President Weirdo Goes Anti-Nuke
Over Easter, I wrote a post at this space entitled “President Weirdo,” which got a fair amount of attention pro and con. In essence, I proposed that President Barack Obama was psychologically unfit to govern. Only a day later, we have received evidence that, if anything, I understated my case. Like some looney member of Code Pink, our president is abandoning the nuclear deterrent adhered to by every American president since Truman. And he is doing it in a manner that makes absolutely no sense.
The New York Times explains it this way:
[Obama] ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons.
But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.
This is indeed astonishing. The President of the United States — whose most important duty is to protect the citizens of this country — is publicly abjuring the use of nuclear weapons if we are attacked by chemical or biological weapons — both of which are known to all of us as Weapons of Mass Destruction, the dreaded WMDs.
What are we to make of this and the man who is adopting this policy? Does he hate us? Does he hate this country? What would he do if there was, for example, a massive small pox attack on the U.S.? Send in the infantry? Call in the Marines? Try to reason with whoever did it and recommend they negotiate as the fatal disease spreads to millions of people?
Now I detest nuclear weapons as much as the next person, but this approach seems — I hate to repeat myself, but I will — deranged. It also has very little to do with actually reducing nuclear weapons in the world. Again, it seems like the act of an extreme narcissist, someone who wants to parade himself as anti-nuke while ignoring the checks and balances that have, in fact, kept nuclear weapons in their silos for decades.
Deterrence has worked. And now Obama wants to abandon or diminish it at the very moment Russia is modernizing their arsenal. What a strange person. President Weirdo, indeed. As I said in my previous post, “good luck to us.”
Why oh why must we have an absolute imbecile in charge of our national defense and security, especially in these very dangerous times?
Bush isn’t president anymore, Susan.
Awesomely witty one-liner, comrade. Unfortunately:
1. we weren’t talking about him
2. it’s no joke if your commander-in-chief fails to do his duty to protect the nation
3. you’re a complete bozo
No kochevnik indeed Bush is no longer in charge we have an “ABSOLUTE IMBECILE” supported by “ABSOLUTE IMBECILES” instead.
it is really hard to put a finger on exactly what sort of thinking produces the concept of “relativism” but it seems to be associated with the idea that equality can most readily be obtained by pulling down or reducing superlatives to a “standard” level
perhaps it is curiosity, or a lust for excitement born of adrenalin addiction, or some combination of these blended with a lack of experience… hmmm… am I not describing how a child behaves?
Correct Answer, Kochevnik.
Susan asked why we an imbecile in charge. And you said Bush is no longer president.
You are right, we have an imbecile in charge BECAUSE Bush is no longer president.
But I think, she was angling for a more rhetorical thought, there.
Hae to tell you fool, but at least GW Bush wasnt a commie tool. Get a life, which is probably unlikely to happen. I suggest you go practice butt sniffing exercisers on your hero Soros.
At least under Bush I felt my family and I were safe.
I have felt less and less safe every passing day since 20 January 2009.
1*21*13 – The end of One Big A$$ Mistake America!
The quality of our troll comments has taken a real nose dive lately.
Because infantile imbeciles like kochevnik voted for their Grand Poobah of imbecilic navel-gazers.
Why?
Try: a population base full of apathy, being “cool,” formerly fringe social groups that have now reached a combined total beyond a critical mass, and dead fish going with the flow.
If those aren’t enough reasons, I’ve got a few more.
What can be done: hope and pray just sums it up.
When Mongol Kublai Khan took over the Chinese empire, the first thing he did was to weaken the northern chinese defenses (and indeed merge Mongolia with China.)
What are we talking about here with Dumbo? All those who voted for him, as well as the rest of us, knew he was going to disarm America. Are we surprised now?
Richard, just a minor correction. I think you mean DumbO.
I have long warned that the softer degrees from the Ivy League universities are often phonier than a three-dollar bill. Barack Obama’s credentials from Columbia and Harvard leave much to be desired. He simply took advantage of the inflated grades that are regularly handed out at these vastly overrated academic institutions. The fact that Obama is a man of color is of secondary importance. Countless white students have also taken part in the scam job. This has been going on for the last 35/40 years.
The fact that Obama is a “man of color” is NOT a matter of “secondary importance.” IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE WHATEVER. When are we Americans going to get over this “identity politics” madness?
I don’t want “a woman President” — although I would like Margaret Thatcher. I don’t want “a Jewish President” — but Lieberman might do a fine job. I don’t want Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama anywhere near the levers of power in America, and I could care less whether they are purple Hispanic lesbians.
No matter whether you like it or not, it does matter very much that they may be “hispanic” “black” “pink” “lesbian” or “whatever.”
For a simple reason:
A person’s personal history makes the person, the same way that your own personal history makes you who you are, and why you choose to say/do what you do.
Oh, I see.
That explains why all __________s are alike.
Thomas Sowell is just like Barack Obama.
Tammy Bruce is just like Rosie O’Donnell.
Joe Lieberman is just like Noam Chomsky.
No, no, they aren’t. The former 3 all have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow racial/cultural group members (as do the latter 3).
It does not matter what you are. The USA is – or at least used to be – a meritocracy, where you come from is far less important than what you stand for.
I see a bunch of trolls, with pretentious Greek carrying names, invaded the page. I, for sure, am not going to waste any time answering or cleaning after their trash. I would urge my fellow warriors not to bother with that noise.
On the other hand there is a serious issue here for discussion: what do you do with the HuffPost/Daily Kos crowd of commies.
“The fact that Obama is a man of color is of secondary importance.”
I highly suspect that this ambiguous statement is being understood by everyone exactly as they are predisposed to. For clarification I can agree and disagree with both of you:
The fact that Obama is a man of color is of secondary importance to his having been afforded the oportunity to get an inflated degree.
The fact that Obama is a man of color is of no importance to his being an overeducated, underthinking boob.
The fact that Obama is a man of color is of preeminent importance to how many of his supporter view his education accomplishment. (although they would be loath to admit it)
OK which one is it–
inflated degree?
or
overeducated?
You can’t have it both ways, although you could have the inverse; you could have a deflated degree AND be undereducated. Sort of like saying that although two negatives make a positive, two positives don’t make a negative. Yeah, right.
I like to call Obama a “gold-plated idiot.” (Just to make clear that he’s a cut above yer usual, run of the mill, idiot.) With each day I see him inching toward “gold-plated with oak leaf clusters.”
A “gold-plated idiot”…. a very descriptive term which can probably be applied to most of the self-styled “elites” in this country who have been hyper-eductated beyond the point of uselessness to where their daily lives are a detriment to the health of society-at-large. Gold-plated idiots…. the media and academia and government is full of them.
Don’t insult our Majors and Lieutenant Commanders by comparing them to Obama. There’s a reason the Cadets at West Point fell asleep- every last one of them was more qualified for command than Obama.
You are absolutely correct there!
Underneath that thin veneer of artificiality it does get pretty ugly.
Susan and others, Roger did not characterize Obama as stupid, but using his powers as a writer who must see deeply into a variety of human psyches, including those of criminals and the deranged, and taking into consideration all of the contradictory behaviors and sudden switches in demeanor, suggested that POTUS was emotionally disturbed and hence a danger to the security of this country. You can see my gloss on Roger’s posting here: http://clarespark.com/2010/04/05/is-potus-crazy/. I tried to synthesize Roger’s and V.D. Hanson’s more ideological analysis, posted yesterday, into one narrative that accounted for both the weirdness and the affinity to Alinsky and the postmodern relativists. I also added material today that discusses the internal coherence of the Democratic base, and the need to please a constituency with divergent interests (thus adding a less psychoanalytic dimension to the Obama problem).
The lesson of 7,000 years of human history is that there is nothing so dangerous as that quiet moment when the forces of belligerency examine the options before it, and then says in close whisper “Why not?”
Until today, we have always had an answer that gave them pause. Now we have an answer that makes them think, even for a moment, that it might just be possible.
It is as if in an effort to fight crime we all went to bed and left our front doors wide open, as if by removing the affront to criminals that we ourselves make by the locking of our doors, that crime itself might not exist.
60 years ago, the world caught fire and 52 million people died in the flames, all because someone asked “why not” and thought that it might just be possible to overthrow the powers of human decency and replace it with false and dark religion of fascism. A world where humanity is replaced by the state, where the individual only exists to serve the state, a world without the very concept of liberty.
We in this generation have forgotten the horror and human cost of that war and the true cost of long war that came after it. What I really fear today is that we have forgotten that wars original cause and as a result, we will be forced to relearn the lesson taught to our fathers and grandfathers, and the lesson this time will not be measured in the millions but far more than that.
Let us not forget that in the 1933, the Oxford Union in the interest of promoting a better world, that “This House would under no circumstances fight for its King and country”. A fine sentiment, but one which only gave strength to those who 7 years later would seek to end that institution and the people in it. I have always wondered how history might have been different if during that same time, the members of the Oxford Union had stood up for freedom and liberty instead of cowering and of giving cover for the rise of fascism.
…_
Well said!
Ahhh, yes. I remember thinking at the time that the Weimar Republic would have survived if only the Oxford Union had held its water. German voters, polled after the Reichstag Fire, said they would not have voted for Herr Hitler but just felt abandoned by the boys in the fourth form at Magdelene.
I called this a long time ago. Obama DOES hate America, and most Americans. We are after all, WHITE. Obama WANTS America to be attacked. So he can suspend elections, rule by decree forever. and be “America’s Vizier.” He is a thinly disguised cultural Muslim at least. He hates White people, ala pals Farrakhan (a neighbor) and mentor Wright. He hates America. He’s trying to invite an attack.
Obama views himself as Allah’s tribune to punish White America for its past sins of racism. No wonder he has ruled out any response to America getting hit by WMDs. He wants America to be hit.
You think Obama sees himself as a President. Let me assure you he does not. His role models are Marshal Petain, Hugo Chavez, Stalin, Mao, and Castro. You can judge him by the people he appoints and socializes with and has as mentors and neighbors. Anita Dunn, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Goodwin Liu, and Eric Holder paint a compelling portrait.
Obama HATES America and White people. He wants to punish both. Obama would view about 20 million White Americans as a “good start.” His pal Bill Ayers wrote about killing 25 million conservative White Americans.
An America nuked or bio-weaponed or hit with chemical weapons killing millions, will allow Obama to become dictator, surrender, and institute Sharia Lite while being Commander in Chief for Life. Passing his office down to one of his kids.
Most Democrats, I hasten to add, would be just fine with that.
Hate to break it to you, whiskey. Not all white people are equal. I’d rather be in Compton any day then be around your ignorant, racist ranting. Why should I possibly concern myself with 25 million christ psychotics mutual annihilating 25 million jihadists? Only when your two fascist religions wipe each-other out can reason and peace prevail. You’re a paranoid heckling bully disrupting democracy.
Looking for peace and reason; like hanging in Compton? How bout next Saturday night you go yell “the N word” on a busy street corner. Let us know what happens.
Did you have a point, or is your barren mind filled with cowering hatred? You indeed epitomize the very group you despise for wearing a skin color unfashionable in your red state trailer park.
kochevnik even YOU must admit that Obama, the Mohammedan, is just doing as he was taught in school in Indonesia. Where, as a registered Muslim, he studied the Koran and also took Mengagi, the study of correctly spoken Koranic ARABIC , a vital study for and only taken by DEVOUT Muslims but a very strange CHOICE for an avowed life long CHRISTIAN you must admit.
All his Paternal and adoptive step family is Muslim even his Kenyan Grandmother who prior to the election, we were assured by the Obama campaign, was a Christian but who has recently returned from the HAJ.
He was also brought up by antisemitic, anti American, Black and White Communists and he associated with American Terrorist TRAITORS like Ayers ( interestingly Ayers is almost certainly the ghost writer of Obama’s much acclaimed book “Dreams”) and also with Pakistani Muslim Terrorists, one of whom visited Pakistan with him in the 1980′s, and also Criminals.
He was further schooled in hatred for 20 years in the Rev Wrights antisemitic, anti American, Anti WHITEY, Black Supremacist Church (but Obambi we are told heard NOTHING which makes him either STUPID or a LIAR . I go for LIAR ) . Wright of course is a previous member of the Nation of Islam and a STILL a close friend of Farrakhand.
“Only when your two fascist religions wipe each-other out can reason and peace prevail.”
kochevnik, “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”
When you reach your secularist nirvana, will you be one of the masters directing people to their death, or one of proles being directed, as is the custom whenever man replaces God. Or don’t you recognize the 100 million or so who died at the hands of their communist masters in atheist societies? Or the others who perished, persecuted by monarchs who proclaimed their own divinity?
You ignore the fact that communism was created by christians. It is a secular spin of the priest/nun lifestyle. Atheism has nothing to do with it. Moreover Marx was funded by the Vatican bankers and the check sits right now in the British Museum. Marx was not a disbeliever in fact he avowed the state as a god. He wrote that atheism no longer served a purpose in communism as the state utopia was the new god. Atheists are disbelievers in state gods along with those of the fascist christ-psychotics.
You also should remember Stalin and Castro were educated in a Jesuit school, Hitler studied to be a catholic priest and Himler was a high Sedes Secorum priest, better knows as the SS. Stalin regularly met with Orthodox heads and had Jewish wives. Hardy the behavior of an adamant atheist you wish to portray.
Communism is in fact a christofascist effort to enact the counter-reformation and evoke the Unenlightment. The true christian objective is burning heretics alive, as was how the first christians began by raping and dismembering children over the Roman necropolis now named the Vatican. So vile were they that even Romans were disgusted and put the popes to death.
Marx was an apostate Jew, and a self-hating one at that. He was in no way connected to the Vatican. kochevnik, you are quite simply deranged.
“Atheists are disbelievers in state gods.”
Add this to your long and ever growing list of lies. Atheists always worship either themselves or the State (interchangeable with its leader). Your blood libel against Christians is something you just made up, yet even so it echoes the blood libels made against Christians by the Roman Empire accusing them of cannibalism, child sacrifice, orgies, and (ironically) even atheism and other abominations, all without a shred of merit or evidence. Blood libel against Christians is nothing but projection; thus it is even worse than the blood libels against the Jews, which are diabolical in and of themselves (the blood libels, not the Jews), because those who commit blood libel against Christians are themselves guilty of the very abominations they falsely accuse Christians of- not all of the abominations, but at least one among the list. In your case, kochevnik, you are a baby killer, party to ritual child sacrifice. Baptism was illegal in the Soviet Union, and converting to Christianity or teaching it to your (grand)children was a crime punishable by death.
When kochevnik gets his way, everyone among the blood libel believing state worshipers will be the elite conducting a persecution. The fool preaches against international bankers having no clue that he’s an Antichrist worshiper waiting to happen, and that he will gladly damn his own soul for all eternity to worship the Antichrist and kill Christians. In other words, he worships the very powers he calls the enemy.
Besides, kochevnik, unlike Muslims, who are commanded to murder infidels and apostates, those who follow Jesus Christ are told to pray for their enemies. Don’t you detect somewhat of an imbalance in those two creeds?
Oh yes you employ remote-control drones flown from Las Vegas. The brown-nosing you call prayer are pathetic attempts to influence-peddle your imaginary fascist superbeing so that you may go out and do more mayhem. In reality nothing more that a ritual you share with your fellow hive-minds to validate your warmongering. Then when your prey at last look to be swept away in one last cruel act your swarm in and give away bandages and glass beads.
This game can be now played by those you oppressed, and the outcome may not be to your liking. Anybody can wear a fish-head hat and parade around as if their **** doesn’t stink, tossing out fairytale books to the peasants.
So the deaths of another 50 million people are okay with you in pursuit of your godless utopia? Dude, you just earned the deranged moonbat award with oak leaf clusters. We know that many progressives hate this country, but the misanthropy in your statement just boggles the mind.
You are a hateful little creature.
Del
take a look at #3 in the guidelines, above
or can’t you read?
“i would rather be in compton any day…” but, of course he is not. the most rabid defenders of ‘racial minorities’ would never actually spend one moment in a ‘minority’ neighborhood. it’s a kind of absence-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder-love-ya-from-afar thing. try inviting one of these fellows out to dinner at a restaurant in the middle of da hood and marvel at all the excuses for why they just can’t manage to keep the appointment.
Given that Obama hates white people, this tactic is especially dumb, since terrorists are going to target major cities, which are usually heavily minority and always mostly Democrat.
Our enemies aren’t expect to target exurbs that would have a lot of white Republicans.
The reality is more nuanced. Obama doesn’t hate white people. He hates the legacy of Europe – capitalism – and is determined to even the playing field between what he would call the colonial and ‘post-colonial’ worlds. This is apparent in everything he does as ‘foreign policy’ from who he does or does not bow to, to his soft-pedalling on Iran and the Palestinians, to his brow-beating Israel. He is intent on changing the global balance of power economically and militarily. If he wins a second term, there will be no turning back.
Laura is right. It’s not as much a race issue as a total rejection of Western philosophy and culture.
Be Cavalier; Think the unthinkable:
If the US got rid of ~50M Useless Eaters
it would solve all our problems – NOT !
Harsh ? Yes, but then so is crash diving
the country back to the socio/economic status
of 1960, or 1910, or pick your own regression;
That would be the effect of a pandemic, an EMP
attack, or even a 2nd Great Depression.
It would also guarantee an authoritarian government;
Good luck with returning to a Republic after the
permanent emergency is over.
Two problems with that- 1. The military won’t surrender, even if it means assassinating their supposed Commander in Chief. 2. Have you ever heard of an Islamic nation ruled by a queen? Obama has no son to succeed him, and Muslims won’t be ruled by a woman.
so that makes Benadir Bhutto a…..? Don’t forget to tell the Pakistanis.
An assassination victim, which is exactly what would happen to Sasha or Malia if either of them tried to rule a Sharia State.
We’ve been set up: http://tinyurl.com/yasa4f3, http://tinyurl.com/obhgxv. But by who?
The election of this man was a big collective mistake, showing that we have not been as alert as we should have been for our own good. The president is the only official elected by all the people. He can be a positive force if he acts in our defense, and for the preservation of our values. This president is at odds with the nation.
The tea parties are solid because they did not need to write a charter: Our funding documents were there, waiting to be paid attention to. Sure, all leaders cause some opposition which was merely latent to become vocal, but what other president managed to activate so much alarm in such a short time? The president is the last man who should show the un-American way!
The totally inept German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, in an attempt to gain some points with the pacifists and do-gooders has set a goal of removing all nuclear weapons from Germany. Other European countries are now taking up the call, and I’ve heard newsblips that Obama is going to cooperate. Westerwelle (FDP, supposedly a classic liberal) is trying to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Hans Dieter Genscher and rack up some noteworthy accomplishment, but this move is totally for show. There is no context for the move,. In light of recent Russian moves, it is absolutely stupid to take any bargaining chips off the table, but stupid Westerwelle probably thinks he can ride to popularity on Obama’s disarmament coattails. Obama will go along to try to regain the buzz he got from his Berlin Victory Column speech. He is still as ignorant of the internal political motives involved in foreign policy proclamations. He really does think it is all about him.
The weekend’s 50-year-old Easter marches in Germany had the goals of withdrawing from Afghanistan and getting rid of nukes. They got plenty of media coverage as the dried up protesters wallowed in anti-Vietnam nostagia.
Westervelle is not going to be around for long. As an openly gay man, he cannot visit 3/4 of the world without being arrested. But surely he will be replaced by something similar.
Actually it is even weirder than that. If you read the wording he put out, he has actually reserved the right to nuke in a very wide range of cases, but the cover sheet says “No Nukes”.
Pretty much, he has told the world that we’re dropping nuclear deterrence, while also leaving the legalese in place to cover nearly any nuke drop he wanted.
MAD, you tell them that you’re willing to blow them to hell, even if you really won’t go through with it. This guy is willing to go through with it, but he’s telling everyone we aren’t. It’s Mutually Assured Destruction, only in the Assured Mutually Assured Destruction edition.
Voyager
You are one of the few so far that understand. It is the very Uncertainty of our response that has kept the world safe. Also we have a history as the only nation to use these weapons. We only used them twice in Japan and the world has not seen their use since then because the world knows we used them and just might use them again. Now in order to look nice the world has become less safe.
Look closely at the quote:
“except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.”
Who can we nuke if we want?
North Korea – nonsignator
Iran – Violator
India – nonsignator
Pakistan – nonsignator
I’m just not buying the outrage here.
I think the point is, nukes aren’t something that should be hidden in the fine print. If they are an option at all, they should be emblazoned on the front page in boldface print “abandon all hope ye who enter here.”
They’re just not something you want to surprise people with, you know?
Or to quote Dr. Strangelove, “Of course, the whole point of a doomsday machine IS LOST IF YOU KEEP IT A SECRET! Why didn’t you tell the world?”
“North Korea – nonsignator
Iran – Violator”
So today L’il Kim goes out and signs the nonproliferation treaty. Of course, he will practice cheat-n-retreat like he did with Clinton. But who do we have to rely on to decide that NoKo or Iran is a violator? The UN? Fat chance of that. Obama will permit his hands to be tied, and then if/when the worst happens, he’ll blame some external entity.
“Who can we nuke if we want?”
Sigh. The question isn’t who we “want” to nuke, the question is: who might we have to nuke. Remember, the whole idea behind strategic weapons is that they are most successful if you never actually use them. It’s a bit of a tricky concept, but is the fundamental premise behind strategic deterrence.
The only thing that Obama has assured is that anybody that attacks us (or – more likely – an ally) will ensure that they first (publicly, at any rate) meet Obama’s “do-not-nuke” criteria.
kochevnik, I believe the 25 million Christ psychotics want to save your horribly misguided soul whereas the 25 million Jihadists just want your non-believer butt dead. The peace and reason you speak of just shows how wildly naive you are and how unstudied you are regarding history. The peace Obama is squandering now was paid for by a lot of blood. But please, go ahead and look like a wussy–I’m sure there’s nobody out there who’d take advantage of you being nice and all..
What’s the opposite of Reagan’s “peace through strength”? President Obama seems to have it down pat.
It becomes clearer and clearer why, on January 20th, President Barack Obama had such trouble with the oath of office. “Preserve. Protect. And defend the Constitution.” The words just don’t quite roll off his tongue. Unfortunately, for this nation, other words seem to come easier.
New rules of nuclear engagement, for example. Can you say, “sitting duck”?
Let’s face it, the absence of a belief in phrases like “peace through strength” takes us down a road we don’t want to go. Without a nuclear deterrent, boys and girls, we, frankly, are in deep do do. President Obama also wants to call a halt to the development of new high tech weapons systems. I guess fairness dictates we give other countries, as well as other country’s terrorists, time to catch up to the U.S. How long before our state of the art weapons systems move to the state of antiquity? Three years? Four? Do you get the feeling this group of Neo Coms govern like they want the other side to win? I do. Moreover, I get the feeling that words like, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” mean diddly squat to the blame-America-first gang leading America during this country’s most dangerous of times. Leading us, to say the least, down a very dangerous path.
If Obama’s decision to change the rules of nuclear engagement doesn’t light a fire under you, America, then you must be wearing asbestos drawers. It makes me want to change this administration. Preserve. Protect. And defend. It’s really not that hard to say. When you really mean it, the words just kind of roll off the tongue.
Of course the left should know all about the results of weakness, seeing as how the timidity and naivete of the right is what allowed them to seize control of this country. Stranger than fiction, indeed.
Re 6: The opposite of “Peace through strength” is “War through weakness”.
Weakness invites attack. That has been the case throughout history, repeatedly. Sometimes the weakness is less than it appeared (or was feigned deliberately to provoke attack), sometimes it was real, but the appearance of weakness made war inevitible. We are now faced with an implacable enemy whose goal is our subjugation (Islam means submission) or extermination. The only thing that is saving us is the utter incompetance of our enemies. That won’t save us forever. If you wish for peace, prepare for war. It is an ancient proverb, with much truth. Obama has killed the F-22, is looking to kill the F-35, has renounced improving and modernizing our nuclear weapons, and has now basically promised the Mohammedan horde that if they smallpox us he will do exactly nothing.
I can’t think of a nation that has projected so much weakness to its enemies. Weakness invites attack. It can’t be put any plainer thanthat.
Obama is either pathologically STUPID or hates America with a TRAITOROUS passion. Well we are always being told by Obambi lovers just how supremely intelligent he is (without one scrap of evidence being provided as PROOF I might add no College Grades , dissertation papers etc etc they are all closely and desperately HIDDEN ). So make up your own minds what he is either STUPID or a TRAITOR but for sure he is one or the other.
Why is it an ‘either-or’ question? Why not ‘both-and’. I consider Obama both stupid and anti-American, which means that he certainly has the possibility of also being a traitor.
Remember, he’s a pathological narcissist. He feels no empathy for anyone. And he’s deeply anti-American; he was raised as such by his mother, by his Indonesian schooling, by his friendships with open Marxists and Maoists – and by his wife, Michelle, who is anti-white and anti-American.
I don’t see the news here. Myself and a few other regulars here on PJM were commenting on his being well on the way to a padded room back around Thanksgiving 2009 when he first had to delay a vote on his health crap. Of course he’s deranged, and if many of those who support him would tell the truth, they think he’s deranged but see it as just the flip side of his “brilliance”.
I can understand why people might think he wants the US hit with some sort of WMD attack, but I doubt it’s because he wants to do in millions as much as it is to give him another opportunity to play savior. Barry may well hate most of the population of this country, but Barry has also long been convinced those he hates will be forced to admit he’s their rightful Anointed King and he won’t enjoy slaughtering peasants until we’ve first fallen at his feet. The Narcissist in Chief would only be happy slaughtering Americans if he were slaughtering Americans who had already fully submitted to him then ceased to worship him. That’s why he likes campaigns; he can taunt his opposition to help stave off the self-doubt monster. Killing the opposition is self-defeating for someone like him, as is waiting for the judgment of history to proclaim his greatness.
He isn’t getting the praise his madness expected in response to giving us all health care, so in his mind the national trauma of a WMD attack would provide him with another opportunity to be our savior. Risk / Reward considerations are not the same for Barry as they are for normal people. The fact that millions might be at risk is instantly counterbalanced by his personal opportunity to show his superior greatness since in all those millions there is no Barry. That’s the narcissistic mind in action; it never ascribes events to mistakes made by the narcissist but always to the situation not being grandiose enough to allow the narcissist to shine. If there isn’t a WMD attack before the threat of self-doubt creeps up on the Narcissist in Chief again, he’ll nuke someone in order to prove that he’s the toughest president we’ve ever had. If he can’t get the outright worship he craves for being the smartest president we’ve ever had and if there’s no opportunity for him to show he’s the most nurturing after a trauma, he’s going to try something external and attack one of those countries who he feels haven’t praised them the way he expected them to. The one thing he’ll never do is decide he’s shouldn’t be trying to become God by popular acclamation.
Look at the bright side, though, there’s a good chance his own inner circle will put him in the padded room before much longer as a means to shame the voters into not throwing out democrats after driving our “greatest president” insane with our trivial focus on things like the Constitution. Now, if he can get his hands on some of his old “self-medication” goodies, all bets are off because he’ll start swinging in and out of bottomless depressions.
Regards
I see two very alarming aspects to this.
1) Obama has left himself the option of nuking non-signatories of the non-proliferation treaty — meaning Israel?? Why this odd emphasis? If he decides a few Jewish apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in North West Jerusalem is reason for condemnation, what might justify an American nuke attack? An Israeli attack on Iran?
2)While watching Obama with Sarkozy, and Sarkozy’s odd and excessive flattering of Obama, I got the distinct feeling world leader know the man is nuts and are working around it. I hope I’m paranoid, but this man seems oddly unpredictable.
Israel is the target of this but not the way you think.
An Israeli attack on Iran is almost inevitable by this stage.
In the event of an attack by Israel the response will be a WMD attack with chemical and biological agent by Iran and others.
Before this announcement US would have been moral bound to come to Israels defense because of the use of WMD by others. But as Israel has not signed the NPT Obama has just bought himself a bye.
This is Obamas way of washing his hand of Israel when it is attacked with chemical and biological weapons.
Of course the fact that this now make a nuclear response by Israel inevitable will not trouble him much.
Very Interesting JMC. Thanks for the response.
Wow. I hope you’re wrong, jmc, but I have to admit that your explanation makes a scary amount of sense.
Dear God.
So it is no accident that this is released so shortly after Netanyahu’s visit. I wonder if that is why Obama decamped for dinner with his family, saying “If anything interesting comes up, let me know.” When I think that perhaps he’s come to the end of his machinations, he shocks again, and again…
Be prepared for more shocks. Bush was able to dissuade the Israelis from attacking with his believable assurance of support if the situation escalated. Obama has made things far far worse both with his rank amateurism and with his utterly juvenile view of international politics.
Not only is the change in BC attack response directly aimed at the Israelis, a warning that you are on your own, but I would not be too surprised if the administration has not already made explicit threats to shoot down any Israeli planes that overfly US controlled airspace during a attack. If Obama ever gives that order for real then the US is in for its biggest constitutional crisis since the MacArthur / Truman standoff.
The original posters observations about Sarkozy is correct. Sarkozy and others in Europe not only consider Obama hopelessly out of his depth but a dangerous fool who they are desperately trying to corral and neutralize. Berlusconis very public display of contempt for Obama is only the tip of the iceberg of what the Europeans who matter really think of Obama.
DERANGED is the right word. “Weird” connotes eccentric or aberrant but not necessarily irrational. I have long protested that he is not “brilliant” or possessed of an IQ of 140, as his fawning brown-nosers (and all-too-many right-wing pundits) assert. but a second- rate Marxism-addled twit. Now he is transparently demonstrating that he is dangerously stupid.
Stupidity combined with narcissism and power is a disastrous combination in a ruler, as history, ancient and modern. testifies. And that’s what we’ve got.
The citing of the European movement in the same direction affords the key to his motivation. His hubris is such that he perceives himself destined to be much more than simply the ruler of the greatest of all Socialist (or more correctly Communist) Nations, but of a Global Union of Socialist Republics: the Supreme Chairman. This is his “Great Vision”, which accounts for his “weird” performance in foreign relations. He is more interested in impressing the Socialists of the world with his destined role than in doing anything to improve the weal of the economy he detests.
And he is perfectly willing to take the U.S.A down in flames if he is thwarted.
Obama seems intent on repeating all the disastrous policies that caused the Great Depression and World War II.
I think you’re all crazy!!! You can’t be srious…….
He has got to be smoking something other than tobacco in those cigarettes. Or maybe he’s sneaking some absinthe along with the alcohol that he was advised to cut back on when he got his last checkup. You don’t come up with something this inane without chemical assistance.
Obama is going to make us desperately miss the deep wisdom and leadership of Jimmy Carter by the time 2012 rolls around. (At least Jimmy wasn’t coming up with ideas that sound like something a stoner dreams up while deciding which option in the cookie aisle late at night would best work with his case of the munchies.)
If Obama negotiates a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, does he really expect it to pass the Senate? Does Russia think it will happen? I doubt it. Obama is setting himself up for failure.
“won’t pass the Senate” – uh huh – like “obama care” didn’t? God save US.
Completely different dynamic. Plus the Republicans now have 41 votes.
WHile a lot of Democrats would love to disarm America, not all of them do. Could you see Lieberman ever voting for this treaty?
It takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty; there’s no way around that. That said, I expect it to pass anyway for the sake of the nuclear industry and cost savings. Frankly, it makes no sense for the US and Russia to keep thousands of nukes pointed at each other. We may not be able to trust the Russians on much, but arms reductions are something we can trust them on, because we verify each other. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry loves the cheap fuel.
Who exactly is going to be checking the Russians to make sure they behave? Our people? Or Obama’s “reset” people? Certainly not the UN, EU, NATO or any other incompetent acronym. These people couldn’t figure out that Iran was still trying to make nukes until after Bush was out of power. Our so-called ‘intelligence’ services have uber-questionable judgment so I have no doubt that if Russia (who currently, is not our biggest concern) did continue arming, we wouldn’t hear about it until a Republican was in office so it could then be his fault.
Besides, I highly doubt that our nukes ARE pointed at Russia anymore. They probably aren’t pointed at anyone. The Cold War is over so us disarming with Russia is redundant. Despite rising neo-Stalinism in Russia, they aren’t a big deal right now. We are making treaties that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on while real threats are being ignored.
As I recall, the inspections involve US military personnel confirming Russian disarmament, and Russian military personnel confirming American disarmament. This is done by live inspection, and confirmed by private companies converting the weapons grade material from decommissioned weapons into fuel rods and then burning them up in nuclear reactors.
We are getting into some truly dangerous waters here. This administration – check that – REGIME is lead by a narcissistic ideologue whose parents and mentors had a fundamental loathing for this country and its institutions. He has surrounded himself with like-minded individuals who in their capacity as czars and cabinet members wield tremendous power over the citizenry and private enterprise, and whose goal is to bring down the latter in order to control the former.
The barbarians at the gate have been gathering outside, knowing full well that we have a leader who is heading in the direction of national suicide. And now with this announcement they are licking their chops in anticipation.
Taken all together, the actions of the past 14 months amount to borderline abrogation of the sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution to dereliction of duty as commander in chief. It is not my intention to sound like a deranged left-wing nut, hurling unfounded accusations. But the truth is the truth.
I’m sure that Roger has seen the movie “Seven Days in May.” This is madness.
Barack Obama never gave his word to defend the Constitution envisioned by the Founding Fathers. He instead pledged his loyalty to a “living” document. In other words, Obama considers the constitution to essentially be meaningless. Furthermore, so do most Democratic Party politicians.
The wolves are inside the fence.
Yet more evidence of what a winner we have in the White House. He is not content with ruining the economy, nah, that was too easy. Is he giving encouragement to our enemies? Does someone want to clue in President SmokeDrink that if we are attacked more than just TEA partiers and Republicans will die?
If this doesn’t wake up the people who put this man in office, nothing will. We have known for awhile that we don’t have competent leadership in the White House and now it seems that since they had success with our economy they are taking on national defense. We are in deep water here.
Joe:
The American people, for the first time really in my almost-50-year lifetime, are awake (maybe they were awake pre-internet and talk radio but who would have known?).
The question is what can we do? The only thing we can legally do at this stage is to vote this November and in 2012. But a lot of damage can be done by this regime until that time.
I fear that this will all not end well.
I agree with you. I’m also very concerned about the direction the country is headed in under the Obama Regime. We’ve all got to do whatever we can in order to stop this catastrophe from getting worse. Besides voting Democrats out of office in November and 2012, we’ve got to do what we can to shut down the mainstream media.
As far as I’m concerned, the MSM is as much to blame for this mess as anyone else. Unfortunately, we have too many brain-dead Americans who believe the lies that they get from these propaganda sources everyday. Thus, we have to do what we can to shut them down. None of us should be watching CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or MSNBC. None of us should be buying The New York Times, Newsweek or Time magazine. They can’t survive without our viewership or money. And the government can’t bail them all out! There’s not enough money to go around for all of them. So, even if we get rid of one of them, that’s a good start.
It’s not only the liberal politicians that are the problem. It’s also the media and we’ve got to do our part to shut them up by shutting them down.
The MSM is doing a fine job of shutting themselves down. It’s an interesting exercise to observe what they choose to cover, how they cover it, and how they spin news. It’s a great education, taken for the joke that it has made itself. When their pro-bono publicity for one party seriously sees itself as disinterested, responsible and informative journalism, they disqualify themselves as professionals. It’s informative, alright, just not in the way they intend.
‘A motion to adjourn is always in order.’
When partisan parliamentary procedures are
deadlocked, Congress can adjourn to a less formal
setting, debate more directly, listen to the people,
and start changing course _now_, before the US is
overtaken by current events, and it no longer matters.
When does it become treason? How far will this “president” be allowed to go?
When conservatives take back the country in November. Keep the focus.
# 2 Whiskey – you hit all the high notes, said all that needs to be mentioned.
I came home from a town government committee meeting at midnight last night — trying to protect the local taxpayers from the unions representing our employees — to see the Drudge headline: NO NUKES: EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE!
Obama has truly jumped the shark with this one. I can’t imagine he would even get a majority of Democrats in Congress to support this.
Aside from the insanity of this — and I agree with other commentators who are increasingly questioning Bambi’s mental health — one almost has to conclude that the ONE does not take the defense of the United States of America seriously. Or, perhaps his loyalties are elsewhere.
I suppose the most charitable explanation is that he wants to divert our energies away from health care.
As CiC, he doesn’t need the support of congress for this. Congress can stop him if he needs money to make any changes, such as closing or moving a base. However, this change doesn’t require any money from congress.
He holds America and Americans in disdain.
Roger:
“It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war.”-The NYT
Ambiguity in one’s strategic doctrine is not necessarily a bad thing.
You do not spell out your responses, like a menu in a Chinese restaurant, because you don’t want to make your enemies’ war plans any easier for them than you can help.
Your enemies aren’t stupid, and can pretty much guess how you will react to any given provocation, but it’s the “guessing” bit that often stays their hand.
“For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.”
I cannot believe that the Moonbat in Chief thinks that the American public will accept his decision that a nuclear response to a non-nuclear WMD attack is inappropriate.
Hopefully, he and his staff will be the first to die in any future non-nuclear WMD attack, and then the decision on how we respond will fall to more open minds.
Should they survive, while he and his flunkies “reconsider” the nuclear posture in such an event, further large swathes of the US population would very likely die.
Good luck to us? Some of us will need it more than others. As a poster above noted, no power will ever use a WMD attack where I live and work.
Can’t say the same for the rest of you, but if you live in a potential “Ground Zero” and voted for the Alleged Hawaiian, it must fill you with HopenChange that he has decided that you and your families are expendable to his anti-nuclear weapons beliefs.
If it comes to that, after you’re gone, and we pick up the pieces, I might offer a requiem and light a candle to your memories.
Such mortal foolishness and poor judgment should never be forgotten.
Si vis pacem, parabellum -
“It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war.”-
Said ambiguity can be (and was so) a very potent deterrent in the confrontation with the Soviet Union and other potential trouble-makers in the word -
Considering the applause that came from all the lefties who, ironically enough, spent decades protesting and sabotaging exactly what gave them the safety and freedom to protest and sabotage (a deterring military ambiguity), Obama acts again against the very interests of this nation – it’s almost like trying to satisfy the desires of those Norwegian buffoons who gave him the Nobel Prize -
I simply can see no advantage in formally declare that regardless of the attack on us (or our allies) we’ll be in the outhouse, pants down reading the paper -
This decision further lessens our safety – and guess what – of the entire world as well -
well put.
for some strange reason these clowns (obuma and co.) need to exhibit their complete lack of common sense over and over.
The deterrence policy of the United States since the 1980s has been very simple; any use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, by anybody, against the United States or its allies will be met by U.S. use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the perpetrator, whether a nation-state (like the USSR), a coalition of same (like the Warsaw Pact), a terrorist group (like Hamas), whoever.
The United States recognizes three categories of WMD;
1. Chemical weapons; “war gases” such as phosgene, mustard, Lewisite (a “product-improved” version of mustard gas), nerve gases, etc.
2. Biological weapons; “weaponized” strains of existing germs and viruses (mostly viruses) or high-lethality “custom-made” hybrid strains created in a laboratory;
3. Nuclear weapons; this includes not only actual bombs (fission or fusion) but also non-nuclear “dirty” bombs, i.e. conventional high-explosive weapons which include radioactive isotopes in dust form to be dispersed by the bomb’s detonation, poisoning a large area with what is, in essence, fallout.
Since the U.S. does not inventory, develop, or intend to use chemical or biological weapons for both humanitarian and purely practical reasons (i.e.. the wind can change at the wrong moment), the U.S. policy has been that use of Chemical/Biological Warfare (CBW) agents will be met with a nuclear response. This has been a non-negotiable point for thirty years.
The Obama Administration has just declared this policy dead.
The Aum Shinri Kyo nerve gas attacks in Japan have shown that terrorist groups can obtain chemical or biological weapons easily enough- by the “do-it-yourself” method if all else fails. There is no reason to assume that the more recent crop of largely Islamist terrorists, or their nation-state backers (Iran, etc.) are less capable in this department than Shoko Asahara’s group.
What Obama has just done is to basically tell every would-be terrorist on earth, and his principals, “kill anybody you want with nerve gas or weaponized Ebola- I’ll just sit and watch.”
The President has, in keeping with his fundamentally anti-civilization dogmas, taped what he thinks is a “Kick Me” sign to the West’s collective back. Except that it actually says “Kill Me”.
I think Israel has the most rational short-term response to this reckless “initiative”. They are beginning widespread dissemination of CBW protection kits to their citizenry.
The most rational long-term response to this, of course, is to fire President Rainbows-On-The-Brain as soon as it is legally possible. All in favor of beginning a recall petition?
clear ether
eon
Not only does this new policy significantly increase the likelihood of an attack on the United States (or on our European nominal allies), but I suspect it greatly increases the likelihood of a nuclear war in the Middle East: this Israelis are increasingly unable to prevent the Iranians from building nuclear weapons and delivering them. At this point, an Israeli conventional strike would almost certainly be marginally successful at best. Only an American conventional strike could work, and we know that won’t happen under Bambi.
So, what’s Israel to do? Will the Israelis really wait for an Iranian first strike? They might, but the instant the Israelis detect an Iranian missile in the air towards them, I would put my bets on their using those 5 minutes or so of warning to launch a full scale nuclear response. Or, the Israelis might take the view that, having been passive in the face of genocide once, if it’s “us or them” they’d rather be quite sure “them” does the dying, and launch a preemptive nuclear strike that will really put paid to the Iranian nuclear project, its government, and a substantial chunk of its military capability.
My own pessimistic view is that we will see a nuclear exchange, or at least a nuclear strike, in the Middle East before the end of Bambi’s first term.
Well said, eon (27). Perhaps just as important: what about our “nuclear umbrella”? If the President holds our own country in such disdain, he’s hardly about ready to jump to the defense of our allies! What if/when China goes after Japan, S. Korea, or Taiwan? What if Russia decides to take back Germany? What if – as is likely – Islamic terrorists attack us with NBC weapons and we trace those weapons back to country ‘X’?
Ah but you all forget how devious the POTUS can be. Of course, he will use nuclear weapons if the USA is attacked with WMDs. He’s a liar. I hope the bad guys have that figured out too, however.
Kochevnik is, very obviously, a troll. See replies to Comments #1 & #2. Dismiss him or ignore him, but don’t respond substantively.
The lowest for of stupidity is weakness. Regardless of what sort of sheltered, pampered life you have live, this should be instinctual. Does it mean that one should go about acting like a tough guy when one doesn’t have too? Absolutely not….
But this? This is pre-emptive weakness.
He is not a fool, like Neville Chamberlain. He is simply not on the side of his own country. He sees America as the last atavistic bulwark preventing world wide Utopianism.
To Obama, a man who learned at the knee of Frank Marshall Davis at the same time when Mao and Kruschev were murdering and enslaving millions, America is the problem, and he is the solution.
Ahhh,
the “Dorothy Deterrent Strategy.” There are no evil lunatics with nukes..there are no evil lunatics with nukes..there are no evil lunatics with nukes..
I am sure in some obscure Ivy League textbook, it is black letter law that pledging not to nuke an enemy regardless of the situation will solve the problem…
BTW, Obama DOES throw like a girl (this may be related to his petulant anti-Americanism, I am not sure).
Not to be the double bummer here but… it’s worth considering that if North Korea has the bomb–and Iran wants the bomb…
Being that they’ve been working together officially on the ballistic missiles to deliver the bombs, it doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to say that their two weapons programs may be viewed as more than simply incestuous, but actually one in the same.
Just an ugly thought for the day.
Chavez has been signing military and other agreements with Iran.
How long till Venezuela announces that it wants nukes as well?
In the world only one (1) law applies: “Because I can”
it is the creed of crud. unfortunately it is irrefutable and because of that deterrence is recommended — both at the personal and national level.
Good friends are crucial as well.
A colossus in his own mind, Obama counts his every utterance historic. Nixon, who bugged his own White House, was aware of voice-activated recording machinery coming to life every time he opened his mouth. Obama imagines armies of worshipful historians sitting up straight and scribbling furiously every time he opens his. Ordinary politicians speak to their constituents. Obama speaks to the ages.
Contrast the ease with which Obama dismisses sixty years of proven nuclear deterrence to his months-long agonizing over the commitment of additional troops to Afghanistan. Compare his high moral posturing on nuclear arms to his untroubled comfort with targeted assassinations by unmanned drones. Weird doesn’t describe it.
Kochevnik: time to go back into the bathroom and read those magazines. I am absolutely sure that your mother does love you. Don’t forget to wash your hands after. By the way, if you dont stop sniffing the glue we’re gonna have to take your models away.
the public should be allowed to b!tch slap these morons in the congress and the senate and the white house. no body that stupid should have a free pass in life.
they are working for the people not the other way round.
Hopefully our president will reverse himself, as he frequently does, upon further reflection. His role as commander-in-chief demands he think and act with the best interest for each and every citizen of America and not just his own role as a radical citizen-of-the world living in Alice’s “Wonderland”. His lack of thoughtful decision making experience as a community organizer equips him only with sloganeering and no real day to day life experience necessary to be the leader of the United States. As a neophyte he has taken a great deal of rope he has been granted, but enough is too much.
When I read this I immediately thought, the media must be burning
the midnight oil for a justification angle as his apologist. It figures. We have no
VX stockpiled and we are no longer working on virus mutations, like SARS,
as a deterent. All we have left are the most reliable, highest yield
nuclear weapons on the most accurate delivery systems of any country.
You can bet our so called friends (that will be our enemies sometime in
future) and our identified enemies are working on all three WMD’s in violation of world treaty after world treaty. To think otherwise is unrealistic and
very dangerous. The Cold War morphed while our President thinks it ended.
Actually, Roger…I agree with this move…for this administration.
It shows absolute consistency.
If we are going to run around the world apologizing for our existence, we might as well ensure that it is removed.
So many of the posts above refer to Obama’s race or his childhood “experience”, especially with Islam. When a was quite a bit younger, there was much talk of non-blacks not understanding the “black experience”. I believe there is also some truth and consistency to that. The “typical white person” can’t possibly understand or appreciate the bitterness and distrust this experience engendered.
Those white “bitter clingers” who hang onto religion and guns (and nuclear strength) and have an antipathy toward those who don’t look like them are different from the Islamic raging and frothing mobs…because the “experience” has been different.
You see, Roger…white society is in the position of permanent apology. It is being forced down on one knee, to genuflect to leftism. To be made to grovel, to beg, to plead, to mewl at the feet of leftism. To cry uncle.
“It’s OUR turn now”, is the rallying cry.
This explains much. The consistent slap in the face to Britain. The leaving of Bibi sitting on the couch with Tom Hulce in the Omega Theta Pi frat house. The whole Gates affair where no matter what happened, the police were stupid and wrong.
The “Obama experience”, being left repeatedly at a seedy bar with a Communist “mentor”, the Socialist “idealized” absent father, the ne’er do well and bitter grandfather, the radical professors at college, the William Ayers, Danny Davis, Mew Party, Jeremiah Wright (Cone Marxism) “guidance”…left an imprint.
This is all very consistent with a worldview of America the Bad. “God Damn America”…. Our Commander in Chief is a conscientious objector to our very existence, much less our safety and security.
Mankind has lived through the Renaissance and Reformation, now we must live through the Redistribution and Reprobation.
Bravo! I, for one don’t think that all of the ideas of Obama being a Crypto-Islamist Manchurian Candidate from Kenya are necessary at all.
I think that’s making a mystery out of what is right in front of us and un-disguised.
All we need to look at is what we really know about him: He’s a guy who Hung out with Frank Marshal Davis, William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.
These are not people who love America or even like America. These are people who hate America as a function of their ideology.
These cancer is left wing academia, the tumor is Obama.
Thank God a president is finally putting an end to the indiscriminate use of nukes which his predecessors indulged in.
And just where have our Presidents been using nukes?
Fool. No president has ever engaged in a policy of indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons. To say this simply shows a complete and utter lack of reality.
And the internet is not noted for its appreciation of irony.
I got it, if it makes you feel any better.
The responses from Paul-Indiana and John are beautiful examples of sarchasm.
I got it too.
No president of this or any other nation has ever used Nukes or Atomic weapons indiscriminately and as a matter of fact the only time Atomic weapons were used were against Japan in World War Two. We definitely discriminated about who and where to use such weapons and it caused Japan to surrender and saved many lives on both sides of the conflict. Your comment is senseless and meaningless!
Our country now has nuclear weapons that are many times stronger than those used on Japan and we have been responsible with safekeeping these weapons as well as careful in why where and when they should be used. This policy has worked quite well since the Cold War so it is actually foolish to change it now!
Ok before everyone gets their panties in a wad, let me ask this question. Can anyone list one country capable of delivering a long range chemical or biological attack, that is no a nuclear state, Iran, or North Korea, who is not an ally???? Lead by example, and we as the U.S. have to start the move away from nuclear arms. Also, just because our country says it will not nuke a country that uses biological or chemical weapons, does not mean we can still bomb the S**t out of anyone who attacks. It took how long to run through Iraq without launching any nuclear arms. The greatest threat to our country is some rouge group getting its hands on a nuclear weapon, anything that can be done to lessen that possibility, should be done.
Really? Libya and Syria…and that’s without any research. If a country possesses some form of what would be considered strategic strike i.e. ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, long range artillery, strike fighters…sorry but this list could go on for a while. I don’t want to assert that you are incapable of understanding this, just intellectually lazy perhaps.
Thanks for the suggestion, maybe you should have taken it yourself. I took a look at Syria and saw that their longest ranged missile the Skud-D has a range or maximum 1500Km or about 930 miles. I might be a little fuzzy on my math but I think we are further than 930 away from Syria. I will look into Libya. Maybe you should do some research and get me a real answer.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Missile/index.html
Brian, think a bit. Syria (who, after all has most of the Iraqi WMD’s) wouldn’t directly attack us. They would
1) attack one of our allies,
2) make the weapons available to a terrorist group or another power that does want to attack us (say Venezuela), and/or
3) launch said missile from nearby, say from a freighter off of our shore.
What then do we do once we trace back where the WMD’s came from? Syria would then announce: “So sorry about New York, it was an accident. Oh, BTW we now have a mutual-protection treaty with Russia/China.”
So the only thing preventing Syria from doing any of those things was the fear of a nuclear bomb? What about the fact that we could invade Syria in an instant if they ever attacked us. Actually think about the implications of launching a nuclear weapon at another country. There are very few circumstances when that would be necessary.
Sorry buddy, but you said something stupid and you got slapped down…then you showed up with a wikipedia link. DOUBLE FAIL.
Now to qualify this. You asked”Can anyone list one country capable of delivering a long range chemical or biological attack, that is no a nuclear state, Iran, or North Korea, who is not an ally????”
And I gave two responses. You made unfounded assumptions and thought you were going to walk away smiling, but you got checked and owned and punked. Then you came back with a wikipedia article… WOW.
You seem to be terrible confused, because there was no link to Wikipedia it was to NTI. Read the description below, does that sound like wikipedia? You provided me with a hypothesis of two countries that could attack us with WMD, and I countered with the facts that show that Syria could not launch a chemical weapon beyond 930 miles from within its borders. I have not had time to reaserach Libyia, but I think they will have similar capabilities. The point is that Putting a skud missle on a freighter and launching something from off our coast is ridiculous and preposterous. So try again.
NTI is governed by an expert and influential Board of Directors with members from the United States, Russia, Japan, India, Pakistan, China, Jordan, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom.
Board members include a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, members of the legislative branches of government from the United States, France, Russia and the United Kingdom; a member of the Jordanian royal family; a Nobel prize winning economist; a world renowned nuclear physicist; the former commander of U.S. nuclear strategic forces and other top experts in international security issues. The foundation’s activities are directed by NTI Co-Chairman Sam Nunn and NTI President and Chief Operating Officer Joan Rohlfing.
Brian is such an expert on weapons that it warms my heart to read his logic. If you want to attack America with WMDs you can do it with simple boats, ships and planes, nothing fancy. Biological warfare is as simple as infecting a jihady and putting on a plane bound for the USA.
Chemical weapons aren’t much harder. Load a ship full of nerve gas, pull into a port and blow it up. 9/11 was pulled off by men with box cutters, 3000 dead. Botulism toxin in a city’s water supply, wipe out tens of thousands.
Keep showing us how brilliant you are Brian! We all need the laugh.
And to answer the second part of your assertion–non-state actors are invariably going to have received means of inflicting harm from STATE actors. If someone smuggles a nuke into New York, or weaponized Anthrax into DC, they didn’t get that or the means to deploy it from wal mart…they would have got it from the list of Usual Suspects i.e. Iran, Syria, N Korea, Saudi Arabia etc.
I find it amazing that Obama never turns the other cheek, but expects the American people to do it. He has been systematically destroying this country since taking office, but this is a major step. To weaken our defences like this is dangerous to our people, our country, and our future. This fool has to go!
My 16-year-old daughter put it this way:
“I don’t know if Obama is an idiot, but he IS a fool.”
Strange how kids can come up with some profound thoughts. Like when my oldest daughter showed me the proper way to open the wax paper in a box of cereal or even a bag of potato chips.
I miss having a president.
Obama is either stupid or just plain unfit to be President. Setting a higher threshold for a nuclear response from the U.S. may not be a bad thing. The president may not see a reason to nuke Yemen because of one terror attack by Yemini based terrorists, and he may only want to respond to a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons. OK but why tell the world? Just who is he appealing to with this action other than the far Left, not the American people whom he has pledged to protect, No this move move placates to no group other than the nuclear disarmament Euro-weenies and our avowed enemies.
because he attained this “office” so easily, his narcissism is at a level difficult to comprehend. his delusions of grandeur are racing ahead. he believes in one “exceptionalism”…his.
Don’t forget kdel, he has a gift. He said so himself.
[sarcasm]
Non nuclear WMD tearing the heart out of American cities; what’s not to like?
Millions of dependent citizens living off the State teat eliminated, the Democrat base reduced by tens of thousands or millions of voters, unfunded liabilities of civil service union members eliminated at a stroke, so many issues resolved at once by our enemies.
On the positive side, there will be billions of dollars of cheap real estate and production tools available after the clean-up, so Americans who move in and re-colonize the cities will have a great start re-energizing the economy.
[/sarcasm]
Wishing death to millions is a trait of all socialist regimes in history, which gives you a good sense of where this “regime” is coming from.
Well, we can’t say we didn’t see it coming. Video.
Closet Muslim?
That is what happens when you elect the runner up to American Idol. What a disgrace. Deranged doesn’t even begin to define Obama.
I seriously don’t think the military, intelligence agencies, nor police would even listen to Obama if an attack of that magnitude occurred. We already know what he thinks of them. Most Americans are ignoring this maniac, this includes those that protect us. I believe it is THEY that will do the right thing in the end.
Everyone should turn their back on Obama and his thugs. When Pelosi walks by, turn your back to her. When Reid walks by, turn your back. Ignore them all, as they have us.
Then vote them all out asap.
You’ve got this all wrong. Obama is simply trying to level the playing field. It’s a question of fairness. I mean, after all, we’re a superpower. He’s trying to be even-handed. Give the other guy a chancee. Perhaps even ‘spread the wealth’. Maybe he should offer some of our enemies arms and ammo to help bring them up to par. We don’t want to be seen as the world’s bully. Thanks Hartvard. Thanks NY Times. Thanks all of you ‘progressive’ dickheads who made our first affirmative action president possible.
So from his pulpit, Reverend Wright thundered, “God damn America.” Obama, sitting in his pew, said, “I’ll see what I can do.”
Thread winner.
Obama hates the America that made us great; he loves the America that makes himself great in the eyes of socialists, communists, anarchists, and Muslims.
What are we to make of this and the man who is adopting this policy? Does he hate us? Does he hate this country?
Very open-minded of you.
What do you mean by that?
What is frightening, truly frightening, is that Obama put less effort into reversing 65 years of bipartisan defense policy than he did in choosing a family pet.
The stultifyingly ignorant comments above are a fitting tribute to this ‘post’ and the previous one.
The hundreds of trillions of wasted dollars, the disgusting butchery, the rape and torture, the futility, failure and humanity-demeaning evil of every US military action since the 2nd World War and still Roger L Simon wants more. You want madness, Rog? Look in a mirror.
Waldo, what are you talking about? “rape and butchery”? You might want to go and talk to the Vietnamese and the Cambodians about rape and butchery (and not by our forces)! Go and talk to those who survived Stalin and Mao. Go and talk to the Argentinians and Venezuelans who have seen their countries raped and butchered by the Progressives.
Waldo: To see what Lenin meant by “useful idiot”, look in the mirror.
And what makes anyone think the Chief Waste will even use upgraded conventional weapons in case of an attack?
It’s a message to this country’s enemies, it doesn’t take much to read between the lines given previous statements and positions the Chief Waste has taken & going back even before the Waste was president.
Though I would expect “strong denunciations”, “stern protests”, and “calls for UN action”, from the Waste should or when an attack occurs.
And of course heart rending expressions of deepest sympathy for the thousands of American dead, with nauseating, maudlin blather from Michelle, “The Hips” Obama.
Glad to see a few liberals have posted on this and once again expressed their suicidal tendencies.
Protecting us, our lives and property, is the one clear cut thing than any President is supposed to do, first, and above all else. It stands to reason that this impostor would be derelict in these duties, given his predispositions.
Many have said it but it bears repeating. Obama is a man with almost no actual world experience. He has gone from private school through Occidental, Columbia and Harvard and has only associated with people who a just like….well…Barack Obama. He has mastered all of the petty arts of Chicago machine politics which, once again, does not expose you to many real world experiences. He has never run a business nor served in the military. He has never even practiced law (which is a tough job if you’re doing it right)despite the ballyhooed Harvard JD. He has clearly expressed his disdain for anything associated with those 300 years of history BO (“Before Obama” in case you were wondering.) The nuclear deterrent and its use against a wide range of potential threats has been a major part of our foreign policy posture since WWII. Naturally he wants to abolish it because he doesn’t understand it. Having been raised in a radical political environment he believes that the U.S. has NEVER been on the right side in our international relations and foreign policy. He views the deterrent as simply another established dinosaur to be done away with. Also, in his view, we really aren’t all that worth protecting.
He may be deranged, but it would take more than publicly available evidence to draw that conclusion.
A simpler hypothesis, for which there is much public evidence, is that he is a committed (no pun intended) Progressive. I.e. he is following his philosophy with as much consistency as conditions allow.
These are the inevitable results, and – besides evidence of or an explanation of his character – they demonstrate why ALL Progressives should never be allowed to influence the culture (including but not limited to politics) in any meaningful way.
Progressivism is death worship.
Amen!
progressive = deranged
Dear Waldo. It’s kept your sorry ass safe. What’s eating you? Aren’t we spending enough money on free condoms, needles and syringes, and fellatio instruction for eleven year olds to satisfy you? How much more in ‘tax credits’ to the chronically dependent do we have to dump down the toilet? Perhaps we should just blow kisses to the current collection of despots, thugs, psychopaths and kleptomaniacs that comoprise the bulk of the United Nations, and pedal down to the coast to watch the whales copulate? What we really need is a rousing round of Kumbia to dispel the evil vapors. I wonder, dear Waldo, how many tax dollars, if any, you have contributed to the treasury. Or are you just a gimmee who feels deprived?
Bingo! The priorities of a liberal: usurp all power by any means and obtain sexual gratification at any time with anyone at any age or anything without public condemnation.
The greatest danger to the safety of the United States of America isn’t Russia, or China or N Korea or Iran. He sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, in a psychotic stupor devising ways and means to weaken our Nation.
Barack Obama is worse than weird, he is DANGEROUS to the USA. Incompetence at the highest level in our Nation, the epitomy of the Peter Principle. We can begin to slow him down by ELIMINATING DEMOCRATS from their elected political offices in November.
2012 can not come soon enough. We have to get this dangerous IDIOT out of the White House.
If threats to world peace aren’t coming from nuclear states (e.g. France) but instead are stateless entities (terrorists) then all the statement says is that the US isn’t going to nuke yournameherestan if that’s where the bad guys came from. That makes sense.
I’d be a lot more worried if the president ordered the USAF and the Navy to turn in their nukes and mothball their equipment. That’s not what happened.
Since we have the toys then policy can get changed back to anything we like at the drop of a hat. Do we really think that the world isn’t going to notice that we’re keeping our toys? Obama’s saying that he intends to avoid wasting them. Big deal. I don’t get why everyone is in such an uproar. Nothing has changed vis a vis state to state relations.
There are sure a lot of teenage drama queens here.
See here, Alston:
“If threats to world peace aren’t coming from nuclear states (e.g. France) but instead are stateless entities (terrorists) then all the statement says is that the US isn’t going to nuke yournameherestan if that’s where the bad guys came from. That makes sense”.
No it doesn’t. Look, man, the Alleged Hawaiian has ALREADY won the Nobel Peace Prize, so what is is his point in this speechifyin’?
Is he going for a two-fer?
Or maybe the Russians promised to name him a Hero of the Non-Soviet Union, and he’s striking for that bit of bling-bling, too.
And since when are we all “wee-weed up” about Whirled Peas?
WHOGAS about Whirled Peas?
This is our national homeland military defense posture here. The World can stuff itself up its own backside with both hands and then scoot along on its elbows…the point is to prevent OUR ‘hood from burning down.
All the Alleged Hawaiian’s Obammunist psychobabble does is encourage the mouth-breathing foreign devils who can’t figure out the theory and practice of the flush toilet, but may be able to gin up a cell-phone and a third-hand Soviet nuke into some hurt for our ASSES.
I’m only 12. Oh the thrill to be dismissed as a “teenage drama queen” by the great G.L. Alston!
On the other hand, guess who spends a lot of his precious time reading, hanging with and tsk-tsking Teenage Drama Queens. Weirdo!
Waldo, so when do you surrender your citizenship? Really, how do your bear living in such a country, must be tough. Hang in there, the tax increases, devaluation of the dollar, trillion dollar plus yearly deficits as far out as can be seen, and other goodies the liberals[?] have in store for us should make you feel better.
Then there’s Iran. Ah, but the list is long.
“Does he hate us? Does he hate this country?”
Yes and Yes.
Re the question in the comments; “Is he a closet Muslim?” Yes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYWeK4w3PKk
I have laughed for decades at the fake moralism of the socialists-and/or- commies about nukes.
What do they think , that killing each other with a crowbar is nicer ?
They always wanted to disarm America, and now they are getting to their goal.
And those who clap their hands should spend more time training with a crowbar now.
Wow… I struck the wackjob motherload.
So how exactly is reducing our nuclear stockpile to enough weapons to obliterate the world just 10 times over making us less safe?
I spent 30 years in the army (Special Ops), Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. I have personally been involved with nuclear weapons issues and you all have NO idea what you are talking about. Our leadership best we have ever had and our thinking and objectives are clearly formulated and supported at every level. Our military and civilian leaders are articulate, intelligent and fully capable.
You are all a bunch of fools that are drunk on the tea flavored kool-aid and have a world view that only exists in your imagination. Why not get out and actually see what is happening in the world, instead on listening to Glen Beck tell you about it.
Our military’s professionalism capability and readiness is the best it has ever been.
The new policy, that is alluded to in the original article, is completely misrepresented. I suggest you actually read – AND UNDERSTAND – the revised policy before you react to it… sorry I don’t mean to confuse any of you with the facts.
Now I’m sorry but coming into a conservative blogsite and stating “I’m from the government and don’t worry everything is well in hand” is hardly gonna win you any support except from the other trolls perhaps. However on a more serious note I’m gonna say that simply having The One with his finger over the button makes me feel less safe. It’s like poker; whether you have 1 nuke or 1000, the balls to use them or not, the key is to make them think you have 1000 and that you have as many balls as necessary to use them in response to any WMD attack on the country you are charged with protecting. By changing the policy he simply showed his hand and stated something that Pres Si Kottic from Wakistan was already guessing at; it doesn’t matter how powerful the US military/nuclear capability is they get more reluctant to use it with every passing day and it will not be long before our willingness to use WMDs vastly outweighs their willingness to kill us in return.
Nancy Pelosi.
Game. Set. Match.
What facts, Twisted Logic?
You’ve certainly provided lots of opinions. Facts . . . not so much.
Go ahead.
Not all nukes are create equal. There are nukes on ICBMs, there are nukes in air dropped bombs, there are nukes in artillery shells even. There are big nukes, there are little nukes. There are ground launched nukes, sea launced nukes, air launched nukes.
As well as all combinations of the above.
You want the president to have enough options so that he has enough of the right type of nuke to handle any situation that might arise.
Beyond that, you have to deal with the possibility that some of your nukes may be destroyed in a first strike.
You also have to deal with the possibility that some of your nukes may be shot down before they can destroy their target.
In the real world, this means that you end up with many more nukes than would be obvious to a simple examination of boom power vs. number of targets worth hitting.
Then again, liberals specialize in simple thinking, so they never get around to dealing with the world as it actually is.
But will the CINC actually unleash the military: that’s the question.
As eon pointed out in #27, unless we’re demonstrably willing to use the weapons they’re of no use.
hate to tell you Twisted, but I was involved in Nuke issues during my time in the USAF. The policy is called DETERRENCE, not the end of the world. After all, in 1962, who were the ones who placed offensive missles in Cuba? Certainly not JFK. Khrushev placed missles there precisely because he thought JFK was weak. JFK proved him wrong-after all, unlike Obama JFK never DISAVOWED using nukes in a retalitory fashion. Obama just basically TOOK THEM ENTIRELY OFF THE TABLE. Quit thinking like a leftist. The rest of the world is not composed of nice guys-how soon if you are ex-military you seem to have forgotten that. I saw absolutley horryfying things during my years in Korea and England. What Nazism and communism did to the human race. Never again.
Whoever decides to attack the U.S. will aim for the biggest cities on the coasts: NYC, LA, DC, etc.
The Progressives will be wiped out first.
I guess that’s some solace.
Barack Obama is a beleaguered narcissist with autoritarian instincts.
Almost consistently since passage of so called “healthcare”, here’s the President of the United States running around the country relentlessly seeking the only strokes he gets, applause and adulation from the faithful. Seems a complete waste of time.
Despite trying to come across as a tough guy in various inappropriate circumstances (such as going out of his way to reprimand John McCain during the televised republican/democrat healthcare meetings) Obama is, essentially, a weak man, a fact not unrelated to his bullying instincts.
Needing to constantly be the center of attention, he keeps plowing ahead, one new shock a day, at least. Criticism (which is ample and which he would dearly love to silence) and failure make him more determined to press an extreme agenda, of which the nuclear posture is just the latest wrinkle.
It’s questionable whether the Presidential Oath of Office is operable for this individual, whether that document enshrining the citizen’s “negative liberties” and placing limits on power of the federal government has any value at all in his eyes.
The strain of having to pretend otherwise is taking its toll on the man.
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
For President I am supporting General James Matton Scott.
Well… so much for “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. Now, this is telling everyone loudly that you’re not carrying anything.
Look, I’m the first to admit that the use of nukes would be horrid. The aftermath of even the most limited usage would still be terrible. When Ronald Reagan in 1983 “(A) nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,”, he was right. It only leaves a greater and lesser loser.
But:
There is a problem with proactively announcing one’s plans for self defense. When you proclaim what you will do in response, you give a prospective enemy a line they can plan right up to but not cross. It may be true that the de facto practice by the US has been No First Use, but that was never an inviolate rule, meaning that there was always the chance that the US would say “It’s worse to sit and wait, not striking would lead to a worse outcome than striking, launch the missiles”.
You can give dictators and megalomaniacs much pause when you reserve the right to respond with as much force as you can muster.
But this… look, it’s absolutely possible to be moral without being weak. You can say “We won’t use nuclear weapons for national gain, we won’t use them to conquer, we will only use them to defend what we feel is right” and hold a perfectly moral stance. But history has shown that there must still be a projection of strength and resolve. Either stated or unstated, you have to also say or imply “We won’t use it selfishly, but woe betide those who give us reason to use it to defend what we think is worth defending”. You must give megalomaniacs and dangerous leaders pause. Else, you are shirking your responsibility to defend liberty.
This may feel like a good stance to Obama’s advisors, but it’s not. It’s proactive weakening. By itself, it probably won’t lead to any sort of disaster, but it’s the building block for the US being in an untenable situation later. You don’t invite the vicious to attack first, and announcing that you’re willing to sit back and absorb it is doing exactly that.
Rodger Simon, Whiskey,
People really care about their jobs and their health insurance.
Nukes make people’s eyes glaze over.
The Obama Administration said what it did anout nukes as an intentional distraction from ObamaCare and unemployment.
TWISTED LOGIC
Although I cannot match your thirty years of service,which I thank you for, I too served for three years as a Combat Gynecologist, which, I might add, is definitely hazzardous duty. The issue is not the quality of the US military. The issue is not the number of nukes. The issue is the groundrules concerning their potential use. It is, at best, naive, and at worst, patently foolish, to tell potential enemies what we won’t do if attacked. That enables them to control events.
The Obama Regime hands our defense policy to Russia. You cannot make this stuff up.
What pisses me off the most about this is the danger this will put my military men into. With deterrence, our military members are held in abeyance. If anything breaks into open war or even covert war, our young men and women are right in the middle of it – our best and brightest. How many of our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, students and friends, will die? He is no CinC.
This is just more of the “chickens coming home to roost”. Americans unwittingly elected an enemy of the United States to sit in the Oval Office and now it is time for Americans to eat the cake he is baking.
For many of them, there was no “unwitting” about it.
Just listened to Sec Def Gates. He said that in the event of a chemical or biological attack on the US, its allies or partners, the US would not respond with nuclear force, but rather with a “devastating conventional arms” attack. Sweet heavens–it takes a veritable eternity to launch a ground attack (assuming we’re not still “overstretched” as the saying goes). And, of course we’d have to abide by the restrictive Rules of Engagement now in force, and we’d risk the lives of our military on the ground and in the air. Air strikes? Maybe, assuming we can get flyover permission (further telegraphs of our mission). ICBMs with conventional weaponry? OK, but still we’d have to send up a boatload to achieve a “devastating” effect. All told, the notion that we would, for the first time, declassify the entire NPR, and in so doing announce that nuclear retaliation is essentially off the table (save me the “nuance” of the right to re-evaluate–by the time we do that hand-wringing the second WMD attack will have occurred), is appalling. Even if that was the administration’s position, don’t tell the A.Q.Khans of the world and their patrons about it.
In today’s current world political climate, what country do you see attacking us with a chemical weapon? And if they do, in what situation would we actually nuke them verses taking out their weapons capability, which we can do quickly? There are not that many countries that could launch from withing their country, and reach us to begin with. If it was a country from the Middle East, we have oil interests and would not want turn the country uninhabitable for a long time. Since we developed Nuclear weapons we have used them twice, and both on the Japanese. Where in your head do you actually see that we will need to use them in the current world political climate? You are afraid of the boogie man hiding under the bed that does not exist.
Actually, this does require some thought and explanation. Strategic deterrence is a strange topic, and somewhat counter-intuitive.
First and foremost: the primary purpose of a strategic weapon is to assure that no opponent attacks you (or an ally) with another strategic weapon in the first place. This includes, BTW, not only WMD’s but armies in general.
You want your opponent to say: “I’d rather not mess with that at all.” Remember also, just because we don’t think that they’d get away with it doesn’t necessarily mean that they think that also. Unfortunately, the only way to assure that potential attackers come up with the correct response is to be ready at all times to actually respond. If they see weakness, or hesitation, or an unwillingness to pay the price, they will at least consider attacking.
I might note that this is particularly so in the Arab world. Read “The Arab Mind” by Raphael Patai.
So, the first answer to your question of “who” is – anybody who thinks that they can get away with it. That now means anybody who fits Obama’s “no-nuke” criteria.
Now the second part: our conventional forces. Again, the point that our opponents will consider is “can we get away with it.” Read “The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century” by Thomas X. Hammes. As evidenced by the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and the “War on Terror”, an opponent has a considerable chance of beating the U.S. if he can 1) draw the war out to over a decade, 2) inflict large casualties, and 3) be able to utilize our media to gain sympathy. And, of course, there’s the question: “will the U.S. president commit forces to the point where they do more damage to us than we did to them.” Right now, I would say that the odds for potential opponents – especially those with arms provided by Russia and/or China – are looking favorable.
I was asking for real countries, not hypothetical ones. Lets take a list of countries that we exchange verbal jabs with on the world stage. Three countries come to mind, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Iran and North Korea are excluded from the plan by Obama, and that leaves only Venezuela. I see two main reasons why Venezuela is not likely to strike with bio/chem weapons. First, “Venezuela does not have a long-range missile program, and it is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime. However, it is planning to import Russian missile defense systems and it has been accused of aiding Iran’s missile program. ”
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Venezuela/index.html
Second, Chavez likes being in power. That is why he keeps changing the constitution, to allow himself to stay president. That is what a despot does, they do not want to leave the position. If he ever attacked the U.S. in any fashion, he would lose power because we would bomb the crap out of him and invade. Thus you are still just scared of an imaginary boogie man.
You are right Brian – but it really isn’t the point. The issue is not that we now have a “no first use of nukes” policy – even if the other guy uses chems or bio. The issue is that we announced that! The conditions under which we will or won’t use nukes should be TOP SECRET (and up to now were). Uncertainty is as much a deterrent as our weapons are.
This is much like the “certain date of withdraw” for Iraq. This issue is not that we have a planned date to be out of there (I am sure we do and always did). The issue is do we publish that?
This is why military plans, capabilities and policy are always classified information. You want the other guys to go to bed at night and imagine the worst possible case scenario. We don’t even have to know what the other guy fears. We just have to shut up! The bad guys have to plan based on the contingency that we might do what they least want us to do.
Actually, it’s okay to announce that you will use nukes- one more terrorist attack of any sort and we will vaporize Mecca would have a powerful deterrent effect, provided you have the guts to back it up. What is foolish is announcing circumstances under which you absolutely will not use nukes.
Weirdo, deranged, stupid, etc. Well, it’s said “it takes one to know one.” But actually, no, it doesn’t. Those people who call Obama such names are indeed weird, deranged, stupid, etc., themselves, and, exactly because of that, not only all wrong about Obama, but forgiving of him also. Weird, deranged, stupid, etc., these are all extenuating circumstances that speak to his presumed incompetence, and let him off the hook.
Cold, calculated, logical, practical, diligent, smart, and up to no good, that’s Obama.
The truth of this is in how far he’s come already. He got elected, didn’t he? You bet, and he’s the first one to remind you of that, too, remember? Look at the damage he’s done. You have to be crazy or stupid, or both, to think Obama is. Wise up. He’s crazy like a fox, has you running in circles, and gets away with everything. We’re in deep trouble; that much you know. But it’s crunch time right now, you dopes.
Anyway, here’s the cue you’ve been waiting for to roll your eyes and shake your heads in exasperation, and stay as stupid as ever. Ready? Here goes: Check his birth certificate AND his records, before it’s too late.
Since you’re the smart one here and the rest are dummies, how come and didn’t cross your exceedingly bright mind that he maybe a front, and that his handlers won’t have you or anyone else ever review these records?
How does that banging your head against the wall feel?
If his “handlers” will not allow We the People of the United States to see the President of the United States’ birth certificate and other records, to ascertain whether Obama is or is not eligible in accordance with the Constitution of the United States to hold the office of President, and there’s nothing that We the People of the United States can do about it, then yes, I do agree, that is a problem, a very serious problem. It means we’re under the absolute rule of a small group of “handlers.” Are you saying that’s the end of the matter as far as you’re concerned, that there’s no choice but to submit to their absolute rule, and forget all about freedom, the rule of law, and the Constitution?
¯±
Oh for crying out loud squishees! It’s not about using nuclear weapons indiscriminately but about having a real deterrent. The president could always decide not to nuke Afghanistan, for example, if an attack eminates from there but those considering attacking the US or its allies should be damn aware that unleashing a big can of whupass is not only a possible but a likely response.
Truth is: Obama NEEDS a war /attack on the USA if he is to be more than a 1 term president. After all, who could dare risk changing president during a war on the homeland. Therefore he essentially invites an attack by the no nuke policy. He again places self above country at every turn. Obama loves Obama. His grandiosity knows no bounds. He is not difficult to understand. To understand Obama one only needs to understand pathalogical narcissism.
But that will only work if he rises to the occasion. If, however, Obama comes off as a spineless failure, the American people will replace him with someone fit for command. Mike Huckabee would defeat Obama in a landslide in that scenario.
I think you have a strong point, crk, but I feel that Obama may not want to stay for a second term unless he can provoke a crisis whereby he can ‘save the world’. Obama will want to move into a global role, which is even more remote and abstract; he can’t handle factual reality…and one that puts him in as a ‘world figure of power’.
That is, his pathological narcissism, which has increased exponentially because of his presidential power, requires that he can’t involve himself in ‘trivial everyday matters’. Obama lives in a virtual or made-up world, a fictional world where His Word is the only reality.
The only thing he will act on is a grandiose matter. That’s why he could reform health care step by step; that’s too trivial. He requires the grandiose, the overwhelming act – even if it’s disastrous in the long run.
So, yes, Obama is provoking Islamic fascism with his, first, denying their ‘power and might’; he did that by renaming the war on terror to ‘overseas contingency operations’; by his attempt to move terrorism to a civil or criminal rather than war activity, by his refusal to acknowledge the reality of terrorist links, eg, the Ft. Hood massacre which Obama claimed was a ‘one-time deranged act’. The result will be more Al Qaeda attacks as they must prove, to the world and Obama, that they exist.
And Obama is enabling Iran to achieve nuclear weapon capacity by his essential denial of nuclear power in the world. If the US doesn’t have it, then for Obama and his ‘everyone is equal’ – neither will anyone else have or use it.
ETAB -appreciate your comments. Yes, Obama’s grandiosity may lead him to making the “big splashes” during his first and only presidential term. This, of course, would enlarge his image among fellow world tyrants and ensure his legacy with the radical Muslims. He seems inclined toward achieving his Marxist-like goals at any price thus placing him in the history books forever – picture included. He does not strike me nearly as intelligent as he and his followers would like us to believe. The teleprompter has been his salvation and without it appears rather mundane by comparison to many world famous narcisists. It appears that he has been educated far beyond his intelligence and promoted primarily by his strut, ego, media madness, and riding the wave of an immature star struck public. We must hope that he goes the way of other adolescent idols before he does more lasting damage.
Well I for one would vote against a communist (which Obama is) especially in the event of an attack if his policies (and his do) caused such an attack in the first place, and would also consider using every means possible to prosecute and possibly execute such a president because engineering such an attack is treason and deserves to be punished!
This person is very dangerous to our nation and needs to have a congress to put brakes or even impeach him before further damage is done due to these insane socialist policies.
“Deranged” has nothing to do with it, Roger. You got it right with your first question, “Does he hate us?” To paraphrase “All the President’s Men,” “Follow the mommy.”
Consider Obama’s mindset. Never ever ignore that he is a pathological narcissist who thinks that He is the Messiah and that all peoples will be and must be persuaded by him..sorry..Him.
So, his ‘thinking’ is that if HE says that He will not use nuclear arms, then all other nations will, in their adoration of His Beneficence, copy him and do exactly the same. Why? Because He is so extraordinary, such a metaphysical god-like Being, that it’s natural for any and all to copy him..sorry..Him. Obama will lead the unenlightened of the world into world peace…
So Obama’s strategy to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions is to Show them the Enlightened Way. Obama is enough of a narcissist to think that they will copy Him.
First, the president is not elected by the people he’s elected by the electoral collage. Depending on what party controls the state that dictates how the electors vote, example was California,with 8% of the popular vote counted the states 51 electoral votes went to Obama. 2nd Peace through strength has been our countries military’s doctrine for decades and it has worked very well. The sad part is that the progressives(socialist/communist)have had this goal in mind for about a hundred years, to make our country defenseless and they are about to succeed. Wake Up America!
Oh my god I have been so blind. California has 8.5 % of the population but 9.7 % of the electoral college. However, Obama won the popular vote as well so it was irrelevant. Bush on the other hand lost the popular vote both times but won the EC vote. I am a strong proponent of getting rid of the EC, and always have been.
Not entirely clear on what you’re saying here. Bush did lose the popular vote in California both in 2000 and 2004, but countrywide, he won the popular vote in 2004. In both elections, California’s EC representatives would have cast their votes for Gore then Kerry, but in 2004, Bush won both the popular and EC vote.
Just because a state has a majority of lunatic leftists voting is one good reason for the electoral college regardless of the percentage of population to the nation as a whole!
Bambi was elected by neither the popular vote or the EC. He stole the office of POTUS with the helping hands of ACORN and SEIU. The shell game continues and we need to keep a vigilant eye on the ball so this never happens again.
Are you claiming that Acorn was able to steal 10,000,000?? If the Democrats had control over rigging elections why did they lose the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections? Why did they lose the Mass election this year? There is no logic in your claims. 10 million votes do not just get created like that.
It was more like 8 million and yes I think it’s plausible and boils down to roughly 160,000 stolen votes per state. Following Gore and Kerry’s narrow defeat in 2000 and 2004 the dems committed themselves to win in 08 by hook or by crook. What made it particularly easy for them was the right wing putting up an incredibly weak candidate not to mention open primaries in several states. As for Scott Brown’s victory, the dems never saw it comin what with bambi doin his last minute shuffle for Coakley and all.
I don’t pretend to think cheating only exists on the left, I just don’t think anyone does it better than them. Stay vigilant.
Are you saying that Acorn didn’t commit voter fraud. You’re an attorney. What were those inditements in ll states?
This is akin to spelling out what we will and will not do when interrogating terrorists. Fear of the unknown and unexpected is a powerful weapon and one we should not be removing from our arsenal. I think one of GWB’s great advantages (at least in the beginning) was that the world’s bad actors believed the crazy cowboy, and thus the US, capable of most anything (see Kadafi, Miramar). It’s to everyone’s advantage to let them continue to think so.
Obama continues to not surprise. He made his position on America’s position in the world crystal clear long ago. Fortunately, the chances of two thirds of the Senate going along with this treaty are slim indeed. I do wonder about Gates, though. Does he choke on the words he must use to explain his boss or does he agree with them?
Dear Sukie Tawdry
It was worth reading through this stuff to find the best chatroom name ever. Way to go John Gay and Berthold Brecht!
when somebody consistantly says one thing and does the exact opposite… you start to assume that up is down and transpanrency means obfuscation.
So instead of pledging to curtail weapon use, I think anything goes, he’s just not saying that.
I think that makes it more dangerous, rather than less, but then I tend to say what I mean.
Why is the conservative Tom Coburn friends with a guy who “hates America”?
Well Miss Nicky I’m going to let you in on a little secret. The junior Senator from Oklahoma is a……..politician.
He’s not “strange,” and he’s not a “weirdo.” He’s a communist. Repeat after me: Barack Obama is a communist. Barack Obama….”
This presidency has been in the making for almost one hundred years. Stalin did not spring up wholly formed: he was a product of Russia’s history. Obama is the inevitable outcome of Progressivism and radical agitation, which started in the late 19th century, hit its stride with Wilson, and was pushed over the top in the Sixties.
Why are we – especially we – evincing the slightest surprise?
I am beginning to think that Barack Obama does hate this country. He wants to wreck it, destroy it, mess it up, teach it a lesson. I don’t know how else to explain his behavior.
By golly, Terrye, I think you’ve got it!
I spent quite a bit of time reading all comments and replies on this page.
There’re trolls that post who are obviously opinionating, without any documentation, and then there’re some who supposedly offer “facts” trying to attract attention to the trash they throw around. One of them is a troll by the name of “Brian N,” who appears routinely on a bunch of stories by PJM. This guy’s credibility is best measured by this entry, posted on this page at 1:31pm April 6, where among other things he states:
“Bush lost the Electoral Vote both times” (i.e., in 2000 and 2004).
The falsehood of this statement speaks to everyone here about the credibility of, at least, troll “Brian N.”
In order to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize that he has already won, he has to do SOMETHING.
Obama is not Anti-American, his controllers are Anti-American. He is just a useful, narcissistic, idiot druggie.
“What are we to make of this and the man who is adopting this policy? Does he hate us? Does he hate this country?”
Yes.
There’s only one person in Obama’s world – himself -as he’s ridding the world of nukes he pronounces himself the real Messiah in his own head who brings peace to the world – he’s completely delusional at this point – he has no interest in anything – the Marxist ideology ingratiated him with the radical left who use him but it could have been any ideology – he’s a very, very sick man.
Obama Is No MADman
We don’t hear much about MAD anymore, except in the context of Mad magazine, which makes more sense every day when compared with the Obama administration.
For the younguns out there, MAD was the acronym for the Cold War policy of mutually assured destruction which was the single most effective way the U.S.S.R. and the United States had to keep Moscow and Washington from becoming molten puddle s of radioactive rubble.
In essence, the MAD strategy meant that if they hit us they could be assured that the attack or attacks would be reciprocated in kind and both nations would in large part be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust.
It was a sick, Strangelovian policy that assumed a minimal level of sanity on both sides and enjoyed the distinction of working for forty+ years. There were countless threats and nuke rattlings, most emanating from the U.S.S.R., but even though the adversaries came close a few times, notably in 1961 with the Cuban Missile Crisis, no nuclear exchange ever occurred.
President Feelgood seems to think that if a nuclear war never happened in the past it could never happen in the future, just as September 11th, 2001 could never happen.
Accordingly. “President Obama said Monday . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1616)
Hi Folks, just checking in from the Bunker. Laura and I are doing fine, Mom and Dad are well. Now I know that alot of folks were unhappy with me, even hated me. But come on, is anyone seriously saying that ANYTHING I had done or proposed is as insane as what the country is experiencing now?? Really????? Now we’re giving away our right to respond to an NBC attack. Why hell folks lets just raise the White Flag over the White House now and get it over with.
Anyway, we’re locked and loaded here in the Bunker, plenty of food, water, books, dvd’s to watch. Oh and the armament/arsenal is just fantastic. Being CinC certainly does have some advantages.
Well I’ll check back from time to time. If our country is still her. Bye now.
Do the people on this thread not realize the brilliance that is Obambi. He has been reading “Nuke the Moon”, and trying to operate the theory in reverse, Since nearly everybody in the world knows that he is unhinged, telling the world he won’t nuke them, will make them think he is about to nuke them. This sucks. Late, must sleep.
What do we need to do to impeach this clown ASAP of coarse we will need to keep the other clown in his stead. Will that be safe if we apply duct tape to the next batter’s mouth. If we don’t control number two after an impeachment the next one up will be the worst of all “Pelosi”. We may have to wind up calling on the magnificant seven to get us out of this one, figuretivly speaking as to the latter.
Does Obama hate America? Let’s see, he was launched by Bill Ayers and mentored by ‘uncle’ Reverend Wright.
It’d be amazing if he *didn’t* hate America.
If Obama is a sick person mentaly, how can we have him checked out? I for one do believe this man to be mentaly ill. ETAB: you seem to have this idiot peged fairly well but you constantly fail to point out the fact that this man is sick, he is not right. Obama may seem to some to have his faculties in tact but if you look anyone can see that everything he dose is a contradiction in-of-itself. ie: Drill for oil but shut off all present oil leases and open one up where the trafic for the navy is very heavy and the rockets are launched for NASA, that’s realy dumb!!! Drill Maybe Drill but shut down two major oil leases in Alaska. This man has to have a selective service ID card from before his 18th birthday I don’t believe he has that either. That is required to apply for any federal job! If you have ever refused to serve in the service of your country you are prohibited from applying for any federal job and that includes President. I believe this person to be an infiltrator and an enemy from with-in.
Obama does NOT think his primary duty is to protect the country; he thinks it’s to redistribute wealth and income (of course, NOT the production that generates this) for the vacuous, nebulous concept of “fairness” (again missing the skills, efforts and risks that provide it).
Not only is he mentally unbalanced, he’s hopelessly immature to boot.
SO many conservatives today are reactionary emotion-driven lunatics. It does seem hard to explain except as driven at least partially by xenophobia or racism. Or course a lot of it is an extension of a long-held Republican political calculation — say extreme things consistently enough, and maybe the public (and definitely the media) will “split the difference.” The truth must be somewhere in the middle, right?
On November 11, 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, “The only value in possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they can’t be used ever.” Sure sounds similar to the policy Obama just announced, which (as with virtually everything he has done) is indisputably centrist, rational, and measured.
Reagan also said: “I know I speak for people everywhere when I say our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.” I guess Reagan makes McGovern look like Gengis Khan.
We also dream of the day that Jesus will tell us to beat our swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, because He will see to it personally that there will never be another war, forcing any nations who have a dispute into binding arbitration.
From #63 reply bilgeman — This is our national homeland military defense posture here. The World can stuff itself up its own backside with both hands and then scoot along on its elbows…the point is to prevent OUR ‘hood from burning down.
I’m pretty sure that some thought was given to the change, and that this thought wasn’t simply trying to find a way to shaft conservatives. There appears to be two glaring problems with the panty wetting happening here.
First, known rogue states like NK are already pointed to as an exception, and we don’t really have any reason to fear Upper Volta any more than we do most countries. Having a policy to nuke the capital city of Upper Volta “just in case” is rather pointless. Nukes are largely a threat to wipe out a city and the SIOP was conceived in an environment of technological equivalence. Sure there are battlefield nukes, but whatever these are aimed at would have to be so powerful that we can’t take it out at great cost in lives otherwise. As far as I know, this isn’t the current reality.
Second, recent advances are rendering the effectiveness of nukes somewhat moot. A UAV piloted in Nevada (and a B-52 can be modified) can kamikaze itself into a military target or carry enough pinpoint ordnance to do the same thing. US forces were able to emasculate the Republican Guard et al in a matter of 3 weeks, and that was conventionally. (That we stayed on to rebuild is a political thing, not a military one.) We also have some of SDI operational as well as the new airborne missile shoot down laser on a 747. The upshot is that the unequal technology levels alone make resorting to nukes to enforce our political will a vanishingly small chance anyway. And as I pointed out, Obama isn’t exactly turning SSBNs into plowshares.
In sum, the panty wetting here appears to be more about finding a club to smack Obama with rather than a discussion of what US needs really are or ought to be in an age where the US is technologically superior to any potential adversary. Frankly, if you want to crap on Obama for foreign policy stupidity, you’d have a better case discussing the administration’s gross mishandling of the Turks.
It seems to me that our President is on the way to disarming America. When I talked to an anti-gun activist, he described to me what is called salami slicing technique. You can get everything in one chunk, so you take pieces ie: limiting the sale of automatic weapons, types of ammo, size of magazines, the recycling of empty brass cartridges etc. So far Obami has cancelled the F22 Raptor program, put the F35 on hold, stopped the anti-missile system in Europe, put limits on our deep water Naval fleet building and now limiting our ability to retaliate. My bet is that not one new weapons system is developed during his administration.
Excuse my typo: You can’t get everything in one chunk……….
#104 oscar — My bet is that not one new weapons system is developed during his administration.
As in started or completed? The USAF is launching the X37B in a week or two, and Boeing is a bit busy with the airborne laser. The key here would be whether or not all of these are cancelled and mothballed.
It seems to me that our President is on the way to disarming America.
This falls in to what teenagers refer to as O.M.G. territory.
Basic firearms, which have been around for what, seven centuries perhaps?, are simple enough tech that anyone with some machine tools and a bit of knowhow can make all the weapons they can carry, and easily so. For the government to be successful at removing firearms they would have to be able to also erase 700 years of know-how.
Then there’s that silly thing called the 2nd amendment, which the supreme court finally got around to addressing directly just recently, and found that individuals had the right to bear arms, not just militias.
Check your knickers. My guess is they’re soaked.
I wish you children would stop using letters to describe things. Old people like me like whole words especially when somebody is trying to make a point or tell you off.
Now GLA, its easy to stop a project. All you have to do is stop funding it ie: the F 35 or the European anti-missile system. If the ABL is stopped it will be because funding will be denied. Now then about the x37, if it is ongoing, it was started during the previous administration. If it looks like it will be at all effective, Obama will cancel it.
And GLA, that wet feeling you just started having is me pissin in your left ear. Can you hear better yet?
Now GLA, its easy to stop a project. All you have to do is stop funding it ie: the F 35 or the European anti-missile system.
There is/was plenty of reason to stop either/or F35 and F22 since there isn’t a real agreement in the services regarding what the military mission is anticipated to be. There has been a great deal of discussion of this in military strategy circles, with many good arguments being made both pro and con. Ultimately the argument against the F35 is that the anticipated mission can likely be done with cheaper UAVs and is a classic argument between the fraternity of fighter jocks and those who aren’t. The USAF is morphing to a service that isn’t being commanded solely by fighter jocks. Stopping F35 or F22 funding isn’t solely leftist anti-war politics and as far as I can tell didn’t have sod all to so with it.
Meanwhile I’m sure that what you’re attempting to engage in is “stump the stupid suspected leftist” by invoking a fighter program cut as some sort of political proof; after all, everyone here knows suspected stupid leftists hate the military and wouldn’t know an F35 from a cheese grater. Try your silly game with someone else; you’re in over your head and you’re resorting to hand waving.
Both the X37 and ABL are long term ongoing projects, but I doubt the ABL will continue to get funding. It’s a project absolutely hated by the left, and Barry’s policies–especially this one in discussion here appear to be designed specifically to appease them. It’s politically motivated to impress a group of people whose goal is the emasculation of America. He is weakness incarnate, and as I’ve said before weakness is the lowest form of stupidity.
The main problem with the policy is that for decades it has left options open, everything was on the table, regardless of the implausibility of actually using them. But, as 9/11 showed us, what you end up dealing with are sets of unknown unknowns. Which is why you don’t tie you hands…. esp to appease people who don’t have you best interest at heart anyways.
#107 baal — Both the X37 and ABL are long term ongoing projects, but I doubt the ABL will continue to get funding. It’s a project absolutely hated by the left, and Barry’s policies–especially this one in discussion here appear to be designed specifically to appease them.
Link re ‘absolutely hated by the left’ ??
I didn’t know the ABL in particular was any more of a political football than any of the other SDI puzzle pieces. And even then I’m not sure it’s the left so much as mere opportunistic regurgitation of the sour grapes nonsense from academics who had major career smackdowns for claiming SDI stuff was unworkable.
But I’d sure like to see a link showing it’s pure politics… thanks!
THE END OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
Obama’s announcement on April 5th of the changes being made to a 50 year old nuclear strategic doctrine fell on the 59th anniversary of the sentencing to death of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for nuclear espionage. This “coincidence” was emblematic of Obama’s perilous deconstructing of our national security and strategic defense systems and making the world a more dangerous place.
Google my name ApolloSpeaks (one word, on Townhall) and read my piece: The End of Nuclear deterrence and the Dismantling of the Reagan Revolution.
One hate to keep saying, ”I told you so” but what the heck…… Didn’t I tell you so????
I’m not a U.S citizen, so this isn’t much of my concern but I think the posts argument is wrong.
Obama’s policy is designed to advance U.S moral authority on nuclear weapons so that when he asks the international comunity to cooperate in pressuring Iran (and other nations) into not acquiring the means to build nukes they may agree.
That might not work, but it isn’t stupid. It also isn’t stupid to role back the numbers of expensive weapons in excess of those neccessary to be an effective deterrent (why waste money on irrelevant excess?)
People are fed up with the policies of Obama. He was elected in the name of change but he is doing the same things that were carried out by Bush administration.
Some of the similarities between the 2 administrations really disappoint me.