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.
Norman Solomon’s book “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death” is out in paperback. For information, go to:
www.normansolomon.com
a guest: It ain't just Clinton, Obama, and Edwards running
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.
1
April 17, 2007
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
