Hillary has suggested Obama’s attitudes regarding nukes are naive. And yet, in one of the most under-reported stories of 2007, four Cold Warriors who flexed American might last century went on record just over a year ago in support of a nuclear-free world–the Obama position. In an op-ed letter to the Wall Street Journal, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn and William Perry wrote this:
"Unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can successfully replicate the old Soviet-American "mutually assured destruction" with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?" Read the entire letter here.
It's the kind of issue that is a deal-maker-or-breaker for those with the imagination to envision a future in which the world is not put at risk by human folly.
Barack Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons. A world in which new nukes would be prohibited and old nuclear stockpiles would be secured and dealt down. Hillary? She would reserve the option to bomb "enemies" who wish to obtain nukes, and fund "friends" who would go nuclear. Yes, one could say she’s endorsed the Kissinger, Shultz, Nunn and Perry proposal, but her endorsement, recorded Oct. 15, 2007, at www.Atlantic.com is serpentine and curiously worded.
"Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to 'rekindle the vision,' shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons."
click here but Kissinger, Shultz, Perry and Nunn went much further. Hillary, in effect, soft-pedals and understates their call for a nuclear-free world, before tacitly endorsing it.
In an Oct. 2, 2007 speech at DePaul University, on the other hand, Obama laid out 9 principles of foreign policy that he would adhere to. Number One? Ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Read speech here:
click here article at the think-tank, Foreign Policy in Focus, pretty much sums up my attitude toward Hillary's take on nukes.
"Nuclear Weapons
"Particularly disturbing has been Senator Clinton’s attitudes regarding nuclear issues. For example, when Senator Obama noted in August that the use of nuclear weapons – traditionally seen as a deterrent against other nuclear states – was not appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton rebuked his logic by claiming that "I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."
"Senator Clinton has also shown little regard for the danger from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, opposing the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions challenging the nuclear weapons programs of such U.S allies as Israel, Pakistan and India. Not only does she support unconditional military aid – including nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters – to these countries, she even voted to end restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"She has a very different attitude, however, regarding even the possibility of a country the United States does not support obtaining nuclear weapons some time in the future. For example, Senator Clinton insists that the prospect of Iran joining its three Southwest Asian neighbors in developing nuclear weapons "must be unacceptable to the entire world" since challenging the nuclear monopoly of the United States and its allies would somehow "shake the foundation of global security to its very core." She refuses to support the proposed nuclear weapons-free zone for the Middle East, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 687, nor does she support a no-first use nuclear policy, both of which could help resolve the nuclear standoff. Indeed, she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn’t like.
"Senator Clinton also criticized the Bush administration’s decision to include China, Japan and South Korea in talks regarding North Korea’s nuclear program and to allow France, Britain and Germany to play a major role in negotiations with Iran, claiming that instead of taking "leadership to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists … we have outsourced over the last five years our policies." In essence, as president, Hillary Clinton would be more unilateralist and less prone to work with other nations than the Bush administration on such critical issues as non-proliferation." Read entire article here:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811
A PIVOTAL MOMENT FOR PEACE
Meanwhile, my friends at the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance sent the following email my way:
