Those who stood with courage included Barack Obama, but not Hillary Rodham Clinton. He risked his upcoming US Senate career. She risked nothing for herself, but everything for America. She risked our collective soul.
This was and is the issue of our time. There is no condoning it, no "do-overs," no pretending that Hillary "had to" (vote for the war) because she had to look tough on defense. One shouldn't use such an outrageous reason to vote for an immoral war authorization.
A smart woman such as Hillary Rodham Clinton knew the evidence. A woman who aspired to be president knew the evidence. Yet she pretends otherwise. She won't apologize or admit any wrong on her part, any bad judgment. But it was and is the worst of all failures, going to war not just by mistake, but by complicity.
A candidate who waits for Obama to vote on war funding or timetables and then votes herself, follows, but does not lead. A candidate who does not support a nuclear freeze, while Obama does, follows, not leads. This is the moral choice of our time.
It is also mirror reflection time. We as a people are defined by how we treat other people and nations. Do we treat them as if they are dispensable, the way some merely step over the bodies of the dead in Iraq? Do they not cry in the night for their sins? Do they not see what they did?
And what about the rest of us?
Most folks posting here opposed the war. That opposition prompted us to support 2004 primary candidates who opposed the war. At least we tried. We are not perfect, far from it. We have our own ghosts. (More on that in a moment.)
But what do the condoners and enablers see in the quiet recesses of their minds, hearts, and souls? Condoning Bush's actions is immoral. Condoning his enablers, including Hillary Clinton, is wrong.
We need someone who opposed this war, not one who supported it out of convenience or expediency. Not one who was too lazy to walk across the street to see the "evidence" that was so shaky a staffer could have debunked. Only six members of Congress did so. And that's appalling, and subject for another blog story.
It's too important to construe this election as Democrats needing a yes-woman to stand up to the warmonger McCain. That's not leadership. And it's a false choice for it's not a choice between warring against the wrong country or suffering from terrorism. And those who argue as much are not only soulless, but also responsible for making us less safe. Will the strongest country in the world stand strongly for what is right and against what is not? It's up to us now.
When the Clintonistas tell us women we should vote our gender, instead of our conscience, we have to look ourselves in the mirror and say to ourselves, "this must stop, and it stops with me and my vote." We cannot continue wars based on lies against countries which didn't or don't threaten us. We have no high ground if we condone Hillary's blank check to Bush over a second country, Iran. If we end the war in Iraq, much of the pressure over Iran will diminish. The refugee problem from the Iraq war currently threatens them. We have no high ground if we condone more refugees in Iraq. Already there are four million Iraqi refugees (two million internal and 2 million external). We cannot morally contribute to more deaths, already 4,000 of our own and nearly 1 million Iraqis, mostly civilians.
The time for real nuclear non-proliferation is now and it will only occur with Barack Obama as president. The beginning of the end of Bushisms' wost legacy--war without end-- comes now with my vote. The beginning of the end of permanent bases in Iraq comes now. Wondering each day whether our leaders will pick a fight with another country can end with my vote.
Hillary is not Bill, but what evidence do we have that she won't knee-jerk us into war. The previous Clinton administration actually bombed more countries than any president in US history. "A president must have his war(s)," some Clinton supporters said back then. I am ashamed that I stood quietly then. By my passivity, I condoned. No more. I was wrong.
A new day can end the politics and leadership of destruction. A new day begins with our vote and the repudiation of candidates who let this happen, haven't made us more safe (as if such a venture ever could), and never will. It's my vote. I own it. What kind of a country we are begins with me and each one of us. What do we hold dear? What kind of a nation should we be? I don't really believe Americans want to be the kind of country that views the lives of innocent people so cavalierly. I think they are better than that.
And so we vote. It's more than a change we seek. With positive tranformational leadership, we'll become our best selves once again. The buck stops here. [Barack Obama for President: A Tranformational Leader for a Change.]-
NOT READY * NOT NOW
Council on Foreign Relations
The Candidates and Nuclear Nonproliferation
January 16, 2008Hillary Clinton Sen. Clinton (D-NY) wrote in a November 2007 Foreign Affairs essay that she will take "dramatic steps" to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to boost support for international coalitions needed to "address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground." Clinton says she will negotiate a U.S.-Russian treaty to "substantially and verifiably" reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to "send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world." She also pledged to urge the Senate to approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2009, which she says would "enhance the United States' credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing." Clinton says she will support "efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty," and advocates the establishment of an international fuel bank guaranteeing "secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices." She also says she opposes building a new generation of nuclear weapons.
Clinton criticized (PDF) President Bush's refusal for much of his administration to hold direct talks on nuclear issues with Iran and North Korea. She also opposed the Bush administration's initial proposals to cut funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program. In 2005, Clinton cosponsored the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act.
In August 2007, Clinton cosponsored the Nuclear Policy and Posture Review Act, which would have required the president to conduct a review of U.S. nuclear policy to reinforce a U.S. strategy of nuclear deterrence. That bill never reached a vote.
Barack Obama
Sen. Obama (D-IL) has said the United States should seek "a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." But he said in an October 2007 speech he does not believe the United States should pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament. "As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent," he said. If elected, he says he will seek "a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons," as well as an expansion of the U.S.-Russian intermediate-range missile ban. He also says he will "strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty so that nations that don't comply will automatically face strong international sanctions."Obama says if elected he will make ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty a priority. Though he says the United States should "lead the international effort to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons around the world," he has stopped short of opposing the building of a new Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). Instead, he said he is against (PDF) a "premature" decision to build an RRW .
In August 2005, Obama traveled with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) to nuclear and biological weapons destruction facilities in the former Soviet Union, where they urged the destruction of conventional weapons stockpiles. With Lugar, Obama introduced the Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act, which passed as part of the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.
It appears that Barack Obama is not at all for our nuclear disarmament!
Not related to nuclear disarmament by related to nuclear energy and our safety:
Taylor Marsh's discussion of a 2/3/08 NY Times article which has revealed some disturbing actions on Obama's part:
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.""I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. ... ..
...Exelon, based in Illinois, giving "at least $227,000" to your U.S. Senate and presidential campaigns, you've got to take care of your big biz contributor, including taking the teeth out of legislation, making mandatory reporting voluntary instead. How very convenient for Exelon. Frank M. Clark, executive vice president to Exelon, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director there, are among his largest fund-raisers, according to the Times. John W. Rowe, also an Obama contributor, is chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is -- get ready for it -- the nuclear power industry's lobbying group.
But the real test is whether one threatens to use them (nuclear weapons). Hillary tacitly does. Even against countries not threatening us, such as Pakistan and Iran. Along with Hillary's vote to allow Bush to label Iran's army a terrorist organization goes the knowledge that the administration is, as we speak, drawing up plans for a nuclear attack against Iran. Hillary's refusing to take them off the table, against and ally, and a different country not attacking us, shows what she'll really do. So the rest is empty rhetoric. Using nuclear weapons as a unprovoked first-strike is indefensible.
My main point was that Barack Obama is far less likely to react in the old hyper-militarist way. This is not an anti-military statement. Hyper-militarism is something different. There is a huge difference between hyper-militarism (too ready to pounce, always going for overkill with large armaments and big war, when it isn't necessary) and the military needed to defend the homeland. And we as a country need to face up to that.
How people vote is their right and their privilege at the same time. But each of us owes it to each other to reflect on it seriously, not enabling those who would go too far.
My point is that no one who enabled this war or continues to shy away from what needs to be said, and done on the subject, can truly take the country to the moral high ground. How on earth can she hope to take us to any high ground when she is still enabling Bush, including, unbelievably, on Iran. It's as as if she has learned nothing at all.
You may dislike that I have said it. But I firmly believe it. And it would be hard to argue that, where foreign policy or the war in Iraq specifically is concerned, that Hillary Clinton has the high ground.
Your a great blogger, Dianne. We'll just have to agree to differ.