Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack, John ... and Whitewash

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted April 16, 2007.


The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran; yet three presidential hopefuls say that no options should be taken off the table.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Norman Solomon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran.

Hillary Clinton says "no option can be taken off the table."

Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."

John Edwards says, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And: "We need to keep all options on the table."

A year ago, writing in The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: "One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."

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."

Earlier this year, David Rieff noted in The New York Times Magazine on March 25, "Vice President Cheney insisted that the administration had not 'taken any options off the table' as Iran continued to defy United Nations calls for it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The response from Democrats was not long in coming. Senator Clinton helped lead the charge, reminding the president that he did not have the authority to go to war with Iran on the basis of the Senate's authorization of the use of force in Iraq in 2002.

"But what Senator Clinton did not say was at least as interesting as what she did say. And what she did not say was that she opposed the use of force in Iran. To the contrary, Senator Clinton used virtually the same formulation as Vice President Cheney. When dealing with Iran, she insisted, 'no option can be taken off the table.'"

To praise Hillary Clinton for providing "much needed leadership" on Iran -- and to mislead millions of e-mail recipients counted as MoveOn members in the process -- is a notable choice to make. It speaks volumes. It winks at Clinton's stance that "no option can be taken off the table." It serves an enabling function. It is very dangerous.

The stakes are much too high to make excuses or look the other way.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Should This Come as a Surprise?
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Apr 16, 2007 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One needs only review the record of the Clinton Administration in order to dispel the myth that the Democrats are somehow more peace-loving and humanist-orientated than their conservative counterparts. The former just do a better, marginally better at any rate, job of spinning their crimes; i.e., making state violence palatable for the constitutionally squeamish left--phrases like 'humanitarian intervention' and 'illegal but legitimate', concocted by ‘just war’ theorists, where regularly brandished (with success) during the NATO-Kosovo War, for example. Whereas the Bush Administration feels confident in just ploughing ahead without bothering to first concoct a credible, humanist-inspired, pretence for its actions, and with without endeavoring to limit that amount of obvious harm done to the American public (harm done those in other countries, be they Iraqi, Serbian, East Timorese or Vietnamese, or others, usually never bothers anyone). The difference mainly is in degrees of subtly, there is no fundamental moral or ethical distinction to be discovered between the nominal left and the nominal right. So much for the debate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lee Sustar:
Posted by: rwa on Apr 16, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF HISTORY is any guide, the Democratic Party will be at least as determined as the Republicans to advance U.S. imperial interests.

Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt may be remembered for his New Deal social reforms of the 1930s, but it was his administration--and that of his successor, Harry Truman--that turned the Second World War into a vehicle for establishing U.S. hegemony in the West.

Democrat John F. Kennedy took the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and laid the basis for the war in Vietnam that was enormously expanded by his vice president and successor, Lyndon Johnson.

The next Democrat in the White House, Jimmy Carter, had a different role to play, carrying out damage control in the wake of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. His solution: intensify the Cold War.

It was today's "peace activist" Carter who authorized the doctrine of "limited" nuclear war in Europe under Presidential Directive 59; reinstituted registration for the military draft; created the Rapid Deployment Force in the Middle East (the forerunner of today's Central Command); and declared that any outside military aggression in the Persian Gulf would be considered hostile to the United States. Known as the Carter Doctrine, this policy set the stage strategically for the U.S. wars on Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

The administration of Bill Clinton may seem peaceful in comparison with Bush's. But it was Clinton who presided over the expansion of NATO and the bombings and occupations of Bosnia and Kosovo in the Balkans. As Andrew Bacevich, the retired military colonel turned political scientist, put it, the Clinton years saw the "unprecedented militarization of U.S. foreign policy."

After two terms of George W. Bush, the Democrats are finding it easier to talk the antiwar talk on the campaign trail--to the enthusiasm of millions of people who want the disastrous Iraq war to end. But walking the walk will be a different matter.

A Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards in the White House may help rehabilitate the U.S. image abroad. But the nature of the Democratic Party and the imperatives of U.S. imperialism will strictly limit the changes in U.S. foreign policy.

Under a Democratic White House, challenging the U.S. war machine will continue to depend on resistance abroad--and protests at home.

full article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why the Outrage?
Posted by: Dboy on Apr 16, 2007 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US is an imperialistic, terrorist state. We have a "democracy" of controlled political choices, and therefore controlled political outcomes. This democracy is an illusion designed to keep the masses producing and consuming, while dissidents are carefully controlled through the corporate university system. BOTH sides (if you can call them that) democratic and republican want empire. Democrats will complain about Iraq in order to maintain the illusion of opposition, but have just as much to gain from war, illegal occupations, and terrorism as the republicans do. Our ONLY non-violent means of changing this government is through non-payment of taxes. Peaceful political protest might make one feel better, but the establishment is not motivated by people carrying signs. The invention of "free speech zones" should give a hint as to the criminal nature of this regime. We no longer live in the United States, and US troop are no longer fighting for America. I urge any US troop reading Alternet to seriously consider retirement from service, or at least to avoid deployment. Everyone else who can should be encouraged to find a way to avoid federal taxes, using the tactics of bartered services, working for cash only, not working (the Atlas Strugged approach), or relocation outside the US. As long as we contribute to the war machine, it will continue to harm this planet.

Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why the Outrage? Posted by: woodford54
Democratic Illusions by Justin Raimondo
Posted by: rwa on Apr 16, 2007 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Foreign policy advisers to the 'big three' Democrats bode ill for antiwar movement

Anyone who had illusions about the Democratic Party as the electoral vehicle of choice for the antiwar movement has got to be dispirited by the "big three" presidential wannabes: John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. None have come out clearly and unequivocally for withdrawal from Iraq, and all refuse to rule out military action against Iran...

The "Iraq-eteers" are a "collegial" group, we are told, and, while there are differences of emphasis, all fit within the parameters of conventional liberal internationalism – of the sort that got us into Vietnam and will help keep us in Iraq. Particularly disappointing for principled opponents of interventionism is one Derek Chollet, co-founder of the Center for a New American Security, which advocates a "centrist foreign policy," i.e., interventionism, but with less melodramatic flair than the neoconservatives over at the Project for a New American Century...

Diplomacy, avers Chollet, is all well and good, but those hardheaded Iranians – who stubbornly insist they have as much right to develop nuclear energy as any other nation on earth, including the U.S. and Israel – are not caving...

"A nuclear Iran would fundamentally alter the strategic chessboard in the Middle East, and spark a regional Cold War. The West would have to make clear the consequences of any use of Iran's weapons, and should explore offering security guarantees to Iran's most likely targets, like Israel and, perhaps someday, a peaceful and democratic Iraq." …

Why is a nuclear Iran "unacceptable" to the U.S.? Yes, surely one can see how the Israeli government would strike such a stance, but how, exactly, is America threatened by the prospect of Iranian nukes? We lived with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union for almost half a century. Pakistan has nukes, as does India – and Israel. The principle of deterrence has worked pretty effectively with them over the years, and there is no reason why it shouldn't function in much the same way where the mullahs are concerned. In any case, there can be no disarmament of Iran until the entire Middle East is turned into a nuclear-free zone. I wouldn't hold my breath, however, for the Israelis to go along with that. After all, they won't even officially acknowledge they have nukes, let alone sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran, on the other hand, is a signatory.)

It's funny how the U.S. didn't object to Iran's nuclear program when the shah was touting it as evidence of his country's entry into modernity. We helped them build it every step of the way, until the Iranians overthrew the widely hated monarch and set up the current regime. Now they're finishing what the shah started... After being targeted by the president of the United States as a member of the infamous "axis of evil," is it any surprise that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear capacity? This is the crucial context in which Iran's actions take place, but you wouldn't know that from listening to Chollet.

The idea that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would necessarily have to mean a regional war is odd coming from someone who clearly believes such a war might be necessary in order to ensure Iran doesn't cross the nuclear threshold. Should we go to war in order to prevent a war? This hardly makes either moral or military sense. Again, there may be interests in the region that would stand to lose if Tehran goes nuclear – Israel, for one, would lose its nuclear monopoly, and the Sunni nations, already nervous on account of Shi'ite revivalism, would be put on edge – but there is no clear reason why the U.S. has so much at stake as to launch a preemptive strike...

full article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It ain't just Clinton, Obama, and Edwards running
Posted by: Joe the Green Dog Democrat on Apr 16, 2007 8:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s interesting that Solomon and other political pundits keep wringing their hands over the failings of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and ignore the candidate who displays few if any of the failings that create such anguish. That candidate is Bill Richardson. His view and policy re Iran? See his petition at http://richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/Iran .

There’s more about Richardson that makes even more inexplicible the lack of attention paid him by many pundits in an American Prospect commentary at http://tinyurl.com/2gobf4 .

As for MoveOn and the Democratic candidates, as reported by MoveOn in its April 12 e-letter, its members who attended local sessions and watched the MoveOn Town Hall on Iran the previous weekend voted differently for the Democratic candidates from those who did not watch and listen to what the candidates actually said. Here are how the folks who attended the event sessions ranked their choices:

Sen. John Edwards — 25%
Gov. Bill Richardson — 21%
Sen. Barack Obama — 19%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich — 15%
Sen. Joe Biden — 10%
Sen. Hillary Clinton — 7%
Sen. Chris Dodd — 4%

Native pragmatism re a Democratic presidential candidate and a new president who is is absolutely well-qualified to be the the country’s next chief executive sure points this Green-Dog Democrat toward Richardson.

None are so blind as those who will not see that it ain't just Clinton, Obama, and Edwards running.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can't fight Iran
Posted by: kackermann on Apr 17, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are bogged down against some dead-enders right now. They are pretty vulnerable.

Don't tell ANYONE but we don't have many troops left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strictly speaking
Posted by: gjames on Apr 17, 2007 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Pentagon almost assuredly does not favor an attack on Iran. The Pentagon carries out the policies of the elected leaders, rather than the elected leaders providing rhetoric for the Pentagon's policies. If it were up to the Pentagon, there would not be an attack on Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Great '07 Distraction
Posted by: channing on Apr 17, 2007 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MoveOn got into the great new game of distraction in town, that of the '08 Campaign:

There would be no Iraq war, no Iran war, no Patriot Act, no Wire Tapping, no Atty General Scandal, no Enron, FDA, EPA, UN, World Bank, DOE, or the many other affronts to Progressive Politics if, and only IF, enough people opened their eyes to the Bush administration's participation in the Crime of 911.

Only an investigation, and MoveOn can't be bothered... you guys are forfeiting your country for good, while pretending to be informed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]