Norman Solomon rips the Leading Dem Candidates a New One

[reprehensor]

In light of Senator Gravel's molten blast of truth over the past few days, here is an article that lends credence to his position in regard to a lockstep mindset regarding action against Iran;

Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack, John… and Whitewash
by Norman Solomon

For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all “options” should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten — and possibly follow through with — first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington’s policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.

This year, with their virtually identical statements about “options” and “the table,” the leading Democratic presidential candidates — Clinton, Obama and Edwards — have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran.

If you’re not shocked or outraged yet, consider this:

On Feb. 22, the national leaders of MoveOn sent an e-mail letter to more than 3 million people with the subject line “War with Iran?” After citing a need to give UN sanctions “a chance to work before provoking a regional conflict,” the letter said flatly: “Senator Hillary Clinton has provided some much needed leadership on this.”

The MoveOn letter quoted a passage from a speech that Clinton had given on the Senate floor eight days earlier: “It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization. Nor should the president think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

But, while quoting Hillary Clinton’s speech as an example of “some much needed leadership,” MoveOn made no mention of the fact that the same speech stated: “As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I’ve also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.”

Continued...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/12/467/

[napi21]

1. I don't know anything about this Soloman guy, but anybody who ever

goes INTO a negotiation without EVERYTHING "ON" the table is an idiot! That's like saying I have a gun, but I won't shoot you. Or to bring this conversation into everyday perspective, you go into a car dealership, and spot the car of your dreams. You have the CASH to buy it at sticker! You never tell the salesman yeah, that's the one I want, how much do you want for it? Of course you don't! I don't have to go through the steps of negotiations, but in the case of Iran, there really aren't even any negotiations yet! Any candidate that removesd any options from the potential negotian table is an idiot!

[Fermezlabush]

8. You need a nuke to "shoot" someone? Do you?

[napi21]

14. no, of course not, but you shouldn't let your opponent know you aren't willing to use them!

You're missing my point. I'm not advocating using ANY military measures. All I'm saying is you always keep everything you have in your quiver, so your opponent know YOU CAN. Your prime intent is to make sure your opponent never knows just how far you'll go.

[Captain Hilts]

2. You never negotiate like that. He doesn't know what he's talking about. nt

[leftchick]

3. thank you

that is an excellent article. :)

[Schema Thing]

4. I take "all options" to mean military force

not "nuclear force".

I'd much prefer them to find a way to say "military force" in a direct way that makes it clear they mean only as a last, last, last resort, but I don't think any of them mean "nuclear force when they say that.

[G_j]

13. the first strike nuclear option is stated Pentagon policy, that makes it

a military option.
scary but true

[Schema Thing]

17. Key word there is "a". We aren't discussing whether or not nukes exist

we are discussing what the front runners mean when they say "all options". Clearly they don't literally mean "all options", as that would include televised nude debates between the secretary of state and Ahminijade.

[blm]

21. It helps if they have a RECORD of being against nuclear arms.

When Kerry as candidate would say that all options are on the table, we knew already that he was against more nukes, wanted to decrease their numbers, and planned to stop the manufacture of suitcase nukes as president.

[leftchick]

5. here is a great comment

....

#
greenuprising April 12th, 2007 12:54 pm

MoveOn has done some wonderful things for the peace movement — from the mobilization of thousands of citizen lobbyists to oppose Congressional authorization of the war to periodic campaigns linking activists and events around the country. But for some time now it has devoted itself principally to furthering the political ambitions of the Democratic Party. That would be all well and good if it confined itself to promoting the candidacies of anti-war and progressive Democrats, which is where it started out. But with the 2006 election, it climbed into bed with the Democratic leadership and become just another, but a very smart, yellow dog Democratic organization.

The truth is that the Democratic leadership, including its leading presidential hopefuls, don’t have a strategy for ending the war in Iraq. They don’t have a strategy for a more peaceful world and a more humble U.S. foreign policy. They only have a strategy for winning elections — and not a very good one at that. As Laura Flanders points out, it amounts to ignoring (if not actively snubbing) their base in order to reach out to an imaginary “center” that is as likely to vote Republican as Democrat. That strategy will only alienate the very people the Democrats need in the streets at election time, and it can only lead to victory when the Republicans are so divided among themselves that they cannot put up a good fight.

In the meantime, we have presidential hopefuls committed to foreign policy business as usual — militarism, bluster and intervention. Thanks Norman Solomon for laying out the dismal landscape.

[reprehensor]

6. Solomon was interviewed on Moyers' PBS special.

http://www.normansolomon.com/norman_solomon/2007/04/buying_the_war_.html

"Buying the War, the 90 minute special debut of Bill Moyers Journal, examined media coverage of the Iraq War. Norman Solomon was interviewed in the program. A transcript and video of the entire program are online."

[The Count]

7. It's what Gravel was saying too. The nuclear option should be made illegal

Glad more are pointing this out. We do NOT need nukes to defend ourselves.

[napi21]

16. That's a great idea, unless you recognize how many countries have them.

US laws don't apply to foreign governments! Are you REALLY willing to make nukes illegal for the US to use but let India, Packistan, Russia, China, and who know who else, ignore that directive? Those countries aren't obligated to abide by US laws!

Personally, I would love to see a unilateral treaty that every country who has nukes would destroy them. All within a 6 month period. I seem to remember there was an agreement, treaty, or something, that said all nukes in all countries would be destroyed on a greadual scale. I know Russia & the US actually did that...for a while.

Everybody has too many and it's a stupid idea. t's certainly gone well beyond "My guns bigger than YOUR gun!" attitude.

Unfortunately that thake NEGOTIATION! Something this admin doesn't have in thier vocabulary!

[malaise]

18. They have them because the West , Israel

India and Pakistan have them. They know who has used them before as well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. It demonstrates the usual bankruptcy of ideas among the "leaders".

The "politics as usual" of flagwaving bluster.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[tech3149]

10. Can you provide a statement that clearly shows they are trying to build

nuclear weapons? Every transcript that I read only discusses nuclear power. The enrichment level that they are working at is just barely able to support power generation. To upgrade to weapons level they would have to increase that capacity by ten-fold.

It get's pretty tiring that people are so easily cowed to the idea that because Iran is building it's nuclear industy it's proof positive that they're developing weapons.

[papau]

11. I agree they are at proof of concept level now - but they've purchased equipment that would

put them at bomb making levels if used for that purpose.

Of course it is reasonable to purchase that amount of equipment just to do civilian power - but how do you tell what is the direction they are going in?

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Well, shall we bomb them and ask questions later?

Frankly, I don't CARE what they plan at this point. Any weapons potential is YEARS away. Let them build the damn nuclear power plants without conflating the perfectly normal with the perfectly horrific (for poitical purposes) and we'll sort out the weapons stuff later. I don't think it HELPS for us to be rattling sabers over energy.

[papau]

15. Logic says your correct - but a country w/ nukes run by the sheikh/Mufti concept is bothersome n/t

n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

19. So that's a vote for bombing now and asking questions later?

:evilgrin:

I would HOPE not, but ... you haven't made yourself clear here.

[tech3149]

20. It's pretty simple really

Power generation requires enrichment 10 times less than bomb quality fuel. The resources needed would be that much more obvious. No offense, but it remindes me of the "aluminum tube" argument against Iraq. Add to that Iran is a signatory to the NPT and inspectors had free access in the country.

[entanglement]

22. The unPC truth: some 'leading' Democrats are unhappy only because the war hasn't turned out well

Their differences with the republicans are purely tactical. It's like bank robbers fighting after a botched heist.