The Boston Globe, yesterday Sunday April 27, 2008, dropped the bomb :
No one who talks about "obliterating", incinerating that is, millions of innocent children, women and men with nuclear weapons should be answering the Red Phone "at any time of day or night".
But, so far Cliff Schecter, at The Agonist, may have been the farthest ahead of the curve on this story, with a Sunday late afternoon post on the subject. In fact, Schecter's Agonist post even has a remarkably similar image of Hillary Clinton's head grafted onto the body of Slim Pickens, in Dr. Strangelove. It was an obvious thing to do. I had an earlier version, from last year, which featured George W. Bush's head stuck on Slim Pickens' body. It was easy to replace that with a Clinton head. Now, I need a McCain-head version as well.
Anyway, the mainstream media apparently needs some PRODDING to cover this. More Internet traction will help.
...there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel.
This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world...
Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, said... 'it is probably not prudent in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country'...
[image, below, was drawn by a survivor of the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima]
[Globe editorial, continued]...A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night."
There's one huge problem with Clinton's "obliteration" talk and her "nuclear umbrella proposal (a US "nuclear umbrella" over Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Sunni countries in the Mideast and... Israel.
Clinton said the US would "obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel but Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons of its own and also a viable second strike force, meaning...
Clinton's talk of incinerating millions of innocent Iranians is reckless and grotesque for several reasons not the least of which is that Israel is perfectly capable of leveling Iran with its own nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel that came from, or was suspected of coming from, Iran.
[below: new 4 and 1/2 minute video of mine, in the works (not the final cut by any means) showing the similarity of Clinton and McCain's nuclear war-mongering. Both Clinton and McCain have made World War Two-themed campaign ads which are nearly interchangeable.]
My post that day, and the one I wrote the previous day, were inspired and informed by conversations with George E. Lowe...
George Lowe, has told me it was his lot to gaurd one of the "Red Phones", in Paris during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis - perhaps the closest brush the world has had yet with Nuclear War. Lowe thought Clinton's statements were bizzarre. After the Cuban Missile Crisis ended, George Lowe [pronounced one would "Cow"] went off to write a book on nuclear deterrence ("Nuclear Deterrence", Little Brown 1964) and he also wrote several award winning papers on the subject.
Lowe has told me that he stopped writing on nuclear deterrence decades ago but now he's horrified that the same sorts of ideas that nearly led to nuclear obliteration decades ago have now recrudesced...
And, those ideas are coming from the mouth of a Democrat.
On "Meet The Press" last Sunday April 20th, with David Brooks, E.J. Dionne and Michelle Norris, host Tim Russert brought up the "nuclear umbrella" idea that Hillary Clinton floated in her April 16th debate in Philadelphia with Barack Obama and DAVID BROOKS of all people, replied, "I’m amazed, I think like you, maybe,that it didn’t become a bigger issue. Because what it says, I think, to a lot of Americans, two Arab countries or two Middle Eastern countries get in a war and we’re going to get in the middle of it?... I don’t know why she would’ve said it, what policy thinking behind it was. It seems to me extremely perilous." E.J. Dionne concurred, "the term massive retaliation is a pretty strong term that she used in the course of that debate."
"Massive retaliation" is indeed a 'pretty strong term', to put it MILDLY and I've consulted with nuclear deterrence theory George E. Lowe, [link to Buzzflash.com interview with Lowe] who wrote the 1964 book "The Age of Deterrence" ( Little, Brown) and has won awards for his writing on nuclear deterrence as well, about WHY "massive [nuclear] retaliation" is such a loaded term and WHY the "Meet The Press" folks may have been taken aback by Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" idea.
As Lowe described it, Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" idea seems to have taken her adviser former NATO commander General Wes Clark, who as NATO head was in charge of a "nuclear umbrella" himself - it seemed to make Clark's head spin. He appeared blindsided by Clinton's talk of a US "nuclear umbrella" over Asia and George Lowe, who has studied nuclear deterrence for decades and also has written a book and award-winning articles on the subject, was quite taken aback.
NeoCons say such things, and there's a straight line, in such thinking, back to Herman Kahn, Curtis LeMay, and the SAC / RAND lunatics of the 1950's who envisioned fighting and WINNING "limited nuclear war".
Lowe, working as witnessed in the our close brush, 1960-1965, with nuclear incineration during those days, says his Naval "cabal" (O5D) group helped put the "Military Industrial Complex" warning in Ike's Farewell Address speech, says he worked with McCain's father in the Pentagon, and as a speechwriter in the Reagan Administration, thinks Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" idea is INSANE on the same order of madness.
The idea of a US "nuclear umbrella" is positively Strangelovian, even semantically. "Nuclear umbrella" ? What does that amount to ? Fallout settling to Earth during a nuclear winter ?
That would be an "umbrella" of sorts but not an especially pleasant one, and there are lots of wonkish reasons why Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" concept is insane but her apparent intention of flexing US nuclear throw-weight doesn't, as George Lowe told me, doesn't intellectually "track".
******
The following is the bulk of my April 20th post.
"Two days ago I was talking with George E. Lowe, and he told me he was watching TV recently and nearly fell off his chair when he saw former NATO Commander General Wes Clark fumbling, trying to field a question about Hillary Clinton's proposed "nuclear umbrella" over Western Asia Israel and a number of other countries in the Middle East.
"Who the HELL is she TALKING to ?", Lowe rhetorically asked me. "It's GOT to be that fellow Doug Coe."
As Lowe described it, Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" idea seems to have taken her adviser former NATO commander General Wes Clark, who as NATO head was in charge of a "nuclear umbrella" himself - it seemed to make Clark's head spin. He appeared blindsided by Clinton's talk of a US "nuclear umbrella" over Asia and George Lowe, who has studied nuclear deterrence for decades and also has written a book and award-winning articles on the subject, was quite taken aback.
NeoCons say such things, and there's a straight line, in such thinking, back to Herman Kahn, Curtis LeMay, and the SAC / RAND lunatics of the 1950's who envisioned fighting and WINNING "limited nuclear war".
Lowe, working as witnessed in the our close brush, 1960-1965, with nuclear incineration during those days, says his Naval "cabal" (O5D)
group helped put the "Military Industrial Complex" warning in Ike's Farewell Address speech, says he worked with McCain's father in the Pentagon, and as a speechwriter in the Reagan Administration, thinks Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" idea is INSANE on the same order of madness.
The idea of a US "nuclear umbrella" is positively Strangelovian, even semantically. "Nuclear umbrella" ? What does that amount to ? Fallout settling to Earth during a nuclear winter ?
That would be an "umbrella" of sorts but not an especially pleasant one, and there are lots of wonkish reasons why Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" concept is insane but her apparent intention of flexing US nuclear throw-weight doesn't, as George Lowe told me, doesn't intleectually "track".
"Who the HELL is she talking to ? Whose IDEAS are these", Lowe asked me, rhetorically, "Clark didn't seem to know anything about this, he was blindsided. So where did these crazy, dangerous ideas come from ? Look, I've been in this business for fifty years, I know nuclear deterrence. She had to have been talking to somebody like Doug Coe or his elite inner circle."
It was conjecture, and George Lowe would be the first to admit that, but he would also stick to his call pegging Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" as a fast track to global nuclear war. Nuclear weapons can't be used as "umbrellas". That's nuts, an idea one would have expected from SAC head General Curtis LeMay, parodied in Dr.Strangelove. Today, one would expect it from a neocon.. if she talks like a NeoCon, if she cavorts with NeoCon, if she makes the same sort of mistakes "NeoCon".
So what, exactly, did Hillary Clinton propose ?
Below is the relevant part of the transcript from the April 16, 2008 Philadelphia Democratic Party candidates' debate:
"
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.
And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.
Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.
And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.
And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.
Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring."
So last night George E. Lowe sent me this written response, to Clinton's "NUCLEAR UMBRELLA" idea.
[FORMATTING NOTE : Lowe uses lots of all-caps because, as he tells me, that's how it's done in the White House, by speechwriters - for the president, cabinet member, etc. The point is to show the person giving the speech what to emphasize. It's a method speechwriters use to spoon-feed the material. Lowe tells me he wrote hundreds of speeches while working under Former Secretary of Education Bell, during the Reagan Administrations]
[4-18-08] CLINTON , THE NUCLEAR UMBRELLA & The NEO-CONS
Like The Rodmans [& Hillary] I’m from Scranton & "was raised on pinochle and the American dream. "—when Scranton had a diverse population of 130,000 hard-working souls & Scranton was the third-largest city in Pennsylvania. Today Scranton boasts about 70,000 older citizens & the railroads/hard coal mines/textile mills are long gone with most of the young folks seeking jobs & opportunities elsewhere.
However, I find myself pleased, nearing 80, that Scranton is suddenly a topic of high political concern/drama, not just a joke left over from the old Lackawanna Avenue Vaudeville Days of my youth. The question of the hour—after Hillary’s "strange"/odd/scary "Nuclear Umbrella over Western Asia" remarks in the skewed ABC NEWS Debate with Obama last Wednesday evening in Philly—ought to be. Is Hillary : A "Neo-Con", A Liberal Utopian, channelling Senator "Scoop" Jackson & Charles-- "Benign AmeriKan Empire"/"Holocaust Doctrine"-- Krauthammer ? Or is Hillary reflecting her stealth "Pastor" Doug- "The Family"- Coe ‘s ideas of "Christian World DOMINION/DOMINATION", absorbed in Coe’s Top Secret "Elitist Cell"@ The Cedars in Arlington, VA ?
Whatever the roots/source of Hillary’s bizzaro ideas/MEMES-- The "NUCLEAR UMBRELLA FOR WESTERN ASIA" trotted out in Wednesday’s Debate-- they were not extemporaneous , but were prepared by her speech writers— based on a MEMO BY SOMEBODY. Curious minds want to know exactly who wrote & who vetted that "NUKE UMBRELLA MEMO" & related talking points? From General Wesley Clark’s response on TV—last Thursday it is evident that General Clark- my choice, for what it’s worth as VEEP on either Obama or Clinton’s ticket-- was surprised at Clinton’s "NUKE UMBRELLA " PROPOSAL. Let’s look at Hillary’s SPECIFIC DEBATE REMARKS & SEE IF WE CAN do some DNA-idea analysis about the proper parentage of Hillary’s NEW NUKE UMBRELLA FOR WESTERN ASIA.
Governor Al Smith, the victim of vicious anti-Catholic smears/fears by The White Southern Bible-Belters in the election of 1928, always suggested that we ought to "look at the record."
Here is part of Hillary’s record & what she said about the "Nuclear Umbrella"/ Nuclear Deterrence/Grand Strategy/Nuclear Weapons & by implications PRE-EMPTIVE/PREVENTIVE WAR vs. Iran during the 16 April Debate.
A. HILLARY: "Well , in fact George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel"[See Charles Krauthammer"Uncrowned King of the Neo-Con’s "Holocaust Doctrine" & Joe Klein’s expose, "SWAMPLAND", 11/04/2008 & his comment:"In any case , this notion of publically announcing that we would only protect Israel has the effect of reinforcing the regional view that we’re only interested in two things: oil and Israel. Bad move."]
B. GEL [George E. Lowe]: The Deterrence Concept of the " umbrella of deterrence" has its roots in the NATO Alliance—1949—1991. The key idea was that the superior US NUCLEAR DETERRENT [A-BOMBS & LONG RANGE HEAVY BOMBERS OF THE STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND(SAC)] would be both the "Sword & Shield" to protect our NATO ALLIES from Soviet nuclear weapons & massive ground attacks by Soviet tanks. An attack on one of our NATO ALLIES was an attack on all. Later in the 1950s when the USSR developed A & H Bombs & the Heavy Bombers to deliver them on the cities of our European Allies, we pledged that an attack on Paris or London would be the same as an attack on New York or Chicago. In other words our NATO NUCLEAR UMBRELLA covered ALL THE NORTH ATLANTIC NATIONS OF NATO.
A. HILLARY: "You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say ‘Well don’t acquire weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will produce a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and foreswear their own nuclear weapons."
2 B. GEL: I could hardly believe my big ears when I heard Hillary blithely mention "MASSIVE RETALIATION" Why? Because it seemed that Hillary was channelling the very Republican, Presbyterian priest, SECSTATE John Foster Dulles & his buddy Admiral Radford , Chairman of the JCS. This very/very controversial doctrine of Massive Retaliation was associated with the "New Look" of IKE’s & the Dulles/Radford related DOCTRINE OF NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP. The Ike Adm. in 1953-54 made the key decision to fight no more land wars in Asia[Marines & Army troopers or Navy’s Carriers would no longer be needed]. Instead America would rely on the threat to use our superior nuclear weapons against the yellow Asian hordes. If they refused to back down, our superior NUKE WEAPONS— after all simply just big "conventional weapons"-- would vaporize the Yellow Peril, And the superior AIR-ATOMIC Power of SAC’s B-47s/B-52s, would destroy by PREVENTIVE WAR the Red SOVIETS IN Europe. Thus "Massive Retaliation"—would bring TOTAL VICTORY home to America once more-no more Koreas & Limited Wars. Massive Retaliation died at Dien Bien Phu when Ike refused to use nukes to save the doomed French forces there.[Spring 1954] Likewise in Europe the US did not intervene in the Berlin uprising of 1953 or in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The Soviet Sputnik of October 1957, ended any hope of a PREVENTIVE WAR.
Ike in the mid-50s had warned Dulles/Radford & their ideological allies to stop using the threat of PREVENTIVE WAR—a function of US AIR-ATOMIC Superiority[1945-1955] & was implicit in their Doctrine of MASSIVE RETALIATION.
So what did the Air Force Association & "Defence Intellectuals do?—THEY CREATED THE DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTIVE WAR[more later on] which President George W. Bush made official US POLICY in September 2002. THIS BUSH DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTION—is beloved by the NEO-CONS –Iraq War[2003-2008] plus the justification for the impending attacks on Iran.[More later for the vital difference between PREVENTIVE & PRE-EMPTIVE WAR—re IRAQ & IRAN & Hillary’s key votes in 2002[Bush’s authority to attack Iraq & in 2008 for Kyl/Lieberman—a cover for Bush’s future attacks on Iran .]
A. HILLARY: "And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear power.. . . "Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using these efforts to intimidate the region & to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon & elsewhere."
3 B. GEL: Hillary is ignoring the recent NIE[like McCain is also doing]—which said that IRAN stopped the specific development of NUCLEAR WEAPONS qua nuclear weapons in 2003 & wouldn’t have an IRANIAN BOMB for 5-10 years. This unexpected NIE conclusion temporarily spiked the Bush-NEO-CON rush to an attack Iran earlier this year. The Neo-CONS were furious that they no longer had a nuclear casus belli, so they emphasized Iranian- supplied SUPER IED[Copper –shaped charges] to be their new casus belli. Hillary supported this position when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Bill. Hillary & her spokesmen defended that vote for PREVENTIVE WAR, by claiming that her vote was "Not to be construed as a vote for pre-emptive war." But, wasn’t it for a future WAR like her 2002 vote for the Iraq War?
Now is the time to once & for all to stop the Bush-NEO-CON conflating the DOCTRINE OF PREVENTIVE WAR with the DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTIVE WAR .
A .PREVENTIVE WAR: THE US ATTACKS A COUNTY/NATION BEFORE that nation actually has deliverable nuclear weapons. Thus the US PREVENTS that nation from developing NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Therefore, Bush ‘s attack on Iraq, 19 March 2003 was really a PREVENTIVE WAR to prevent Iraq from developing WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION[primarily NUKES] in the future. However The Bush Adm. & Media allies sold the Iraq WAR of 2003 as a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR, to pre-empt/stop Saddam from using his NON-EXISTENT WMDS vs. the US or its Allies. Thus, Deputy DEFENCE SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ & HIS CABAL created a BOGUS WMD CAPABILITY FOR SADDAM so BUSH could claim he was waging a PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK—much easier to sell to the American people than a real/true PREVENTIVE ATTACK sometime in the future.
Hillary, did not read the slanted NIE of Oct. 2002 & voted for a PREVENTIVE WAR masquerading as a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR.
B. PRE-EMPTIVE WAR. When Hillary voted to authorize Bush to attack Iran[Kyl-LIEBERMAN] she claims it ought not to have been "Construed as a vote for preemptive war". Well, Hillary is correct—Her vote was not for" a vote for pre-emptive war." BUT it was a vote for a PREVENTIVE WAR—to prevent Iran from getting NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE FUTURE.
So what is PRE-EMPTIVE WAR? The authors of PRE-EMPTIVE War in the mid-50s, after Ike told them to stop using PREVENTIVE WAR, based their new doctrine on GARY COOPER HIGH NOON & THE OLD WEST. The PRE-EMPTIVE Nuclear GladiatorsNuclear Warriors, would not STRIKE FIRST AS IN A PREVENTIVE WAR. No, they would simply draw faster & shoot straighter—thanks to superior American Technology—than our Communist enemies. The idea was to draw faster & catch the Soviets Great Nuclear Deterrent on their Bomber bases or in their Missile silos. However, by the mid-1960s a sufficient part of the USA/USSR’s GREAT DETERRENT was hidden under the oceans—hence invulnerable to a PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK—and thereby ending all realistic hopes of WINNING A THERMONUCLEAR WW III by a PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK. Yet in 2002 president bush signed off on a document that made the doctrine of Pre-EMPTION—an aggressive US FIRST STRIKE—as national policy.
What are we to make of Hillary’s :"UMBRELLA OF DETERRENCE" over Western Asia? What I find remarkable & outrageous is that Hillary—or her ‘SOURCE" has borrowed Ideas for this new MEME of hers from many US PRESIDENTS, BOTH REPUBLICAN & DEMOCRATIC:
HARRY TRUMAN—THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE [1948]—US assumes British & French roles in the Eastern MED.[Hillary puts her NUKE UMBRELLA OVER ALL OF WESTERN ASIA!]
GENERAL EISENHOWER/DULLES/RADFORD—MASSIVE RETALIATION[1954]--& Hillary promises, "massive retaliation" in the 16 April 2008 Debate]
IKE takes over Britain/France’s traditional role "East of Suez’’ in Western Asia.[1956]—Hillary expands America’s security protection to all of Western Asia—to "prevent" the spread of nuclear weapons.
GEORGE W. BUSH’s CONFLATING OF PRE-EMPTIVE & PREVENTIVE WAR, by Hillary’s votes in 2002[Iraq] & 2008[Iran]
TRUMAN & IKE’S NATO NUCLEAR UMBRELLA[1949] is to replicated in Western Asia by "President" Clinton!
One of the Reaganauts favorite books in 1981-88 was U. of Chicago ‘s Dean Weaver’s "Ideas Have Consequences"—One result was Reagan’s STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE[SDI-STAR WARS]—the greatest "boon-doom boggle" in history. Does Hillary & her secret advisers hope that her "UMBRELLA OF DETERRENCE FOR WESTERN ASIA" turns into a similar, powerful, infectious MEME that will reinforce America’s Imperial Dreams & that of our NEO-THEO CONS for control of the oil-rich Western & Central Asia? Curious minds want to know the source of this MEME—followed by a GREAT DEBATE over this dangerous extension of an new American Security Guarantee over one of the most complex & unstable regions of Asia. [P.S. The ISRAELI GREAT NUCLEAR DETERRENT IS INVULNERABLE & MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO DETER IRAN. Israel doesn’t need an American Nuclear Umbrella—either Hillary’s or Krauthammer’s version! ] [GOLEM3]
******
VIDEO below : Dr. StrangeRedPhone
Data Point: Bill Clinton says Hillary Clinton and John McCain are "very close" (see video) and the two could be seen sitting together, last year, at The Family's National Prayer Breakfast. Libertarian Matt Welch, who has a new book out on McCain, says John McCain is an uber-NeoCon.
BELOW: "John McCain;s Father Rolls Over in the Grave"
The Boston Globe, yesterday Sunday April 27, 2008, dropped the bomb :
"
