Skip to main content

Today some fantastical ideas have come closer to reality. Ideas like a world without nuclear weapons; ideas like equality for all people.  Leftist ideas, our ideas and hopes.  

Back in the early 1980s, you could have found me handing out leaflets on the corner street of my small mid-western town calling for a nuclear freeze in the face of Ronald Reagan’s nuclear saber rattling. Or earlier, promoting the poster produced by the Mennonites that said, "It is a sin to build a nuclear weapon."  Being a child of the 1950s, I can even remember instructions about fallout shelters, as if that was going to help in the face of nuclear Armageddon.  The abolition of nuclear weapons has been for me a life-long dream.  

But one that has always been dismissed as utopian.  

So, you can imagine my delight to hear the debate this morning in the Senate on the New START treaty.  Now, the treaty itself, is just an incremental step in the right direction.  But Republican Senator Jeff Sessions put voice to its importance in this wonderfully perverse statement: (my transcription from C-SPAN2 beginning about 3:25 into the Senate’s deliberation).  

First, in calling for defeat of the treaty, he happily called it a "leftist vision":

Some say that a defeat for the treaty would harm the United States.  I think the entire world would see the Senate action as a resurgence of America’s historic policy of peace through strength and a rejection of a leftist vision of a world without nuclear weapons.  

But soon he was showing what seems to him to be a fantastical, even nightmarish vision of peace:

Thirdly, I would suggest that the treaty is promoted as a step toward a world free of nuclear weapons.  This is a fantastical idea that goes beyond insignificance:  it is dangerous.  Basing any policy, especially a nuclear policy on an idea as cockamamie as zero nuclear weapons in the world can only lead to confusion and uncertainty.  Confusion and uncertainty are the polar opposites of the necessary attributes of security and stability.  These are the essentials of good strategic policy – security and stability.  Thus the Obama policy creates a more dangerous world.  

This is, of course, the old debate:  where does real security lie?  But what Sessions had to say next is what was new.  Because with the Obama presidency, "the leftist vision of a world without nuclear weapons" has suddenly begun to be translated into policy.  This is the part that makes me want to stand up and dance.

Here is what Sessions went on to say:  

Some say that the President’s zero-nukes policy is just a distant vision, some vague wish, don’t worry.  The situation would be much better if that were so.  But it is not!

President Obama has made zero nuclear weapons a cornerstone of our defense policy.  It has, amazingly, already been made a centerpiece of our military policy, being advanced by concrete steps today.  Presidents, Commanders-in-Chiefs have the power to make such monumental changes in policy and this president is certainly doing so.

The change is seen most clearly in the critically important Nuclear Posture Review produced in April 2010 by the Defense Department.  This document is a formal document produced by the new Administration’s Defense Department.  The determination to pursue the zero nuclear weapons vision is seen throughout this Review..  Amazingly, there are thirty references in that document to a world without nuclear weapons.  

The NPR begins with an introductory letter. From Secretary of Defense Gates, the second sentence of which says this, "As the President said in Prague last year, a world without nuclear weapons will not be achieved quickly but we must begin to take concrete steps, today."  The executive summary further drives the issue home.  The first sentence in the executive summary recalls that President Obama in Prague highlighted the nuclear dangers, and said, quote, "The United States will seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."  

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the NPR is particularly ominous, and even chilling to me.  Posture Reviews are defense reviews and by their nature are bottom-up reports driven by threat assessments and  the requirements necessary to defend America.  These Reviews are, historically, objective analyses, from experts and not political reports.  The troubling line reads this:  "The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review outlines the Administrations approach to promoting the President’s agenda for reducing nuclear dangers and pursuing the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."  

This statement reveals the whole truth.  The NPR is the President’s policy,

Of course the whole idea that the Posture Review was just supposed to be a technical assessment of threats without presidential policy is fantasy.  I remember so well the Nuclear Policy Review of the first year of the Bush presidency.  The thing was riddled with language from the New American Century people, and – for the first time – promoted use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Isn’t it great to have a President who has used the power he has within the Executive branch and as Commander-in-Chief to set our nation’s nuclear policy officially to the abolition of nuclear weapons, and is taking small but concrete steps in the right direction?  

Isn’t it fine to hear a Republican like Jeff Session extolthe effectiveness of our Democratic President?  

And wasn’t it wonderful to see a nuclear arms treaty ratified on the same day that Obama signed the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell?  American values, leftist vision, actually becoming reality.  A fantastical achievement that goes beyond insignificance!  

Originally posted to benr on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:27 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sessions (R-KKK) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Im a frayed knot

    is an ass tool.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:29:13 PM PST

  •  My mentor was in favor of that dream... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peacestpete, Im a frayed knot

    specifically, the dream of a world with no threat of nuclear war.

    I understand his desire, and see why he had it.

    I did not completely share that dream, because I also see that a world with no nuclear weapons can easily be a world with numerous, brutal, bloody, conventional wars if one does not also address the causes and means of those.

    Good job for his moving forward. It will be good if our ongoing, brutal, bloody conventional wars stop, too.

    neca politicos omnes; deus nullos agnoscet.

    by khereva on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:04:29 PM PST

  •  Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grrr, Im a frayed knot

    ...knows neither what "peace" means nor what "strength" means.

    And he does not know that nuclear weapons are fundamentally unusable in war.  And that tactical nuclear weapons are the sort of insanity that risks radioactive exposure of our troops as much or more than any supposed enemy.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:18:53 PM PST

  •  Reagan was for global zero (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Im a frayed knot

    There's going to be some h bombs around for a while, it's just the Republican base in aerospace won't have thousands to maintain and charge for.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:40:37 PM PST

  •  Stupid is as stupid does (0+ / 0-)

    While there is tremendous depth and value to what you are implying in this diary, I can't take Jeff Sessions seriously for even a moment.

    And wasn’t it wonderful to see a nuclear arms treaty ratified on the same day that Obama signed the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell?

    Yeah! I've been in depression since November 2, due to the ineptitude of the Democratic efforts to win elections.

    But the President is way beyond intelligent. When do we admit that?

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    by MrMichaelMT on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:33:05 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site