Skip to main content

When you scratch deeply enough there is a little bit of Dubya in all three of them. . . .

I've already disavowed John McCain because he will not himself disavow the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

I'm watching the Democratic debate.

Senator Barack Obama has just said, relative to keeping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, "I will not take any options off the table." The context of the question, and Obama's former comments make it clear that part of what he's not taking off the table is the option of a first strike against a nuclear-armed Iran.

That's unacceptable. As I wrote before, if the United States survived the Cold War, when a Soviet first strike could have almost instantly immolated 100 million Americans, with a doctrine of no first strike, in the era where the absolute worst a terrorist group or rogue nation can do is represented either in September 11, a tactical nuke, or a dirty bomb, then there is NO moral justification for pre-emptive war today.

Massive retaliation, yes.

A first strike, no.

Senator Hillary Clinton danced around the issue more delicately, but made her own flat, Bush-like declaration, that she would consider an attack on Israel as an attack on the US, and that--moreover--she intended to expand the current American umbrella of deterrence, which sounds eerily like the neo-con fixation on the pell-mell expansion of NATO.

NATO was created as a military alliance specifically for the containment of Soviet aggression and the defense of western Europe from military invasion. It is a Cold War relic that has outlived its original mission, and is now legitimately seen by Russia as a strategic threat capable of re-igniting a new arms race. Do we really want to tell the world than an attack on Romania or Lativa will be considered an attack on American soil? That's what Hillary Clinton has essentially said.

Here's my unfortunate take-away from tonight's debate (aside from the fact that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapolis wasted the first half hour with really stupid questions):

Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has any intention of giving up the Bush Doctrine that reserves to the US a unilateral right of military interventionism, nor does either of them--any more than John McCain--have any intention of reducing the vast American empire of bases around the world.

In that sense, despite the failure of his presidency, George W. Bush has actually won the foreign policy debate by so changing the American dialogue on unilateral military action that even his worst critics have adopted his framing of the argument.

We have been dipped in shit.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...