Obama: Hey, let’s eliminate nuclear weapons
posted at 4:57 pm on July 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Why not? We’ll need a project to focus on once he eliminates poverty and disease. CJ calls it a campaign “promise” but I think it falls under the heading of feelgood utopian nonsense to which everyone aspires and which no one is expected to take seriously. He mentioned it in his big warmed-over Iraq speech yesterday too. Hope + change = crazy delicious nukeless world:
Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it’s time to send a clear message: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.
We’ll be in a “better position” morally, not practically. As long as we retain that strong deterrent he talks about, Iran and North Korea will whine that it’s unfair that some states are allowed to have weapons when others aren’t. Iran makes that point about Israel all the time. As such, it’d be more accurate to say that abiding by our nonproliferation commitments will keep us from being in a worse position than we are. Which is super, but it’s not going to help solve the Iranian problem. Free advice to Team Barry: Quit wasting time on empty rhetorical gestures to prove your diplomatic virtue and talk more about nuclear terror countermeasures like you have the past few days. Some of us conservatives are very much in the mood for hope and change on that front.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
The day after Israel gives up their Nukes, they will be attacked… and not just by Hez or Hamas.
Romeo13 on July 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM
To quote a line from Miss Congeniality…
“I want to help promote WORLD PEACE !”
singlemalt_18 on July 16, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Bubba was on to something – this is the biggest fairy tale…ever.
Rick on July 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM
And you’re planning to start with who?
Speakup on July 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM
BoooooooooOOOOooOOooooOooooooooooooooo!!!eleven!!!!!!one!!
Califemme on July 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Nukes forever!!!
pseudonominus on July 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM
The end of nuclear weapons will be at the end of the world.
jgapinoy on July 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I have a feeling the (4 or 5) reasonable democrats must really be cringing right about now.
thirteen28 on July 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
He’s going to gather them all up, put them in a huge nuclear missile net and toss them into the sun.
Hoodlumman on July 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM
What about the day Barry does away with all of our nukes?
Hell Barry, why not just do away with the military altogether.
Rick on July 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Wait, all we needed to do this whole time to get back the moral high ground was give up our nukes?
Holy crap. I feel so stupid for not thinking of this earlier.
World B. Free on July 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Haha…priceless.
bagadeez04 on July 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Obamamessiah: The Quest for Peace
Obambi vs. Nuclear Man
A villain even Obama could defeat?
catmman on July 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
You mean like, I don’t know, replacing the current military with a citizen militia? Because if that’s what you mean, he’s one step ahead of you on that front….
World B. Free on July 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Since he’s talking about nukes, maybe one of our serious journalists might ask him for his opinion about Truman’s use of them on Japan. Might provide some interesting soundbites.
They won’t do this, though, will they?
cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Everybody chant…YES WE CAN!!!
WoW, I feel so much better. The rain has stopped and the clouds have parted and by golly the sun is shining!
Obama makes me want to barf.
moonsbreath on July 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM
“Peace through superior firepower!”
Time to buy the shirt…
dc84123 on July 16, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I think he’s going to use the national security force he proposed the other day to eliminate them.
lorien1973 on July 16, 2008 at 5:11 PM
He sounds as if he wants to implement a worldwide gun ban…only on a much larger scale.
As the old saying goes, Barry, when nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes.
txsurveyor on July 16, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Remember this video?
It's Vintage, Duh on July 16, 2008 at 5:14 PM
With us of course. It was Jimmy Carter who’s philosophy was to act nice to our enemies, so that they would act nice back to us. You see, “we” are the bad guys around the world. Obama realizes this. After we give up our neclear weapons, then the rest of the world …. won’t. And then we have none. Maybe Obama thinks that others will give up theirs. Of course, they won’t. Obama is Jimmy Carter’s second term.
Welcome to Obama’s plan for the future if he is elected.
wise_man on July 16, 2008 at 5:14 PM
No, that’s the beauty of it, Barry will implement global government programs to show the outlaws the light — there will be NO MORE OUTLAWS!
We’re talking real peace, man…
Rick on July 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM
How about something practical like eliminating hemorrhoids?
BL@KBIRD on July 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM
What’s this “hair-trigger” crap??
Do these nimrods have any clue what’s involved in actually launching a nuclear missile?
I’m guessing not.
CurtZHP on July 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM
The American President may present such policies as s/he wants.
Nuclear weapons are a fact of life and death beyond the reliable limits of American policy. Sad but true.
So let’s support a kind of MAD Policy in the interim: If you use nuclear weapons against America and her allies, you will be destroyed.
No Caliphate?
Randy
williars on July 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Would be nice in a perfect world…
Farcical otherwise to suggest so.
Weebork on July 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Don’t you KNOW! B.H.O. is talking the “Field of Dreams”
If you destroy it, they will go!
upinak on July 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM
This isn’t the first time he has promised disarm America’s nuclear defense.
Check out the vide…it IS a campaign promise. Change you can believe in!
Jay on July 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I smell Obama desperation. Hey Chris Mathews, SUCK IT!
marklmail on July 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
See, there is a man who should run for public office. Someone who can take away the pains in our ass.
dc84123 on July 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Ya know, I don’t think anyone ever thought of this before Barack Justanotherlyingpolitician Obambi!
NeighborhoodCatLady on July 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
A single night of B-29 airstrikes during WWII reduced Tokyo to an ash heap and killed an estimated 100,000 people, using nothing but standard HE and incendiary bombs; more dead than were inflicted during the atom bomb attack on Hiroshima.
Dead is dead, whether by nuke or conventional arms. Obama is playing out some stupid fantasy where everyone will magically get along once nuclear bombs are done away with. Message for you Baracko: people will still kill each other in great quantities.
Bishop on July 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Hey, let’s lets build some nuclear power plants!!! NOW!
Chakra Hammer on July 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM
There have been too many changes of late, so I don’t know what to believe in.
Rick on July 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Barry still needs a history lesson. The Russians will never disarm their weapons. They and China have fought over their mutual border before when China was weak and the USSR was strong. The military balance is shifting rapidly these days and I for one doubt Russia forgets that China looks north longing for parts of Siberia. A war for oil perhaps?
Dawnsblood on July 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM
We don’t need Jesse, Barry just said cut my balls off.
fogw on July 16, 2008 at 5:22 PM
It all makes sense now. We could have averted WWII and saved all those lives if the US and it’s allies had disbanded their armies and navies back in the 30’s.
SPCOlympics on July 16, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Democrats were convinced that Ronald Reagan would start WW3 and kill every human being on the planet with nuclear weapons. People who have no idea, whose only education about nuclear weapons is what they see in the movies that their fellow liberals create must really think that nuclear weapons are always on a ‘hair trigger’ alert and can be launched at any time.
wise_man on July 16, 2008 at 5:23 PM
I hope you aren’t questioning the O, because if you are, you are a RACIST!
Rick on July 16, 2008 at 5:23 PM
(launched at any time) by mistake.
wise_man on July 16, 2008 at 5:24 PM
I don’t think it’s realistic, either, but give the man credit for Reaganesque optimism.
Jobius on July 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
How about something practical like eliminating hemorrhoids?
BL@KBIRD on July 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Then he’d have to eliminate himself!
Ba-DUMP-bump
catmman on July 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
What, you mean to tell me that the Itchy and Scratchy nuke scene at the beginning of the Simpson’s movie could not really happen?
Rick on July 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM
There is no way that Russia is going to give up their nukes – that is a major source of Russian power, and is what keeps the Chinese out of Siberia.
Realist on July 16, 2008 at 5:27 PM
I think that Obama is trying to sound like Reagan.
Taking Gromyko aside, Reagan told him: “My dream is for a world where there are no nuclear weapons.”
- George P. Shultz (Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State in his book “Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State”)
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Sounds good to me but everybody else goes first. BO should also set a goal of ending all pain and suffering in the world.
Maxx on July 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM
And every country including the US will have UN mandated inspectors crawling all over the countryside ad infinitum. Of course we will bend over for those inspectors while the governments of Iran, China and Russia will be ever so forthcoming I’m sure.
DrDeano on July 16, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Russia and China will welcome Obama’s disarmament of America’s nuclear arsenal with open arms!
Riposte on July 16, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I smell unilateral disarmament. Man, this guy, Obama, is really deranged and dangerous.
docdave on July 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Hey, that’s awesome if it were even remotely possible.
For all the people who watched the JibJab animation down the page from earlier this morning, you’ll recall Obama’s scene in the disney movie setting riding the silky pony-unicorn that leaves a rainbow as it travels across the sky …. this exactly sums up Obama’s comprehension of and his view of the world.
wise_man on July 16, 2008 at 5:34 PM
catmman on July 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
hahhaahhhahah Good one! Can he really be this stupid?
I am really wondering if he Is a muslim plant..put here to get elected Pres, pull out of Iraq leaving equipment behind so muslims can get it, reduce our military, invade Pakistan so they can get their nukes, then have us give up nukes and then bam!! We are taken over by them. wtf…
becki51758 on July 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Fixed.
It would be interesting to see how “hope & change” would work on Mad Mahmoud and Li’l Kim…if we didn’t have to live on the same planet to see the results too closely.
MrScribbler on July 16, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Obama is not only amazingly naive, he is incredibly stupid!
What is scary is that he believes it and almost half of the American Voters are ignorant enough to vote for the Fool!
I don’t know what he is smoking but I think he’s delusional.
No one can be this totally unqualified for public office.
He wants to negotiate with world powers. They will eat his dumb ass alive! Russia, China and the majority of ME nations can’t wait for this dumbass to be elected!
old trooper on July 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM
This message will resonate strongly throughout the grade schools of America.
Maxx on July 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Obama is a very articulate, very intelligent, Harvard law graduate, who is extraordinarily [well I don't think that I would go quite that far] smart, and he’s not going to come across in a debate like some guy who’s dopey. He’s going to come across as fully prepared. He knows how to study all this stuff. He has the military advisers. However, the problem with Obama is he’s wrong. It’s not that he’s inexperienced. It’s that his policies are wrong [of course most of McCain's policies are wrong too].
- Newt Gingrich
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Meanwhile, North Korea, Iran and South Africa, just to name three have all conducted hidden nuclear operations and development without detection, so we all know how that would work.
Like txsurveyor mentioned, this is the same failed mentality as the people who want to ban guns – and attempt to get rid of them. Only the people who comply will no longer have them.
As dangerous as the cold war was, we were more at peace and safe from ‘mutual assured destruction’ because no side wanted to risk being annihilated. Start dismantling some but not all, and the risk of a nuclear exchange goes up, not down.
wise_man on July 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM
This is the guy who claims he’ll show up to a knife fight with a gun? It looks like he’ll show up to a knife fight with a bouquet of flowers, a jar of vaseline and his pants around his ankles.
Cicero43 on July 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM
So which country gets to have the last bomb, or do we all meet in a field somewhere with the last of our nukes, raise our sledgehammers together and say, “ready…set…”
Bishop on July 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Maybe Obama should have just stuck with, ““My dream is for a world where there are no nuclear weapons.”
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 5:40 PM
“Say there general, what are you keeping in that mountain, you know, the one surrounded by mine fields and razor wire”?
“oh nothing, just some old jeeps and rusty rifles”.
If anyone believes that every nation wouldn’t cheat the crap out of an a disarmament agreement, they need to have their skull trepanned.
Bishop on July 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Frankly I think that Obama plagiarized Ronald Reagan.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Bullies will be eliminated as soon as we eliminate lunch money.
Limerick on July 16, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Eh, Reagan was the same man who loved to irritate the Russians every chance he could, “we win, they lose” type of things.
If he was getting chummy with the soviets and professing that lofty no-nukes desire, you can bet his true intent lay 180 degrees. His ability to spend them out of existence on military hardware is proof enough.
Bishop on July 16, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Don’t forget Global
WarmingClimate change and E.D.ronsfi on July 16, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Obama is trying to mimick Reagan here, but the similarity is only rhetorical. He is no Ronald Reagan.
CP on July 16, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Nah, he knows what he’s doing. He realized he had drifted a little too far to the center and is throwing the True Believers a loonybone. Barry wants the power of the “football” just like any other presidential aspirant. It’s part of the egomaniacal package.
a capella on July 16, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Wow–thanks for that link.
BO would have to say those things campaigning for the Dem nomination, but that leftist stuff could come back to bite him now!
jgapinoy on July 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Maybe he should have stayed a delusional “Community Organizer” in those those high crime rate neighborhoods in Chicago and not let his ambitions allow him to continually behave like he does not have good sense in front of a world that he does not understand.
He clearly does not have the good sense that God gave a crowbar!
old trooper on July 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Especially in the Iraq such as…
ronsfi on July 16, 2008 at 5:49 PM
If Obama is trying to sound like Reagan he should quit now. But given that Reagan said this, the difference is that Reagan was smart enough not to say it in a speech to the general public.
There is a difference between having a dream for an ideal world and coming-off like a pre-schooler on the world stage.
Maxx on July 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM
I don’t believe that. I believe Reagan himself. Reagan was not a binary thinker. Now Obama, he may be.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SAW)(SWT)
Dale in Atlanta on July 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Didn’t we know this already?
baldilocks on July 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Yeah – fantastic! Hope and Change! Hope and Change! Let’s all give up our guns and nukes and live in perfect harmony. When radical jihadis are the only ones with nukes, will we still be able to have some coke and a smile?
JustTruth101 on July 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM
But you see, wish as you may, wish as you might, I want to believe ten impossible things by tonight, this does not come off “like a pre-schooler on the world stage”.
Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it’s time to send a clear message: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
And he told Gromyko that because he was working for us to have orbiting kinetic energy platforms, particle beam cannons, and a 100% stealth air force by 2000.
ScottMcC on July 16, 2008 at 6:01 PM
I do believe Obama is the dumbest, stupidest, articluate speaking person I have ever seen. People cannot be seriously considering voting for this know nothing.
Obviously he spent way to much time in college on speech inflection, nuance and presentation, and very little on learning.
tarpon on July 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Excellent video!! I hope everybody here takes the 52 seconds it takes to watch it.
Maxx on July 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Don’t edit my posts, I hate that.
Reagan was more cunning than anyone will ever give him credit for, he may have whispered sweet-nothings into Soviet ears but there is no way he would have carried it out.
Bishop on July 16, 2008 at 6:06 PM
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
He couches it nicely within the usual naive disarmament rhetoric but I think even some liberals will be able to see what pie-in-the-sky it is.
Maxx on July 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Iran’s intransigence, as well as nations such as Pakistan and North Korea, stems from their “you have them so we can too” attitude. There is no leverage so long as those nations can point to even a single nuke in our inventory.
His “hair-trigger” comment is definitely grade-school; as was said earlier, the process to actually use a nuclear weapon is so lengthy and involved it could be called tactically cumbersome.
Bishop on July 16, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Cut your own nuts off, Obama. Leave ours alone.
whitetop on July 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Si I take it you think that Newt Gingrich is an idiot.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I do not necessarily completely disagree with you, but there is no “achilles’ heel” in his speech and it was in many respects very Reaganesque, very likely on purpose.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Hussein is an idiot or he wouldn’t babble stupid sound bites. He would have a clear plan that’s easy to explain and digest, that makes some utilitarian sense.
And he wouldnt have a racist mentor (who he worshiped for TWENTY YEARS), terrorist friends and crooks buying him houses. Any person with a modicum of common sense avoids these things.
Running away from a fight one is winning is not common sense. Especially when fighting a scummy bully. Finally graduating from Harvard, despite that institution’s standing doesn’t prove one to be smart. School is about recitation of classroom material and not too much on practical application.
Hussein has a glib tongue, his classes on public speaking helped refine that, but beyond that his brain is an empty void.
dogsoldier on July 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM
It was a horrible movie plot written by Chris Reeves himself for Superman IV The Quest For Peace. Along comes this ’super’ dude with a turba…. hold on, let me rephrase that… a ‘cape’, and his intention is to rid the world of the all nasty nuke thingies. So he bundles them up and hauls them off to the Sun where things like those are akin to a pin-prick in a elephant’s hide. The movie bombed, never shows up on cable (an indicator of horrendous audience acceptance or lack thereof) and along comes a wanna be candidate who takes the very same position as they wee lil kid who wrote the letter to Superman. He is living in a dream world complete with unicorns (yes JibJab has a funny presentation of his ‘knight in the shining – horror’.)
Any intelligent person who lives on this particular planet knows that one just doesn’t dictate such things and expect the people who would use such things to give them up just because his highness, the prince is ignorance and inexperience says so.
Let the games begin, Mukasey: I’m getting literally SICK AND TIRED of waiting and very concerned for my nation. But I know.. its not you, its the courts tieing your hands. Well I can address that too if need be and I’ll do it the week before the general election date just for effect. Don’t believe me? I was underestimated before.
http://www.rollovermartin.com
ilitigant on July 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Finally we’re going to have the first male multiracial multireligious Miss America!
econavenger on July 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM
What you’re smelling is, once more, the aroma of “progressive moral superiority.”
“Progressives”, as a rule, dislike the idea that anything like a right to self-defense exists. Their philosophy holds that if someone else attacks you, you must have done something to deserve it. So, you owe it to the world to acquiesce to whatever the attacker wants to do to you.
This is well illustrated by their attitudes toward both gun control and Israel. The same progressives who have in the past demanded that the Second Amendment be abolished would turn right around and insist that, no, you cannot demand that criminals turn in their illegal guns- because that would be self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. And they further insist that Israel is at fault for all the aggression against them, simply because (a) the state of Israel exists, and (b) stubbornly refuses to lay down and die on demand. Far better, the progressives say, that Israel, and we, prove that we are “on a higher moral plane” by refusing to defend ourselves when attacked. In doing so, we prove that we are “better” than our enemies.
A world in which only thugs, domestic or international, are armed is one they are comfortable with, because in such a world, when the inevitable happens and said thugs attack, all those who die at their hands do so in a “state of grace”, because they made no effort to resist their own destruction. And in doing so, they attain the status of “martyrs”, which progressives also believes establishes a moral ascendancy. (As long as they aren’t the ones who get martyred, of course.)
And if you don’t agree, the progressives further argue, this just proves that you are an unenlightened savage who needs their superior guidance. This is a direct contradiction of their Rousseauean obsession with the concept of the morally superior “Noble Savage”, but one of the hallmarks of true progressive thought is the ability to hold two diametrically opposed opinions simultaneously, and not only be unable to see their inherent contradiction but to also deny that they do contradict each other.
Plus, there’s the factor of their inherent hatred of Western civilization. Our enemies represent, to a great extent, the same sort of pseudo-mystical culture that ancient Persia did under Cyrus the Great and his son, Xerxes. I am sure that most progressives didn’t like the movie 300, and to this day deeply resent the fact that the Greek city-states defeated the Persians in 480-479 B.C., as (in their minds) a Persian victory would have ushered in an Age of Enlightenment in which to this day, the only truth would be found in mysticism- none of that ugly, unenlightened “science” would be permitted. “Feelings” would rule the world- and no one can possibly “feel” more deeply, or more fantastically, than a true progressive. As Ayn Rand said, they insist that they can fly to the Moon on a thought. The engineering that went into a Saturn V is something totally incomprehensible and, therefore, inherently evil, to them. As is the concept that the law of gravity and Newton’s Laws of Motion rule the Universe. In their “universe”, such oppressive “dictums” are simply ignored. (Or else, repealed by an Act of Congress; I wait with bated breath for one or more of the “we can’t drill our way out of this” types to introduce a bill on the House floor to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics.)
To a progressive, at either the macro or the micro scale, whether speaking of international affairs or what happens when you are confronted by an armed housebreaker, Only Moral Victories Count. And to win a moral victory, you have to suffer an actual defeat. And, preferably, die in the process. (Thereby removing yourself as a Threat To Holy Mother Gaia at the same time.)
Progressivism is, at its heart, primitive mysticism. And anyone who expects help from a professional mystic in times of peril probably won’t live long enough to realize the magnitude of the mistake they have made.
clear ether
eon
eon on July 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM
He’s planning on something very close to that. He needs the money we currently “waste” on our military and our national defenses so that he can pay for all those new government programs, not to mention all those new benefits for all our new citizens from south of the border.
AZCoyote on July 16, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Peace through weakness!
Nichevo on July 16, 2008 at 6:25 PM
The prospect of Sen. Obama winning the Presidency has gone from alarming and worrisome to downright scary. Sen. McCain has to kick his campaign into overdrive. He has to win this one.
Jill1066 on July 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Who is going to enforce this? UN Blue Helmets? Funniest thing I’ve ever heard. They couldn’t stop a spitball fight in an American grade school.
fleiter on July 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Reagan was not a binary thinker. He was many things. He was cunning but also a pragmatist and an idealist.
President Reagan will be remembered in the
Conference of Disarmament for his efforts which resulted in the conclusion of historic agreements on reductions in nuclear weapons and which created favorable conditions for the negotiations on the Chemical Weapons Convention.
- The 959th meeting of the Conference on Disarmament
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Obama ‘08: Peace Through Stupidity
Cicero43 on July 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM
“…we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert…”
Uh, Obama? NOTE: They’ve been off “hair-trigger” alert since the last Reagan years. “Looking Glass”, the 24/7/365 airborne command post hasn’t flown 24/7 in years. Armed SAC bombers don’t fly 24/7 loops anymore either.
You still getting all your military info from your in-house experts?
GarandFan on July 16, 2008 at 6:39 PM
It is amazing to me that people can read into his rather Reagan like speech, what isn’t even there. Now it might be in the back of his mind, but it’s not in his speech.
Poor target acquisition.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 6:41 PM
We take Barry O at face value, and we somehow convince the Russians to eliminate all their nuclear weapons while we eliminate ours. So what leverage would we have if a nuclear missile from Iran or China or Pakistan landed on an American city?
Barry O doesn’t have the sense of a crowbar. At least a crowbar does offer leverage.
Steve Z on July 16, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Why do you cut&Paste that all the time?
Chakra Hammer on July 16, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »