Here Is a List of Extremists Who Agree With Chuck Hagel on Ending Nukes

Like pundits in search of an apocryphal Barack Obama skeet-shooting photograph, Capitol Hill conservatives have been scampering for a reason to oppose former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary. Last week, they deemed Hagel too conservative for Obama supporters: He’s an anti-Semite! He’s not cool with the gays! But now that those ad hominems have failed to inspire much chattering beyond the Beltway, Republicans are attacking Hagel from the right: He’s a dirty hippie peacenik who wants to steal our atomic security!

“Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero Movement, which seeks a world free of nuclear weapons,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wrote this week in a Washington Post op-ed titled “The wrong man to be defense secretary,” before rapping off a laundry list of global conflict hotspots that supposedly require deterrence from the United States’ 5,113 nuclear warheads. The Weekly Standard argued breathlessly that Hagel “co-authored a controversial report for Global Zero that urges deep cuts to America’s nuclear forces—by unilateral means, if necessary—on the path to global nuclear disarmament.” A nuclear missile lobbyist-turned-“senior fellow in National Security Affairs” warned in US News of “the detrimental effects that Global Zero would have on America’s strategic capabilities.”

Sounds menacing! Indeed, the right has made haste to turn Global Zero into the next Agenda 21, painting the organization as a conspiratorial cadre of globalizing socialist radicals. But as Joe Cirincione, director of the anti-nuclear Ploughshares Fund, points out today at The Atlantic, the conservatives’ “basic premisethat reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons is a wild, left-wing position—is unquestionably false.” In fact, total disarmament is the ultimate goal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treatywhich was ratified by the Senate and President Nixon in 1969.

But what of Inhofe’s alleged global conspiracy to weaken American security and sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids? Who are the wacko extremists supporting Global Zero’s anti-US, no-nukes mission? Here’s a partial list of signatories…conservative signatories:

  • George Shultz, former secretary of state: You’d think that no one could love nukes more than Ronald Reagan’s top diplomat. You’d think wrong. All these nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity,” he says in a Global Zero video. “The world would be much better off without them.”

  • Frank Carlucci, onetime national security advisor and former defense secretary under George H.W. Bush. This hawkish former CIA spook has signed on to Global Zero’s movement.
  • Robert MacFarlane, former Reagan national security advisor. That awkward moment when a major missile-defense advocate and convicted Iran-Contra conspirator signs a no-nukes pledge.
  • Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff. Once the lead solo pilot for the Thunderbirds, he became the Air Force’s top general under George H.W. Bush and later supported Bush’s son for president in 2000 (as well as Bob Dole in 1996). A Global Zero signatory.
  • Jack Sheehan, former NATO commander. This retired Marine general opposed gay service in the military, once blaming homosexual troops for the massacre of Srebenica. “[I]t is now time for the global community to work toward a regime that eliminates the existence and possible use of these weapons,” he says. (Nukes, not gays.)
  • Philip Zelikow, former G.W. Bush security advisor. This former confidant of Condoleezza Rice, who served both Bush presidencies, signed on to GZ.
  • Anthony Zinni, former Marine Corps general. As commander of CENTCOM in the late ’90s, Zinni worked on a plan to invade Iraq. This Vietnam and Iraq vet is a GZ supporter.

Cirincione also notes that such “radical extremists” as Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and James Baker have expressed support for ending nukes. Then there’s the no-good beatnik who said this:

We’re not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons; we seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.

His name? Ronald Reagan. You can practically smell the patchouli!

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate