Who Do You Trust on Nuclear Policy?
[Guest post by DRJ]
Who do you trust more regarding America’s nuclear policy — Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, or Defense Secretary Robert Gates?
It’s not a hard call for me but it’s clear from this Allahpundit post that Obama puts his trust in … :
“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.”
Allahpundit quotes from a Gates’ 2008 speech and suggests Gates may not be on board with Obama’s policy change. That’s supported by last week’s New York Times’ article on Obama’s new nuclear policy:
“Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.”
It’s much easier to claim everyone agrees with you when you get to overrule their objections.
— DRJ
He really is a petulant little man.
JD (18e145) — 4/8/2010 @ 8:38 pmHe really is a petulant little man.
That is a great line, DRJ
JD (18e145) — 4/8/2010 @ 8:39 pmI get the impression that he does not listen to Gates much at all. And when he does, its clear he has no trouble misrepresenting Gates’ advice.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/8/2010 @ 8:39 pmRussia loves President Pussy’s nuclear policy because he threw Eastern Europe under the bus on the missile shield and they know they can roll over him wherever they want. GWB, not so much.
daleyrocks (718861) — 4/8/2010 @ 8:46 pmFortunately, the next Congress will reverse this policy.
I hope
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:09 pmWe’ll have to wait and see if Gates decides to “pursue other options”.
AD - RtR/OS! (67c4f6) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:14 pmA principled man would leave if the Boss institutes a policy that you can’t live with.
President Obama’s vision for America is so diametrically opposed to mine that I *know* I don’t trust him on this. What he believes to be in our country’s best interest, I believe not to be.
And how interesting that he felt compelled to explain himself to Stephanopoulos with regard to Palin’s criticism. It’s telling he finds her so relevant that must defend.
(I read today that his administration has denied visas to Israeli nuclear scientists who work at the Dimona nuclear reactor and want to come into the U.S. to further their education in Physics, Chemistry and Nuclear Engineering. (And yet, this same administration allowed Ahmadinejad was allowed into our country as a guest).
Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:27 pmGates is a wuss who should have left, Ear Leader is a scumbag of epic proportions… gimme Sarah any day.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:33 pmI read that too, and threw up a little in the back of my mouth.
JD (18e145) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:34 pmWill Obowman be the loon that finally chases the Jewish vote out of the Dem Party?
AD - RtR/OS! (67c4f6) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:45 pmYou know, Hubris does not even partially convey the magalomania of this poseur.
I only hope that not too many of us die.
I hope Gates stays because he’s the only serious person in the Obama Administration that Obama will listen to — although Obama may not be listening as much anymore. I’ve always thought Gates knows this and that’s why he didn’t leave long ago.
DRJ (daa62a) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:58 pmI betcha Israel doesn’t trust OBarcky’s nuclear policy.
JD (18e145) — 4/8/2010 @ 9:58 pmThe only advice that Obowman listens to is given by the voices in his head.
AD - RtR/OS! (67c4f6) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:00 pmIt’s important to me to take close notice that Obama apparently is not listening to Gates per se, but is listening to Palin and is taking the time to deflect, defend, and make sure the public knows he’s discounting her. This makes me think that for him this is primarily about political advancement and bolstering his image in the public’s eyes, and secondly about nuclear policy. He’s campaigning
Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:04 pmagainstill.I think Stalin used that line about Obama and objections as well
EricPWJohnson (0bcd2e) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:33 pmIt’s much easier to claim everyone agrees with you when you get to overrule their objections.
It’s certainly Lincolnesque:
[Lincoln’s Cabinet] felt the Civil War should focus on restoring the Union rather than abolishing slavery. Advocates of emancipation were set back in the 1862 election when Republicans lost 28 House seats. The cabinet vote was 7 to 1 against the Proclamation. The sole vote in favor came at the end of the discussion from Lincoln himself who opposed everyone and said “The ayes have it!” – source, diplomaticdc.wordpress.com, 1/20/09
Still, a more recent radical voice: “There can, therefore, be no more important task before us than that of reducing nuclear weapons. I am committed—utterly committed-to pursuing every opportunity to discuss and explore ways to achieve real and verifiable arms reductions.” — President Ronald Reagan, 6/19/86
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:34 pmRepublicans have to embarass this president and draw a line in the sand otherwise – as Russian troops are massing on another border – we dont need another Georgia/Afghanistan/Hungary et al
EricPWJohnson (0bcd2e) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:34 pmIMP is stuck in the past, and somehow thinks that by copying and pasting from wiki some random quotes, that it has made some special kind of point. To compare Reagan’s quote to Barcky’s actions is like comparing apples and aardvarks.
JD (18e145) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:52 pmI agree, we sure don’t need another Afghanistan.
porky (99dd15) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:54 pmsay again porky? Teh Won said the ‘stan was the good war we had to fight and win….
y’all need to get your story straight before you try to spin it.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/8/2010 @ 11:17 pmHey, I’m delighted that the Allegheny and Butler graduate wants to quote Ronald Reagan on arms control. Just delighted.
Because I remember how the Left felt about the things Reagan said.
And how little credit the Left gives Reagan for anything.
But if we are going to quote Reagan, let’s quote Reagan’s greatest line: trust but verify.
I’m just certain that BHO is modeling his foreign policy on RR’s.
But I am sure that DCSCA was there, helping out, during RR’s administration!
Eric Blair (5cf38e) — 4/9/2010 @ 12:34 amI’m going with the chick from AK on this one. If Getes resigns and publicly denounces the community organizer from Chicago I’m willing to listen.
Amused Observer (7fb53d) — 4/9/2010 @ 12:56 amNeed I point out to our Distinguished Colleague from the Society for Craven Appeasement that Reagan said “to achieve real and verifiable arms reductions.” which is nothing like what Obama said …
Alasdair (205079) — 4/9/2010 @ 3:09 am“Republicans have to embarass this president and draw a line in the sand otherwise – as Russian troops are massing on another border – we dont need another Georgia/Afghanistan/Hungary et al”
You may not realize this, but back in the time of afghanistan, a russian invasion was our goal. Though that may be too subtle to the point you are making.
imdw (223a39) — 4/9/2010 @ 4:40 amActually, no, the Afghan adventure started out more like the events in Kirghizstan, a left wing regime
began working more closely with the Soviets, there
was an uprising in the countryside, the Russians cut out the middleman, and went in and attacked the presidential palace
The START treaty was a solution to the problems of 1987, it says very little to the issues of nuclear
ian cormac (22d531) — 4/9/2010 @ 5:34 amproliferation, now
“Actually, no, the Afghan adventure started out more like the events in Kirghizstan, ”
That may be. But our goal was to get the Russians to commit there. At least it was the goal of the Carter/Brezinski team. There’s a reason it was called “the afghan trap.” You may have thought otherwise.
imdw (017d51) — 4/9/2010 @ 5:45 amThe Carter Administration, was caught off guard, it distracted from their fumbling in Iran, they were forced to reingage with Pakistan, which picked most
ian cormac (22d531) — 4/9/2010 @ 6:02 amof the player, like Hekmatyar and Younis, the last
was the mentor to Mullah Omar, who were more focused on killing fellow Afghans than the Soviets
The Arab nations now believe that it’s more dangerous to be America’s friend than her enemy.
I bet the Israelis might agree with that assessment.
GeneralMalaise (268cf5) — 4/9/2010 @ 11:31 am#21- “Because I remember how the Left felt about the things Reagan said.” — ‘Eric Blair’ 4/9/10
“I am old enough to remember Reagan as President….” – ‘Eric Blair’ – 11/27/09
Hmmm. One wonders if young Master Blair was ‘old enough’ to have actually ‘helped out’ himself by voting for Mr. Reagan as opposed to quoting him fondly from misty-eyed, morning-in-America childhood days. It doesn’t show. Given the alternative, this writer did, albeit with reservations and regret, in 1984, but is ‘delighted’ you care. Blood type ‘O’ too.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/9/2010 @ 2:50 pm