Hillary cackles. People die.

While he hadn’t joined the Libertarian Party at this time, here’s recent footage of Mike Gravel:

33 Responses to “Hillary cackles. People die.”

  1. Mike Theodore Says:

    Wow, haven’t seen a Gravel video in a while on here. Or ever….
    Thanks. It was his debate performances that made me a Gravel supporter. Way before he joined the LP, which I was a part of.

  2. disinter Says:

    “This November will be, if the neocons get their way, a demonstration of the neocon idea of democracy: an all-neocon election that the neocons cannot lose. Hillary Strangelove will face John McStrangelove, a left-fascist against a right-fascist, both of them committed to perpetual war in the Middle East, the police and national security state, and global empire.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020761.html

  3. Sivarticus Says:

    My biggest fear is that a lot of the higher caliber third party candidates are holding back because of Obama and his attraction to independents and the anti-war crowd. What if it does end up being McCain vs. Hillary?? Many will have missed a serious chance to make great inroads into our political system. Not to mention providing the rest of us a credible alternative. I’m hoping Ron Paul holds out some unlikely scenario where he may yet go third party (like a Hillary vs. McCain race with a collapsing economy). He might still be able to do it using other party ballot lines after the GOP Convention. I would like to imagine Baldwin and Barr or Ruwart from the CP and LP would step aside (maybe into the VP slot) in the event of a Ron Paul campaign beyond the GOP.

  4. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Disinter and Siv, those are some valid points. Hillary/McCain would be the worst presidential election choice in history. I wish that Hillary would take McCain as her running mate, and Obama could run with Ron Paul as his running mate. To complete the cycle, Romney or Huckabee would run with Gravel as their running mate. Finally, Alan Keyes could run with the fascist/stalinist criminal Ralph Nader as his running mate, and Baldwin would run with Brian Moore as his running mate. This would truly be a fantastic election, and have an outcome that lots of people could be satisfied with.

    As for stopping Hillary, this is why all third party people must stop complaining about Obama. If you feel that Hillary is the choice of the conspirators, put all your efforts into making sure that the Obama Revolution is not halted.

  5. Peter M. Says:

    Catholic Trotskyist, you really need to stop mixing crack in with your LSD-soaked marijuana. It’d probably do you some good.

    Anyway, I’ve always found Gravel to be an interesting character, and probably one of the only self-described libertarians I would vote for in the absence of any socialist candidates. Then again, the fact that probably gives credence to when a few fellow posters on TPW say that he’s actually not a libertarian.

  6. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    The more I learn about Mike Gravel, the better I like him.

    Right now, Gravel, Kubby, Ruwart, and Phillies all seem like decent LP presidential candidates to me. I’d be happy with any of them.

    Not all of them are purists, but they’re good on the war and civil liberties. They take decent positions—and I believe they mean what they say. I trust their integrity.

    I suppose Barr is sincere in what he says, but much of what he says I don’t like. And I don’t trust Root or Smith.

  7. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Not all of them are purists, but they’re good on the war and civil liberties. They take decent positions—and I believe they mean what they say. I trust their integrity.

    I found Gravel charming. Until, that is, I asked him about nuclear disarmament. He said he’d like to get rid of the Army’s nukes, and I was happy to hear that. Then he started talking about how he favored putting nukes in subs and cruising around the world’s oceans brandishing these penis-substitutes (my words, of course) at other countries.

    Right. Threaten mass slaughter of innocents to keep the peace. Because everyone knows how concerned dictators are about the safety of their citizens. NUTS.

    He’s a madman. A charming madman, but mad nonetheless. Probably started off as a decent fellow, but enough time in the Senate can warp anyone, I suppose.

  8. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Perhaps Gravel is more of an incrementalist?

    Perhaps he’s opposed to unilateral nuclear disarmament, but would support multilateral nuclear disarmament?

    That is, he might support the U.S. disarming its nukes, provided that the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan (have I left any out?) simultaneously disarm?

  9. John Anderson Says:

    Wait, Susan, can you please provide a link to that interview? Because almost every time I hear him speak, he mentions how one Trident nuclear sub could hold the whole world hostage, and that we need to disarm the subs as well. Also, let’s not forget that he had a huge part in ending the Cannikan nuclear tests…seems odd to me that he would say that.

  10. Mike Theodore Says:

    Ya, Susan. That kind of threw me off. Whenever he talks about those damned Trident’s, it gets all shuddery. He hates the things. He hates the nukes. I think you might be a little off there. Please provide a link.

  11. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Perhaps Gravel is more of an incrementalist?

    Perhaps he’s opposed to unilateral nuclear disarmament, but would support multilateral nuclear disarmament?

    I don’t know, but I wouldn’t call a position that equates to “I’ll agree to stop threatening innocents when everyone else agrees to stop threatening innocents” incrementalist.

    The incrementalist position on nuclear disarmament is get rid of some now, and the rest later. It has – in my opinion – nothing to do with what other nations choose to do.

  12. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Wait, Susan, can you please provide a link to that interview?

    Nope; it was a hallway conversation, not an interview.

    Because almost every time I hear him speak, he mentions how one Trident nuclear sub could hold the whole world hostage, and that we need to disarm the subs as well.

    Thanks. I will look into his formal statements to make sure I didn’t misunderstand what he was saying.

    Ah, some checking gets me this:

    http://www.oilempire.us/gravel.html

    “The decision to wage preemptive war in Iraq raises the specter of a much deeper problem facing the global community––nuclear proliferation. On this issue, we should first look at ourselves. The U.S. has more deliverable nuclear devices than the rest of the world combined. Just one Trident nuclear submarine can hold the entire world hostage. Yet we continue to build more nuclear devices. Who in the world are we prepared to nuke?”

    I’m not really seeing a call for abandoning nukes there, just reducing the numbers.

    From my conversation with him, I think he said he thought the Hiroshima and Nagasaki decisions were justified, but I am not perfectly confident I remember right. Someone should ask him.

  13. Jon Says:

    Gravel would keep the Trident submarines. He’d stationed them exclusively in the Atlantic and Pacific because their range is 5000 – 7000 miles and sufficient for any global target.

    With respect to disarmament, Gravel would unilaterally disarm half our nuclear stockpile. We’d still have 5000 nukes, scary to imagine.

    SUSAN - what on earth are you talking about? The Trident submarines already exist. Gravel isn’t for adding nukes; they’ve always been there and he would limit them to the submarines. He wouldn’t spend hundreds of billions in Poland for new ABMs, which Hillary/Obama/McCain are all cool with. He is no madman; you simply misinterpreted or misheard Gravel on this issue.

    Here’s a cute anecdote. Gravel was the first elected American official to visit the Peace Memorial in Hiroshima… 23 years after the fact. So if that’s what madmen do, heaven help us all.

    Questions?

    jon@gravel2008.us

  14. Susan Hogarth Says:

    AH-HA. Here it is:

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/14818/mike_gravels_speech_on_foreign_policy.html

    Recently, two former Secretaries of Defense suggested that we should stock our Trident submarines with conventional missile warheads for half their payload. Currently the payload is 100% nuclear. Just one Trident submarine could hold the world hostage. Let me repeat that: just one Trident submarine could hold the world hostage. We have nine of them on duty, roaming the oceans of the world. Additionally, the Bush Administration is building new, lower-yield nukes for conventional use that could spur a new arms race.

    If we are to reverse the direction of nuclear proliferation, we must do something dramatic on our own, yet something that does not threaten our national security. I propose we cut the number of our nuclear devices from the more than 10,000 we have to a couple hundred. Such a unilateral action would establish the United States’ credibility to then ask other nations, including our so-called “enemies,” who would then feel less threatened, to join our efforts in ridding the world of unneeded and dangerous nukes.

    So I guess he wants to keep just enough nukes – oh, and some extra – to be able to “hold the world hostage.”

    And he was considered a peace candidate?

  15. Jon Says:

    Again, Susan, that’s incorrect.

    Gravel thinks the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the height of immorality and venality. I.e., unnecessary.

    He’s also accurately pointed out that the 5 members of the UN Security Council are the greatest violators of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I don’t know any politician whose career accomplishments and rhetoric are more anti-nuclear than Gravel’s.

    Please stop misquoting Senator Gravel. I’m happy to clarify any of your questions or concerns.

    jon@gravel2008.us

  16. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Gravel isn’t for adding nukes; they’ve always been there and he would limit them to the submarines.

    Where they are conveniently available to … what were the words? Oh, yes “hold the world hostage”.

    Look, I admire his calls for nuke reduction. But why is he afraid to call for nuke disarmament? Any use of nuclear weapons is almost guaranteed to kill innocents.

  17. Jon Says:

    What part of “unilaterally disarm 5000 nukes” do you not understand?

    As for the rest of the disarmament, your chosen quote answers itself:

    “Such a unilateral action would establish the United States’ credibility to then ask other nations, including our so-called “enemies,” who would then feel less threatened, to join our efforts in ridding the world of unneeded and dangerous nukes.”

    So yes, Gravel IS a peace candidate, the definitive peace candidate because he will dismantle the Military-Industrial-Complex.

  18. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Thanks for the correction. Why does he want to waste money cruising more of these dangerous toys around the waters of the world? What right does he think the US government has to cruise the oceans with weapons designed to and capable of “hold[ing] the world hostage”?

  19. Susan Hogarth Says:

    What part of “unilaterally disarm 5000 nukes” do you not understand?

    I don’t understand how that is unilateral nuclear disarmament. Perhaps you can explain how ‘reduction in nuclear arms’ equates to ‘nuclear disarmament’.

    Don’t be disingenuous.

  20. Jon Says:

    Gravel is being very matter-of-fact with respect to that statement. It is what it is. Any country with a nuke can “hold the world hostage.” This is not a desire or intention of Gravel’s—when you hear these comment in context of his rhetoric, you’d understand how much that very thought sickens him. Until there is total nuclear disarmament, which Gravel wholly advocates for the future of civilization, this is an unfortunate reality.

    And, considering he wants to reduce our military budget by 65% and have a stronger, more efficient defense, where exactly is the supposed waste of money?

    You do realize we spend more on defense than the rest of the world put together, and only Gravel talks about this or the hubristic notion of American Imperialism that dictates our current foreign policy?

    You are completely misinterpreting… Gravel does not think the US government has that right, nor does any other country.

  21. Jon Says:

    “Disingenuous” ?

    Coming from someone who totally misinterpreted what Gravel is getting at, that’s pretty crass. Whatever.

    Maybe you’re being confused by my grammatical error. Unilateral should be used as an adverb, not an adjective.

    Gravel would “unilaterally disarm half our nuclear stockpile.”

    Happy now?

  22. Susan Hogarth Says:

    ...only Gravel talks about this or the hubristic notion of American Imperialism that dictates our current foreign policy…

    If Mr Gravel weren’t so new to the LP (and I have no idea what your political affiliation is), he’d probably realize this isn’t true. But I guess that’s just another indication that Gravel (or at least you) think that Libertarians never considered this amazing notion that the US government was imperialistic before Gravel descended to teach the natives. Glad we have Mr. Gravel to teach us these important things.

    Gravel does not think the US government has that right, nor does any other country.

    So why does he still want to keep nukes on Trident subs?

  23. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Gravel would “unilaterally disarm half our nuclear stockpile.”

    Happy now?

    It’s a start. Why only half? What does he plan to do with the other half? Sit on it ‘till it hatches?

  24. Jon Says:

    If you want to snap your fingers and have zero national defense, and magically turn all the swords in plowshares overnight, be my guest. But then I bite my tongue and recognize the need to be moderately realistic.

    And hey, I know Libertarians feel the same way as Gravel with respect to US Imperialism. But I also know he’s got government experience at the highest level of any candidate, is a military veteran, and went head-to-head with the Nixon Administration during Vietnam.

    I’d say that’s a slightly deeper level of intimacy with these issues. I could be wrong, but I know I’m not.

  25. Susan Hogarth Says:

    If you want to snap your fingers and have zero national defense, and magically turn all the swords in plowshares overnight, be my guest. But then I bite my tongue and recognize the need to be moderately realistic.

    blink

    Who said anything about ‘zero national defense’? Could you possibly be suggesting that you consider nuclear missiles defensive weapons? Is that Mr. Gravel’s position as well?

  26. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Back to the video…I think it is a very good soundbite that’ll make an extremely effective tv commercial this fall.

    PEACE
    Steve

  27. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Susan: “Why only half? What does he plan to do with the other half? Sit on it ‘till it hatches?”

    He’d hold onto the other half to have something to “trade” with the other nuclear nations. Give them an incentive to go non-nuclear.

    I.e., “We’ll give up all our nukes, if you all give up all your nukes.”

    I’m antiwar, but even I think we should hold onto some nukes if other nations have them.

    I like the Swiss model. They’re well armed, yet they don’t cause wars. We should likewise be well armed, yet pursue a peaceful, neutralist foreign policy.

    (Yes, I know the Swiss don’t have nukes; but they got away with it for a complex of reasons, part of it being the “balance of power” among several nuclear nations.)

  28. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Thomas,

    I’ve not talked about disarming. But nukes – as well as landmines and other civilian targeting weapons – are in a special category. Having them in your national armory either means you are willing to use them on civilians or you like to waste money on storing expensive and bizarre artwork.

    For a government to have nuclear weapons, landmines, city-flattening bombs, or other WMDs or specifically civilian-targeting weapons is for that government to be saying “This government is willing to destroy civilians if the government under which those particular civilians live does not cooperate with us”. It is essentially trying to use innocents as hostages – a particularly crazed way to deal with dictators.

    Most Libertarians recognize this by rejecting the use of state-enforced food/goods embargoes for political purposes. I hope that others can extend this logic to recognizing that keeping nuclear weapons is as bad, or worse, a tactic for controlling dictators as economic embargoes.

  29. VTV Says:

    Umm…. what kind of nutjob believes we can actually completely disarm our nuclear capacity? Cut it down? Absolutely. But to completely disarm is suicide.

  30. Mike Theodore Says:

    Susan, I understand the reasoning that you see. Your thinking that if we have nukes, we’re willing to use them. Eliminating them completely without disarmament worldwide would be a dangerous opening. Gravel’s policy goes under the reasoning that we disarm half of our nukes, which would show the world we’re serious. Then begin complete disarmament.

  31. Ross Says:

    Susan – I didn’t read all of your comments, but I read about half of them.

    I think the point of Gravel wanting to keep half of our nuclear arsenal is the concept that a strong defense is the best way to gain peace. If everyone has the ability to destroy each other, what’s the real point of waging war? What’s the point of keeping these weapons, unless they’re being used exclusively to threaten?

    Now, I’m not saying that that is 100% correct or that Gravel agrees with it 100%, but I am saying that Gravel might agree to it to a certain extent, and that is why he is in favor of keeping at least some nuclear weapons.

    At least that’s how I interpreted it.

  32. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I think the point of Gravel wanting to keep half of our nuclear arsenal is the concept that a strong defense is the best way to gain peace.

    I get that. What I don’t get is how obliterating a city can be called ‘defense’.

  33. Ross Says:

    The main purpose of nuclear weapons, in this argument, is just having them and not using them. You keep yourself safe by having the ability to obliterate your neighbors if you need to, and your neighbors keep themselves safe by having the same ability. In theory, neither party will use the weapons because they’ll both be destroyed if they do.

    In WWII, it was a different scenario. No one else had nuclear weapons, and they were much less powerful.

Leave a Reply