moment, I will cancel my Kucinich meberships and hit my knees and pray that he comes to his senses and leaves the democratic party, at which time I will resume shouting his name to those who would hear his much needed message and common sense.You wouldn't belive how much crap I take from people when I talk about Dennis. It seems to me that something is wrong when a man that has ideas like his would want to hang out down at the river of deceit with the whores and whoremongers of the democratic party. Who in their right mind would want to be a part of something that wants no part of them. I think Dennis is the BEST man for the job. PERIOD. I belive what he says is honest and true. I just don't understand this at all. Dennis, you answer to questions with a clariety that I have n't ever seen or heard before, so maybe you will answer this, WHY ARE YOU STILL A DEMOcRAT? I am through with that bunch of idiots and if you choose to stay with them, then kiss my ass goodbye. I know this wasn't a Kucinich forum but damn I just had to say it. My heart is breaking.
The United States is in a unique and the best position to do that: to clear the world of all nuclear weapons, but first we need a humane and honest government. Call me when you get one.
Some of you are convinced that people who put a D by their name are automatically better than someone who puts an R beside themselves.
This is foolish in the extreme.
It's the same game the Republicans have (successfully) played for years, you're on OUR team and OUR team has to win because the other team is BAD.
I've not seen ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE that a Clinton presidency would be any better than any R (except maybe Romney, who is not sane (even by the lowered politico standards)) none of you are offering any evidence either. All I see is flag waving (not the Stars and Bars, but the big donkey flags) and meaningless platitudes... just like I'[m used to from the Republicans.
What none of you people seem to understand is that if there were no such things as Ds and Rs beside names, and politicians were grouped by policy, the vast majority of the current crop of politicians would be in the same group. Why doesn't that bother you? Why is that 'okay' enough to support? Not only that, you're being derisive of people who actually *GASP* want to vote their interests.
Your calls of 'do it for the team' fall on deaf ears and the cries of 'better than a Republican' are usupported at BEST. No substance, all false dichotomy.
No, you'll not convince me to vote for Hillary (and I'm not registered Green or even Independent, I'm a registered Democrat) with platitudes and scare tactics. You want my vote? Give me a candidate that will vote my interests. You want to save the Democratic party? Stop coming here and trying to sell me snake-oil, instead work to remove the Republicans from your party.
When there is a difference between the Rs and the Ds, maybe (just maybe, it depends on the differences) you'll be able to sway me by pointing to an 'R' and screaming 'Look out!', but until that day comes, I'll keep looking out when I see EITHER a D or an R coming.
P.S. After I vote in the primaries, and after Clinton gets nominated, you'll have one less D to count on. I'll be one of those 'swing voters' everyone covets so much. It might be fun.
"all I see right now is the Dem elites and the MSM trying to shove H. Clinton down everyone's throat."
Yes, I see that too, Lobo Gris. Sickening! I'm Socialist by nature (European style), so your Democrats seem very mild to my eyes. I'm not used to such brainwashing by the MSM as goes on here.
I really would love to see Kucinich in power, he's the nearest thing you have to a Socialist candidate. But I'm a realist too, and I doubt that even with a third party running it would do more than muddy the waters, and weaken whatever Democrats remained in power (not that they aren't weak-kneed enough already!).
Now that this Republican president has opened up the "highway to fascism" another Republican president would gleefully goosestep his way along it. With a Democrat - any Democrat - as president I think that danger would at least be slowed down, if not eliminated.
celebrity,
I have certainly considered your point of view. I wonder whether telling others that Kucinich cannot win becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But then I look at what comes from the corporate media (you are not a serious candidate unless you bow to the corporate elite and raise tens of millions) and the media's refusal to talk about the issues and where Kucinich stands on them.
I am sure you know as I know that Kucinich mirrors US public opinion on the great majority of the issues far more than the leading Democratic or Republican contenders, and his policies certainly serve the interests of the great majority of people to a far greater extent, but the Washington pundits say he is "unelectable" and "out of the mainstream." It sounds like they are saying the US public is "out of the mainstream" which seems nonsensical. Of course what they mean by "mainstream" is the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce, along with AIPAC, not the common people of the USA.
And I have noticed over the years that if anyone on the left gets any traction then not only do the network news divisions attack them relentlessly but even the network comedians, e.g. Leno and Letterman, attack them unmercifully. When Edwards was in the high teens they pounded him until they drove him back closer to 10 and have kept him there.
We are given a very narrow range of options, and often that does not amount to much difference at all. But now that the Republicans have become such fascists, maybe we should look at the Democrats, corrupt and feckless corporatists that they are, a little bit differently.
If you only cut off one head of a two headed rattler, the other will bite you in the ass.
Anniesee October 3rd, 2007 3:41 pm
"Isn't the really important factor to get the best possible Democratic candidate nominated - preferably anyone but Clinton?"
I wish you all the best with that, and I mean that sincerely, but all I see right now is the Dem elites and the MSM trying to shove H. Clinton down everyone's throat. As for me I am an independent, have been for a long time. I can still vote in one primary, either Democrat or Republican, but by the time ours is held the race has already been decided.
"It seems illogical to expect that things could turn around completely with just one election. If the next administration just tries to correct the worst of Bush's errors and omissions it'll give people hope and enthusiasm again. Perhaps it won't be the miracle we all dream of here, but as long as it's a couple of steps in the right direction - it has to be better than what we've got."
This isn't one election we're talking about. It's every election we've had for as long as I can remember. As I said, the definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same action, voting Democrat or Republican while each time expecting a different result.
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris
you say
"Not necessarily true. If the Dems hold on to Congress but lose the Presidency to a Republican all it means is that not much will get done in the four years after the election. To me that is preferable to having Hillary Clinton in the White House."
That might be the optimistic way to look at it, but with certain Republicans as president we (and the world) might not see another 4 years. Perish the thought!
Isn't the really important factor to get the best possible Democratic candidate nominated - preferably anyone but Clinton?
It seems illogical to expect that things could turn around completely with just one election. If the next administration just tries to correct the worst of Bush's errors and omissions it'll give people hope and enthusiasm again. Perhaps it won't be the miracle we all dream of here, but as long as it's a couple of steps in the right direction - it has to be better than what we've got.
kivals October 3rd, 2007 2:04 pm
"Virtually everyone who frequents CD knows the Democrats are pitiful corporatists. But hopefully most know the Republicans have evolved into full-blown fascists. Sure the Greens or Socialists are infinitely better, but the corporate elites who run this country and their allies in the corporate media make certain they cannot win, just as they ensure that Kucinich cannot win."
The definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same action, voting Democrat or Republican, while each time expecting a different result.
Lobo Gris
Anniesee October 3rd, 2007 2:17 pm
"As a Brit (awaiting citizenship) I've listened to my American husband many times saying "We have to vote for whatever Democrat is on the list - let a Republican in and we are well and truly f…ed""
Not necessarily true. If the Dems hold on to Congress but lose the Presidency to a Republican all it means is that not much will get done in the four years after the election. To me that is preferable to having Hillary Clinton in the White House.
The definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same action, voting Democrat or Republican, while each time expecting a different result.
Lobo Gris
veive?
You must've made a wrong turn.
The Free Republic board was in the other direction.
"...we are well and truly f…ed"
Damned if we do damned if we don't.
What's worse, getting the Right or getting those who enable the Right and believe that in order to win emulating the Right is the way.
You can live with that? Where does it end?
P.S......
kivals: "just as they ensure that Kucinich cannot win."
Not only are THEY making sure Kucinich can't win, so are "alleged" Progressives with their nay-saying. Read a LOT of the posts where D.k.'s name comes up and count the number of times people write:
"Yeah,but..."; "...unelectable"; "I LOVE him but he can't possibly win"; "why waste a vote" (Like, what? You'll give it to Hillary or Obama instead?!) And on and on ad nauseam!
You need to put MUCH of the responsibility RIGHT HERE--on the "Progressive" doorstep for being "Party Pounders" and fatalists. Anyone who does NOR vote for D.K. in the primaries is merely a neo-liberal with a programmed mind against ALL "Democrats (Issues be damned.)
Hey, Katrina...
What does Kucinich believe? NUKE 'EM?!
And yet another slight to the only TRUE Progressive running.
Thanks, Kat.
I think kivals' comments (2.04pm) above sum up the situation very clearly. Thanks!
As a Brit (awaiting citizenship) I've listened to my American husband many times saying "We have to vote for whatever Democrat is on the list - let a Republican in and we are well and truly f...ed"
Kivals said it more elegantly, but it amounts to much the same.
"Virtually everyone who frequents CD knows the Democrats are pitiful corporatists. But hopefully most know the Republicans have evolved into full-blown fascists. Sure the Greens or Socialists are infinitely better, but the corporate elites who run this country and their allies in the corporate media make certain they cannot win, just as they ensure that Kucinich cannot win."
There was a poster a few months back who mentioned several times that CD readers ought to check out "Iron Heel" by Jack London. I took him up on it and found it incredibly relevant to our modern age. Look for it next time you're at the library/Borders/Barnes and etc.
Sorry, Barack, but I think I'd want a president who would let it be known that if any country used WMD on the USA or harbored such an attacker, there would be a ten-fold retaliation against that country. Given our performance in Iraq, we need those nukes to retain retaliatory credibility. Suicide bombers may not be afraid of dying but I doubt they'd want to take their own country with 'em.
Virtually everyone who frequents CD knows the Democrats are pitiful corporatists. But hopefully most know the Republicans have evolved into full-blown fascists. Sure the Greens or Socialists are infinitely better, but the corporate elites who run this country and their allies in the corporate media make certain they cannot win, just as they ensure that Kucinich cannot win.
Progressives can either live in lala land and pretend they are in control, or have all the momentum, and vote for a true progressive, or they can engage with the Democrats to determine a candidate they "can live with." To me voting third party might soothe one's conscience, but it is a refusal to engage in reality, the very thing so many criticize Cheney's monkey for.
And certainly progressives have the most leverage in the primaries, where there are Democrats to choose from. In the general election one can vote third party, but, in US political history, that has almost always worked to the advantage of the major party candidate furthest from the third party's position (for obvious reasons).
If we avoid total fascism and lower the risk of nuclear war (real risks with Republican control, and a near certainty with Giuliani) by electing a reasonable Democrat, there is always the chance US society and its political system will evolve into something better (more likely after an economic collapse or some other catastrophe), and create an upward trend in culture and politics. While if progressives vote third party and a Republican wins, it is almost certain that the trend will be downward, and tomorrow's Greens may very well resemble today's Democrats (just as today's Democrats resemble yesterday's Republicans and today's Republicans resemble yesterday's fascists).
I could "live with" Gore, Edwards, and Obama, in that order, and I am trying hard to accept the idea of "living with" Hillary, even though I absolutely despise her.
nickhart, well said.
Vern, well said.
Ahh The Nation. Increasingly searching for some conventional insider wagon to hitch their star on.
Not much to say.
Interesting take on Kucinich at Counterpunch though:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon10032007.html
Obama should get his act together and attack Hillary Clinton without mercy for promoting more war and hatred in the world. She is as dangerous as Bush.
Great Idea to get rid of the bombs, is it realistic? No...
Thousand of these exist, here in Russia, India, Pakistan, China and ofcourse those never talked about Israeli nukes. Just try and take those from them.
Is there any chance that there would be 100% proof they are destroyed, The IAEA would need thousand of inspectors and even then one would never be sure.
I think, tragically, that it will take one of the new generation bombs going off somewhere in the world before people realize the true destructive power they have and perhaps then we'll realize there is only one earth and we're all on it!
I hope I'm long gone before that happens.
I am firmly against mean people. I think they should be abolished.
Maybe we could eliminate nukes by nuking them. Just use all of ours to destroy all of theirs.
Amen to that.
Meanwhile he will be nowhere to be found when they vote to bomb Iran.
What good are these high-minded platitudes when they are never applied to real world scenarios?
Empty feel good rhetoric from central casting for sophmoric staged productions.
KVH: "Obama is a leader..."
No, he's an opportunist. It was only a few months ago that he stated "no option" should be taken off the table vis-a-vis Iran. He's a liar and a hypocrite--and we CANNOT trust him.
W.S. Lind on counterpunch the other day: http://www.counterpunch.org/lind09292007.html
it's basic common sense. I think many of the posters here realized this when we were about 4 or 5 years old:
"A basic rule of history is that the inevitable eventually happens. If you keep on smoking in the powder magazine, you will at some point blow it up. No one can predict the specific event or its timing, but everyone can see the trend and where it is leading."
Well, just pat those boys on the back and buy 'em each a few beers. They get it. Good for them. Most people on planet Earth figured it out a long time ago, but finally, at long last, a pair of guys running for the top office actually get it. Yippee.
Just another article from The Nation pandering to the impotent Democratic Party. The need to eliminate nuclear weapons is OBVIOUS. Why don't the Dems sic the Repubs for NOT following suit? That's what the Repubs would do, but then, they're not impotent.