Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Did Obama Surrender to Everybody, Or Did He Sign a Suicide Pact?

If you heard what those of us in the reality-based community would call "the welcome news," you probably thought, "Hmmm, okay. Another good, if incremental, step by President Obama in reducing the global threat from nuclear weapons."

If you belong to a different community, however, you promptly wet the bed.

Important CNN Pundit The GHEMRotRSTF ("Erick Erickson") headlines his post, "Obama’s Dangerous Game Continues," begins by linking back to four (4!) of his earlier posts howling about how the Seekrit Muslin-in-Chief is determined to surrender to everyone, goes on to ask, "How many Americans are going to die because of the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of our national security?," continues with "capitulation and waving a white flag for our enemies," "to the left of Jimmy Carter," "It is one thing to have a wimp in office. It is another thing to admit it.," and then turns into a sputterfest of repetition:

This policy is the coming home of the sixties radical left agenda of pacification in the face of our enemies and capitulation of a strong America. Bill Ayers is a happy man today. His man in the White House is doing for him what he never could himself.

How many Americans will get killed because of this administration’s incompetence or intentional capitulation of our national security?

Not content with that, he posts again.

One more thought about Obama’s new nuclear policy

Doesn’t this new nuke policy, which puts Obama even to the left of Carter, …

Yeah, I told you he likes to repeat himself.

... just mean every regime out there is going to be rushing out to weaponize small pox?

After all, if they can take out a million of us with a bug or chemical instead of investing all the time, talent, and treasure into a nuclear weapons infrastructure *AND* they won’t in turn get nuked if they just use small pox, why the hell not?

This is truly a debt relief program for third world rogue nations.

And of course we must briefly check in on Don Surber, who for reasons passing understanding is paid by a major newspaper to write what he does. Here, he features a picture of Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor and his wife (remember that fauxtrage fest from a few months ago?), and then headlines, "Surrenderer-in-chief." It gets stupider from there, and though the lede does not involve Bill Ayers, it does involve Jeremiah Wright.

Elsewhere in Wingnuttia …

Dan Riehl:

ObaMcGovern: Send Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Chemical And Biological Weapons

You're freaking kidding me, right? This, while Putin is in Venezuela making nice with Hugo Chavez? This is our response?

Screw Carter, it's George McGovern time, now. We can't get this weakling out of the WH fast enough.

Jammie Wearing Fool:

Wonderful: Obama Plans to Limit Our National Defense Capability

It really seems as if this regime intends to leave America as weak and defenseless as possible. I've really got to question the motivation here.

The highly appropriately named Scared Monkeys:

Welcome to Obamanation …

What will Obama create a new incentive program for Nukes as he did with cash for clunkers, because that worked so well. Because US national security is so over-rated. As we all know peace through weakness works wonders. Or is it peace through nuance.

What exactly is President Hussein Obama’s motivation here? How dangerous is this President for America? This President is now bordering, actually he has now gone over the line, on doing things intentionally that would weaken and harm the United States.

Obama now wants to revamp American nuclear strategy to substantially limit the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. Are you serious? So much for National Security and protecting and defending the US Constitution. In the dangerous times we live in, what type of message does it send to the World that the US is weak and looks for appeasement?

And though it borders on nut-picking, there are, believe it or not, still quite a few people who take Pamela Geller seriously, so be advised that they're now thinking this:


Obama says to our enemies, bring it on, we won't fight ya -- leaving us bare naked vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

Obama is removing nuclear defense at a time when Iran's devout mullahcracy is building their nuclear arsenal with the global objective of a universal caliphate.

He is leaving America flailing in the hostile wind. Was there ever a more frightful time in American history? Seriously? -- Yes, there were very dangerous periods (Civil War, WW1, WW2), but always the steward of this great nation was a great American, a patriot, a freedom lover, an American. This low life despises this country and the whole idea of the first moral nation in human history.

His cover in this subversive new suicide pact is "making the world a nuclear free zone." Who does this asshat think he's kidding? What despot will ever be disarmed of their power? What evil dictator has ever surrendered that which made him strong? This punk is going to destroy us.

The hustler in the White House is setting us up. This isn't a new strategy, this is surrender. And the New York Times lap dog reporting is pure Walter Duranty.

These are just a few of the wingnuts prominent enough to be noticed by Memeorandum. Thers reminded me that I should have checked there first, and he has selected some more examples for your reading pleasure(?).

This is what we're up against. You know it won't be any different on Fox News or AM radio. In that light, this from Spencer Ackerman's post "It Sure Was A Great Idea To Stay Out Drinking The Night Before The Nuclear Posture Review Was Released," is a highly useful reminder:

Besides, if you read my Friday piece previewing the Nuclear Posture Review, you know all the important provisions. Even the explicit abandonment of a nuclear reprisal for a non-nuclear attack that’s getting all the attention this morning flows effortlessly from a central shift in strategy I reported Friday: recognizing that the nuclear threat against the U.S. is from proliferation, not merely a nuclear-armed enemy. And once you accept that the danger comes from nuclear weapons themselves, as Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association told me, “That would implicitly eliminate from the roles and missions [any] potential use of nuclear weapons to fight a conflict that begins as conventional or to counter chemical or biological forces.”

Now, you might say to yourself: That’s cutting edge thinking for, I guess, 1993. And you’d be right! But this is nuclear-weapons policy. It’s a frigate shipwrecked on a barrier reef made of oil, tar, superglue and sugarless gum from the sidewalk. You have to wage rhetorical battle for years to move it a centimeter. Cable pundits and opposition leaders freak out about anything nuclear, as if recognizing that we’re not ever going to use these weapons unless we’re hit with them first actually erodes our deterrent. I submit the more important deterrent aspect of what the NPR will say comes from its embrace of bolstering conventional forces — what Adm. Mullen has taken to calling “conventional global-strike capability.” That stuff? Oh, we’ll use that.

(Much of the above x-posted, in slightly different form, starting here.)

No comments: