Obama to Palin: What do you know about nukes anyway? Update: Video added
posted at 9:19 pm on April 8, 2010 by Allahpundit
Wish I could give you a video clip but ABC’s being stingy until tomorrow. For now, we’ll have to make do with the Reuters transcript of his interview with Stephanopoulos:
Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, has not been shy about criticizing Obama’s policies and this week weighed in on his revamped nuclear strategy, saying it was like a child in a playground who says ‘punch me in the face, I’m not going to retaliate.’
“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News…
“What I would say to [Republican critics] is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.”
Are they comfortable with it, though? One of the unanswered questions about the new protocol promising no nuclear response (in most cases) to a biological or chemical attack is how much of it reflects — or rather, doesn’t reflect — Gates’s thinking. From a speech Gates delivered on October 30, 2008, just a few days before the election:
There is no way to ignore efforts by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, or Russian or Chinese strategic modernization programs. As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons – and potentially can threaten us, our allies, and friends – then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena – or with other weapons of mass destruction – could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response…
Our nuclear arsenal also helps deter enemies from using chemical and biological weapons. In the first Gulf War, we made it very clear that if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons, then the United States would keep all options on the table. We later learned that this veiled threat had the intended deterrent effect as Iraq considered its options.
While some may not see a real nuclear threat to the United States today, we should be mindful that our friends and allies perceive different levels of risk within their respective regions. Here, our arsenal plays an irreplaceable role in reducing proliferation.
Maybe Gates has since changed his mind, but I’m not sure why he would have; the likelier explanation for the shift is that he’s simply going along with the policy of the new commander-in-chief.
Here’s the video of Palin’s comments on Hannity to which The One is reacting. You may remember that this topic also came up at her VP debate with Biden. You’ll find that video here.
Update: Here’s the clip. Skip ahead to 1:30.
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: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
This is definitely the start of the 2012 presidential campaign. Governor Palin should become the point person on republican policy on this treaty. If she takes the lead on this her standing in the presidential contest will go up by leaps and bounds.
scrubjay on April 9, 2010 at 8:54 AM
Russia is complicit with Iran on a lot of bad stuff.
As for China, the Russians have zero leverage with them.
Given that their foreign policy goals haven’t changed with the official fall of the Berlin Wall, their goals are still to take over the world and to take over the parts that won’t fall to them voluntarily with force, witness Georgia in the summer of 2008.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 8:54 AM
And like all the Palin fanatics, you fail to make one valid point against the nuclear proliferation issues that most experts say are the gravest threat to US security.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 8:55 AM
It’s the main threat alright, but not from the United States.
It’s a threat coming from all the rogue 3rd world nations with a grudge, most of them, curiously, Islamic.
The Cold War ain’t over and won’t be anytime soon.
Russia’s gotten in bed with their Islamists, considering them the wave of the future for Russia.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 8:57 AM
And reducing our weapon stockpile does what exactly to reduce “worldwide nuclear proliferation”?
darwin on April 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Islamists with nukes are the gravest threat to U.S. security, but we’re not at risk from our own nukes!
Rogue nations will be more inclined, not less, to hit us if this inane, idiotic treaty is passed.
It’s Russia that wants this, because their nukes are old, badly maintained and probably becoming almost unusable.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 8:59 AM
What Obama said is stupid. That being said, I believe he is setting a trap for Sarah, if she comes out with guns blazing about what she does and does not know, in a knee jerk fashion, He will accuse her of violating her Security Clearance. You know, dangerous to / for America. I believe she should respond, But, I think she should put a lot of thought into it. By all means she should not get into an idiot contest with him. He would win (Biggest idiot) but she will be damaged goods in the end. On another note, I respect Henry Kissinger, He was pretty smooth in the sixties and seventies, I think now 50 years later, he may not be on top of his game.
Guest1.1 on April 9, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Hearing footsteps,
curved space on April 9, 2010 at 9:00 AM
You’re living in fantasy land. No one seriously believe this except for the extreme fringe.
How do so many people fail to understand the real threat to US security? The threat isn’t Iran launching a chemical weapon at the states. Iran obtaining a long-range nuclear weapon is only the first of many proliferation problems. Today, proliferation of nuclear weapon technology is poised to spread like wildfire around the globs. Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and many Asian nations have covert nuclear programs, not to mention countries in the Middle East. Each country that obtains nuke technology gives terrorists another opportunity to steal or covertly buy a nuke that can be smuggled into the US for detonation. A weapon of mass destruction smuggled across US borders is absolutely the top nuclear threat faced by the United States. Many experts say the chances of this occurring over the next 20 years are fairly high. al Qaeda is dedicated to destroying a major American city.
So why do all these countries want the bomb? One major reason is that from the earliest days of ‘nuclear diplomacy’, the nuclear option has been recognized as a great foreign policy bargaining chip. If Brazil obtains nuclear weapons, it would have an entirely new level of leverage in dealing with both its neighbors and the United States. Now consider the outcome if Argentina, Mexico, and Chile all followed suite, and all demanded recognition as ‘equals’ to the United States in terms of nuclear military power. It’s a nightmare scenario, multiplied by the vast array of weapons in our backyard that could eventually fall into the hands of a terrorist.
So Obama’s team is trying to establish the end of nuclear weapons as broad foreign policy bargaining chips. The signal is targeting Brazil, Argentina, and every other country with real nuclear ambitions and covert programs.
Maybe you completely disagree with everything I just said. But realize that there are a lot of very smart military strategists who are trying to change the course of nuclear proliferation for the reasons I just described. Their motives are noble. The START treaty with Russian is the first step down that path.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 9:04 AM
I can’t believe you posted that peacenik crap AGAIN!
Please.
Don’t you have a Code Pink rally to go to???
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:07 AM
Fantasy.
darwin on April 9, 2010 at 9:07 AM
Yeah, right, the extreme fringe of the populations of every former Soviet Socialist Republic who lie within Russia’s immediate grasp!
Just read the other day that the Ukraine is abandoning their NATO bid and turning back to Russia, because Precedent Øbama left them to the Russian wolves.
BTW, if you don’t think the Russians aren’t helping Iran build their nukes, you’re even dumber than you sound already!
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:11 AM
It’s the same ‘pinko’ strategy supported by Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, and Richard Lugar. It seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend it.
You’re the kind of genius who will wonder in 20 years why Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina have nuclear weapons, and why terrorists were able to smuggle a weapon in from South American and detonate it in Florida. Although the proliferation experts had been warning of it for decades.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 9:11 AM
You don’t appear to know that Iran is helping Chechnya rebels and to Russia its not clear that nuclear technology couldn’t exchange hands. As someone who speaks Russian and has traveled to most of those countries, ‘dumb’ is relative in this case. You don’t seem to know the firs thing about Russia except for right-wing xenophobia.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 9:17 AM
Exactly how does this “strategy” reduce one’s ambition to acquire a nuclear weapon?
darwin on April 9, 2010 at 9:17 AM
The biggest threat to United States national security is President Commie. He is a threat to fiscal policy, national security, the Constitution, and the people themselves. Russia,China,Iran,Venezuela,et.al. are laughing at us…..
adamsmith on April 9, 2010 at 9:19 AM
Hahahaha …. hahahahahahaha
When you feel your argument slipping away, pull out the dreaded xenophobia label.
darwin on April 9, 2010 at 9:19 AM
Oh, yeah?
If it was so great, how come their Presidents didn’t sign a treaty like START, hmmmmm?
Oh, wait…
They didn’t.
If I’m still around, I won’t wonder.
I will know it was when the U.S.A. dropped the ball as the World’s Policeman and Superpower for Good under the régime of Comrade Urkel.
And you can almost bet the farm that it will be Russia that helps these rogue nations go nuclear, too.
Or perhaps France.
Or even Britain.
If the U.S. isn’t there to lead the way as we should and must, it will become a global free-for-all and everyone will get nukes.
Actually, there’s not a lot stopping a terrorist bringing in a nuke from Mexico and detonating it in Florida now.
Tired of beating your straw men yet?
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:21 AM
What a pathetic excuse for a President this man-child is. “I know more about nukes than you do” so I am going to go ahead with my plan?….thats the best this buffoon can come up with?
Koa on April 9, 2010 at 9:22 AM
To Iran and N. Korea, you’re right. It won’t make a difference.
But to Brazil, Argentina, and other countries that have some kind of moral compass, the signal that nuclear diplomacy is dead has more weight. Those countries want the bomb only as a bargaining chip. I’m not saying that this US strategy will definitely work. But a lot of nuclear strategists think it’s one of the best options left on the table, given the fact that proliferation appears imminent and nothing else we’ve done has been effective in slowing it down.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 9:22 AM
By the way, I’m such a Right Wing xenophobe, I spent 3 weeks in the Soviet Union in 1976.
When have you been there, Hans Blix?
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:23 AM
It ain’t pretty when a girl is beating up on a waxed chest wussy in Chief.
So, to summarize, the only reason countries want nuclear weapons, is because we won’t unilaterally disarm. Um, sure
tar0bama Supporter. That’s worked so well in the craphole inner cities, where the government has forced the law abiding to unilaterally disarm. I’m sure it will work even better with the likes of Iran. /eyerollNo wonder the pu$$y in chief can only whine when a girl starts beating him up, and not come out and state why the girl who’s beating him is is wrong, and how she’s wrong.
MNHawk on April 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM
“I have no response to that … (CONFIRMED) … Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear, uh, issues.”
Well, that makes two of you who are not “much of an expert”, unless, nuclear organizing is one of his hidden talents.
kregg on April 9, 2010 at 9:27 AM
“I know more about nukes than you do” so I am going to go ahead with my plan?….thats the best this buffoon can come up with?Koa on April 9, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Well, yes, because when pressed, the dumbest President in history will know as much about how the world works, as he does about the White Sox, or car insurance, or weather, or how an economy works, or, or, or…
If the Coward in Chief wilts at the onslaught of a girl, I’d hate to see how the little waxed one acts at the thought of confronting a real man, like Allan West. I have a feeling it will be like when Andy Kaufman wrestled a man.
MNHawk on April 9, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Palin fanatic? No.
Avid student of history.
Yes.
CPT. Charles on April 9, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Zero takes his advice from people he orders around and cuts their budget. Gates is proving to be a big tool at the pentagon. Is there anybody in DC willing to stand up for the country.
Kissmygrits on April 9, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Reagan signed the INF treaty and proposed START, which took a few years to negotiate and was signed by Bush. If your posts made any sense or were based on facts, that would be nice.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 9:31 AM
What we’ve done that’s been effective is to keep the IAEA and the NPT as honest as possible while maintaining a firm U.S. policy of peace through strength.
Only part of our strength is our arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Our troops, navy and air power are other parts.
But we’re talking Russia: they lie, they cheat, they play dirty and have NO moral compass as you so aptly point out!
They are providing Iran with all that they need to build nukes.
Getting us to sign this treaty is nothing more than Gulliver (that’s the U.S.A.) being tied down by the Lilliputians (Russian diplos).
Once America is defanged, Russia is free to roam the planet, seeking whatever it wants to devour.
In her capacity as Governor of AK, I’m sure that Governor Palin has had to deal with numerous incursions of sovereign American territory by the Russians.
Øbama’s experience? Bupkis, except for he and his wife walking around Moscow with her $6,000 purse.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Bullsh*t.
Neither President Reagan nor Bush 43 would have anything to do with anything like this!
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM
A bargaining chip is exactly why some countries would seek a nuclear weapon.
Hoping that our actions would result in countries giving up their ambitions is foolish. You never negotiate from a position of weakness, and this is what this “strategy” does. It implies that the US is willing to give up pretty much anything. If I was the leader of a country with nuclear ambition that would tell me I’ll have even more bargaining power because the US is weak. This will not stop proliferation … it will increase it.
“Progressive” policy always has the opposite of it’s intended effect. Now since that happens so often, I’m beginning to think it’s intentional.
darwin on April 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM
40% of Russia’s soldiers are Muslim or will be soon.
Guardian on April 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM
He can be as snotty as he likes toward Palin, but his new nuke pronouncement is one more albatross around his neck.
Rasmussen: 55% Oppose Limits On U.S. Nuclear Response To Attacks
petefrt on April 9, 2010 at 9:35 AM
In that they are the 2 rogue regimes closest to having nukes, why is this even being considered if “it won’t make a difference?”
What does this sentence even mean, if anything???
Bet you don’t know either.
Note to dayum: Both Brazil and Argentina were still our allies as of this morning…
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Obama should have said “Mrs. Palin is a private citizen and is free to express her opinion. I’m glad we live in a country where people are able to express themselves without fear of retribution”.
But no … Marxist child-man has to lash out when he feels threatened.
darwin on April 9, 2010 at 9:40 AM
Dunno what Medvedev’s been doing lately, but what’s Putin up to?
Still think he’s pulling the strings in Moscow, personally.
cs89 on April 9, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Someone needs to read some history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
jonknee on April 9, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Nah, we can’t threaten Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico with a nuclear attach if they obtain nuclear capabilities. I’m not a peacenik- if that strategy were feasible, then I’d support it. Every time the US projects ‘strength’ by pulling out the nuclear card, everyone wants their own nuclear card. The idea is to change the rules of the game by saying that any ambition to obtain or use a nuclear card is unacceptable and immoral. You may find that large percentages of people in countries like Brazil will buy into this argument.
You’re also describing this policy as ‘progressive’, when it actually originated in the defense and nuclear proliferation communities. Nuclear proliferation is well underway, and no one in the West really has come up with an effective way to stop it.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 9:44 AM
I can see it now. The opening: Mr. President Can I call you
BarryPINNOCHIO.KZnextzone on April 9, 2010 at 1:38 AM
Fixed dat!
dhunter on April 9, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Reagan would never have agreed to a deal with the Russkis that involved taking down or never placing our Missile Defense Shield in Eastern Europe, as Øbama has.
As I said earlier, Ukraine is already giving up on NATO and cozying back up to Russia because we’re abandoning them.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM
Aside from the fact that he weakens us in every way (economically, defensively, morally…), this man is an embarrassment and the most un-presidential classless human being to set foot in the White House. The way he calls out and criticizes private citizens of this country from his bully pulpit is atrocious. He’s nothing but a low-class bully. George W Bush had more class in the point of one of his cowboy boots than this man has in his entire body. I can’t remember W ever addressing criticism from specific citizens (even in the media), much less calling them by name, and the Lord knows he had every opportunity. Where the heck are the idiot Dixie Chicks on this embarrassing thug, Obama?
/surge of anger at the idiot Dixie Chicks. I don’t know why, but I just thought of them and it torqued me off. I will now refocus my anger to the parties of significance: the embarrassing thug in the White House and his cronies, who are doing everything in their power to destroy this once great country. I loathe those people.
Lord have mercy on us.
pannw on April 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM
The U.S. has never used the nuclear card to project strength!
Never.
We only used the bomb on Japan to end the war and save almost 1 million American soldiers from being killed or wounded during a full scale invasion.
We’re already doing this by our NPT and active endorsement of the IAEA.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM
That is classic “progressive” arm bending. But it won’t work. No leader is going to admit that their ambition for nuclear weapons is “immoral”.
If nuclear countries want to disarm that fine, but they should aggressively discourage non-nuclear countries from even thinking about it. An excellent solution to Iran, and a warning to others would be a joint US/Russian military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Of course that won’t happen, but that’s the kind of action needed to give other countries the hint.
darwin on April 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Did you look Medvedev in the eyes and decide that you should trust him? The Cold War will never be over–it has just been put behind closed doors…and you are a fool if you believe otherwise…
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Agreed.
This is the jugear’s signal to his minions – It is OPEN SEASON to attack individual citizen named by His GREATNESS.
Any one of us could be the target of his irritation. No slight is too small for HIM to not notice.
Be very weary.
Sir Napsalot on April 9, 2010 at 9:56 AM
You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you read books, you might know that several books have been written on this subject. Much of US foreign policy vis a via the Soviets before nuclear parity was reached involved pulling the nuclear card. That policy largely backfired on the US and was considered a major foreign policy disaster of that era. You can also read about the origins of START, which you and Palin clearly fail to grasp.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 9:57 AM
Did you look Medvedev in the eyes and decide you trusted him? That can be the only explaination for your naive reasoning…The Cold War will never be over…it’s just been placed behind closed doors..
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 9:59 AM
Well then…using the logic that put a man in the Whitehouse who has never run even so much as a lemonade stand…she should be the perfect person to make decisions on our nuclear policy.
Alden Pyle on April 9, 2010 at 9:59 AM
Shoot, what the heck, my comment disappeared so I posted again–sorry
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Hannity now knows that “The One” is still watching his show.
moonsbreath on April 9, 2010 at 10:00 AM
I agree that would work and my be necessary with Iran. But implicitly threatening to bomb Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, and every other country that’s pursuing nuke tech isn’t an option. You need to try a different kind of leverage- and keep trying until you find something that’s effective. We’ve made zero progress on this front for a long time. Reagan was the last President to really make a difference (and he made a huge difference).
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM
It certainly didn’t happen with India and Pakistan, did it?
Notice no one heard a peep out of Clinton when they went nuclear either.
The leadership of the United States is always squandered under Democrats it seems.
Of course it won’t happen, because Russia’s helping build those nuke facilities!
If you’re of a Biblical mindset, look up “Gog and Magog” in the more apocalyptic parts of Scripture as to which forces will be aligned against Israel.
This is Russia and Iran.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Sarah justs dangles the bait and Obama has to bite.
Disturb the Universe on April 9, 2010 at 10:02 AM
LOL. So, it turns out the private citizen, non-expert knows more about nuclear issues than the President and all the president’s men! Fancy that.
littleguy on April 9, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Please list a few of these books, I would like to know what authority you are basing your unicorn theories on…
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Darwin should read Joel Rosenberg’s Epicenter.
Disturb the Universe on April 9, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Then again, you clearly think you know more than Schultz and Kissinger.
bayam on April 9, 2010 at 4:04 AM
Maybe if i were still 15 i to could still live in the world of everything nicey,nicey, hey you think we could maybe get rid of all the nukes and live under the Russian umbrella of protection as the Canadians do with the American umbrella.
heshtesh on April 9, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Your wonkish theories aside, we already do this via the IAEA.
The United States has never threatened to bomb another country because they were rumored to be developing nukes, or India and Pakistan would be toast already.
This is a complete straw man.
And yes, we have made progress since Reagan: President Bush negotiated a good NPT agreement with India which took them down a notch from all out war against Pakistan.
Further, Bush negotiated a disarmament treaty with Putin, too.
We took care of the Iraqi problem with régime change and of course, the Israelis wiped out their Osirak reactor earlier.
As for Iran, it still remains to be seen how effectively economic sanctions have held them off from building their bomb.
And of course, there’s the NKorks, aided by Dr. A.Q. Kahn, father of the Pakistani bomb.
Notice: None of this has anything to do with the U.S.A. with the size of the U.S. arsenal.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 10:08 AM
I agree he should explain. I was only commenting on how he reacted to the challenge.
I’ve been around for 10 different presidents now and have never seen one so unable to stay above the fray and look Presidential. It just underscores the fact that he’s an amateur.
Dee2008 on April 9, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Obviously, neither are you, Giggles.
crazy_legs on April 9, 2010 at 10:10 AM
As Governor of AK, Palin sat on America’s front line of defense against incursions by the Russians or even missiles from North Korea.
She was also head of the AK National Guard and the armed forces that guard our international borders on the Arctic.
What nuke policy experience did Øbama have before he was Precedent?
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 10:12 AM
So much talk about Henry Kissinger: a blast from the past! I recall the “Peace with Honor” that he negotiated for us in Vietnam. Hmmmmm, how that work out again…?
littleguy on April 9, 2010 at 10:13 AM
I like Michelle Bachmann’s take on this ridiculous policy….She is the one I would like to see as the republican candidate in 2012… Those two ladies know what they need to know about nuclear weapons, Obama….They are the best deterrent any nation has…And to tell the whole world that you won’t retaliate against them if they want to kill a few thousand or million of us by using biological weapons if they want to is insane….Obama told the military they had his permission to take out that American citizen who has become a muslim terrorist…In other words, he is a traitor….There are many traitors among us, including in the highest office in the land.
theaddora on April 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM
You really believe all that? Are you a hold-over from the “where have all the flowers gone?” theories? I think Sarah doesn’t need to consult with those men who (according to you) supposedly failed to advance the fairy-tale fantasies you have of a world w/o nukes…
And thankyou–”amateur hour” aptly describes the game our president is playing with our defense…
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM
I love Rosenberg’s books!
He’s the best.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Palin is correct.
Obama is wrong.
Next issue…
D2Boston on April 9, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Liam to Obama: “You’re not much of an expert at anything, are you, Mr. President? See you Novemeber, 2012.”
Liam on April 9, 2010 at 10:29 AM
So our Messiah, Barak “The Sky Isn’t Falling…(yet)” Obama is belittling Sarah Palin. Don’t you get the feeling that just about every damn thing that comes out of The One’s mouth is going come back to haunt him…..and the rest of us?
olesparkie on April 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM
kingjester has a great blog about this, if you folks haven’t seen it…
The Pee Wee Herman Defense
http://kingsjester.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/the-pee-wee-herman-defense/#comment-16
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Some might recall candidate Obama threatening UN sanctions against Russia for their Georgian excursion … he didn’t even realize that Russia had veto power; and he was a Senator! That was like Speaker Pelosi confidently boasting that Freddie & Fannie are government guaranteed … Oops. Has she read the constitution?
He just can’t seem to stop himself from jumping to conclusions before fact checking his jumping of the cliff notes. Anyone up for a Brewsky Summit? But now, he is our president expert at strategic planning. He must have played a video game … either that or he downloaded it on his Blackberry.
kregg on April 9, 2010 at 10:31 AM
That’s what Amy Carter used to tell her daddy. When Jimmy Carter told America in the presidential debate of 1980 that his daughter was really, really afraid of nuclear proliferation, he was quickly laughed out of office.
Emperor Norton on April 9, 2010 at 10:39 AM
When nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes.
3 hours til Gov Palin’s response…
ornery_independent on April 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM
“I know you are, but what am I?”
LOL
It’s a great blog.
ladyingray on April 9, 2010 at 10:44 AM
The problem with nuclear non-proliferation are three fold:
1) Physics.
2) Engineering.
3) Materials.
A US high school can handle the basics of 1&2. That makes 3 the problem. The Non-Proliferation Treaty has problems in non-signatory countries, countries that sign and then ignore it, countries that sign it and proliferate anyways, and high school students working on a science project figuring out how to get their hands on materials.
Reducing the US and Russian amount of weapons does not address any of these problems. Particularly ingenious high school students. If a place like North Korea under the watchful eye of China can proliferate technology and materials to Pakistan, Iran, Syria and a few other choice places, which they have done, then the US or Russia ‘stopping’ proliferation is a bit of a moot point. Pakistan’s AQ Khan network was/is another along with its rather lengthy client list. Plus industrial groups that didn’t care who they sold nuclear separators to in the 1990′s, like Mitutoyo selling such and having 10,000 units go out the door that no one can track down.
Even if you could put the genie back in the bottle, which you can’t, you are still left with the concept of this thing known as ‘conventional war’. That didn’t go away during the Cold War, nor did nuclear devices banish it. A treaty on nuclear devices to stop the threat of war is like the Washington Treaty in the 1920′s limiting Battleship size and production for the US, UK, Germany, France… stopped a war, didn’t it? Oh… wait…
The latest technology is not a cause for war, and it is not often an enabler of war. War is a human right and a negative liberty we put into governments so it can be watched over as it would be too awful for any individual to take a Nation to war without accountability. Reducing the latest and greatest of weapons does not reduce that liberty or right one single, solitary bit. Nor are there any Cold War tensions to ‘reduce’ these days… just the opposite with some regional actors seeking a much wider stage for their activities. They might be a bit afraid to cross a well armed US, but not one that isn’t armed. I believe the Imperial Japanese thought of that concept as a ‘Paper Tiger’. Might want to ask them how that worked out as the US weakness in the Pacific did nothing to deter them.
ajacksonian on April 9, 2010 at 10:44 AM
A true President of the United States would defend his position with truth and facts, not blow off a critic like Obow does.
Being as he is, he could have just stopped the whole question with “I won.” That’s his outlook, after all, isn’t it?
I hate this guy so bad, and despise his entire derelict Party and the trolls here who back them, that Election Day couldn’t come soon enough even if it were today.
Bah!
Liam on April 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM
What does Obama know about nukes? Or delivery systems? Or the concept of peace through strength?
hawksruleva on April 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM
He knows only one thing: He ‘won’.
Liam on April 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM
None, which makes his brush off of her nonexistent strategic nuclear arms experience ironic.
If he, considering his lack of any experience running anything, is qualified to sit as the chief executive of the greatest nation on earth…then surely her lack of understanding of strat nukes shouldn’t preclude her from being a policy maker.
Alden Pyle on April 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM
She does have a working knowledge of strategic nukes and U.S. defense policy from being governor of AK, which is America’s front line of defense.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM
I could as the same thing, ‘What do YOU know about nukes Barry? In fact what do you know about governing, diplomacy, respect for allies, not bowing to enemies, fiscal responsibility, how to choose your friends (who aren’t radicals or terrorists)…etc”
Typical know-nothing liberal bigmouth, fails to see the irony in his own question. Every finger you point, 4 others are pointed back at you Hussain.
Fitna on April 9, 2010 at 11:04 AM
In Oliar’s world there is,
No War on Terror
No radical islam
No sense in the strategy of ambiguity of nuclear response.
The nitwit in chief has put himself in a corner, and while a corner can temporarily be defended, he’s nose in and ass out.
What a pathetic and dangerous amateur. His response to SP just screams of it.
ontherocks on April 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM
I don’t need no damn general, president or Russian delegate telling me Obama did a smart thing in this nuke deal (or any other deal he’s made). It is stupid to stand down at this time in history from our defensive position of nuclear superiority. General Herbie agrees with Sarah—-so there Obummer!
Herb on April 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Of course she does, dear. And, Governor Deval Patrick has a working knowledge of NORAD tracking capabilities and ICBM delivery platforms by virtue of Cape Cod being the closest American soil to Western Europe.
Alden Pyle on April 9, 2010 at 11:09 AM
The question is does the president have any clue whatsoever about international relationships. President Obama is just as good at foreign policy as he is about domestic issues.
This man has no clue about the real world. Undoubtedly the most ignorant and arrogant world leader.
TomLawler on April 9, 2010 at 11:12 AM
The cold war isn’t over, it’s just a little colder. Russia has never been our ally. In WWII we shared a common enemy but they were not our ally. Obama is as foolish as Neville Chamberlin was, and it will end up with the same result.
I was thinking a while ago that Obama might be a suicide bomber on a national level. Think of the martyrdom of the man who dies destroying America. If any muslims are alive afterwards, he would be up there with mohammed (feces be upon him).
deewhybee on April 9, 2010 at 11:13 AM
Palin to 0bama: More than you do, d!ckhead.
Ward Cleaver on April 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Interesting theory.
Disturb the Universe on April 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Absurd. In the examples you cite, both Argentina and Brazil had had missile and nuclear programs that the US stopped through a combination of pressure and promises. It promised them that if any country ever used WMDs on them, as a US ally the US would retaliate against the aggressor as if the US itself had been attacked. That credible assurance of nuclear protection meant that a country like Brazil did not have to have its own nukes so long as the US had its back.
What Obama just told ALL of the countries that had been relying upon the US nuclear umbrella for deterrence is that the US may NOT have their back, that the US may NOT retaliate against a WMD aggressor. Further, given that the US response threshold has been pushed back, would be WMD aggressors may now THINK that they have more leeway in how aggressive they can be, how much WMD sabre rattling they can do, or even the actual use of WMD.
See, deterrence is about what people THINK, about PERCEPTION. If both sides THINK the other will retaliate if WMDs are used, they will (if same) not cross that threshold. However, since our president now gives the PERCEPTION of potential weakness or ambiguity in the face of WMD threats, the other side may THINK that the US will NOT respond in kind if it or its allies are hit by any sort of WMD attack. Deterrence policy becomes nullified as it is no longer based on a credible response.
This raises the likliehood that countries once reliant on US deterrence for WMD defense will move to acquire their own deterrent capabilities. Further, give the complete failure of NPT to stop determined rogue states from getting WMDs (only the US has stopped ANY nuclear proliferation — by pressure and removal of rogue regimes) and the response threshold by the US has become murky and diluted, they are naturally incentivised to get their WMD programs moving forward.
So Obama’s stated goal, an end to nukes, is at complete odds with what this policy will accomplish…which is more nukes, more WMDs, more room for miscalculation — e.g., the Korean War sparked by Dulles’ statement that the Korean Peninsula was “outside the US sphere of influence, the Gulf War precipitated by April Glaspies statement that the US “took no position” on how Iraq and Kuwait settled their dispute, etc. And more likliehood that they will be used.
EasyEight on April 9, 2010 at 11:31 AM
… and unicorns poop skittles in your fantasy world, right?
Midas on April 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Bayam: ONE NUKE CAN RUIN YOUR ENTIRE DAY!
Disturb the Universe on April 9, 2010 at 11:38 AM
It’s fascinating that you live in a world where a strong nation can make itself more secure by giving up power and hoping that others follow suit.
Does it rain often in Candyland?
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 9, 2010 at 11:44 AM
You keep quoting these “so-called experts”, yet you fail to mention who they are so we can refute them–and you…can we say “straw dogs”?
If, as you say, nuclear proliferation is the “greatest threat” to US security, then does it make sense to do away with our deterient? As someone said on HA yesterday, if you outlaw all the missles, only the outlaws will have the missles…
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM
SARAH!!!!!!!
Stop picking on Obambi; You’re gettin’ him all wee wee’d up!
Cybergeezer on April 9, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Ez. 37-39
daesleeper on April 9, 2010 at 11:50 AM
You are obviously a robot–we keep refuting your points, and you keep coming back–repeating your same points…you need to see someone about that flaw in your program…What’s the matter–Google anything else for you to cut and paste?
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM
I’m going to quit reading ANY news; F’n Obama is in every damn article one way or another, and he keeps displaying how completely juvenile he is.
And he is too stupid and hard headed to change.
I will keep my cell phone handy, so I can document the mushroom cloud before it disintegrates me.
Cybergeezer on April 9, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Ahh, that explains it, the KGB (which of course doesn’t exist) paying you well? You speak freaking Russian and have been a tourist over there and that makes you an expert???? Figures, facts are not a liberal’s strong suite…
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Bayam was only allowed to cut and paste one argument, which eh keeps repeating ad nauseum–like a dog chasing it’s tail
lovingmyUSA on April 9, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »