Obama's new nuclear age doesn't bode well for Israel

The custom is for every American president to put together a working paper that re-examines the government's stance on nuclear weapons. The document is in effect a summary of the main principles of the incoming administration's nuclear policy and a statement of the new president's intentions on the future of America's nuclear stockpile. Two presidents have produced such documents since the end of the Cold War: Bill Clinton in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2002. Now it's Barack Obama's turn to publish a statement that will set out his nuclear policy.

Expectations are especially high this time around. Since the beginning of his term, Obama has repeatedly declared his intentions to inaugurate a new and secure nuclear age. He laid out his plans last April in a speech to an enthusiastic audience in Prague. His statement that "as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility ... to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," was greeted with applause. America must "put an end to Cold War thinking," he said, hinting at his predecessor's path.

But whoever expects Obama to lead the United States and the world into a new and optimistic nuclear age will be disappointed by the working paper's details. A world without such weapons is a long way off, and despite announcements and promises, Obama's policy is a direct continuation of Bush's.

Paradoxically, the goals of U.S. strategy for using nuclear weapons actually widened after the Cold War, instead of narrowing. Clinton and Bush enlarged the aims of a nuclear attack to include the prevention of chemical or biological warfare on American soil, and even to target extra-governmental organizations.

You’re a racist!/sarc

Maybe between his appearances on late night comedy shows, speeches in towns around the country, meeting with every left leaning journalist and throwing his support behind health care, cap and trade.............., he simply hasn’t had the time to play the role of “Commander of Chiefs” (What he called it repeatedly on the campaign trail in 2008). Give the guy a break, he’s only been POTUS for 1.5 years and it’s all Bush’s fault, except Iraq which he told us has been successful because of him!

Bottom line- Obama is a community organizer (saying that is a automatic turn off for some, but it matters.) He was a legislator in Illinois and a junior legislator in the US Congress. That’s the only relevant and real experiences he brought to the table. With no executive, military, law enforcement, intelligence, foreign affairs, on a staff, or business experience he was elected into a position where his primary role is as an “executive” running the DoJ, DoD, DHS, Dep of State............. He’s a fish out of water and he has shown his hand several times in this regard.

His comfort zone is having a “Beer Summit” between a professor and cop: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/08/03/obamas-beer-summit-and-race-in-america.html His area of expertise, his interests, his comfort zone is dealing with national health care, talking about race issues, education, cap and trade............ the sort of stuff that a community organizer or legislator deals with. He’s our first “Legislator in Chief.”

But no worries. What he can’t accomplish will simply not be questioned or asked about by CNN, MSNBC.......... the media humping his leg. His popularity will remain because after all he’s “historic” (Whatever that means), has big white teeth, walks with a swagger, dresses nice, looks cool even if he can’t answer the question and only speaks fluff, and most importantly can dance!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4 You obviously don’t have your priorities right!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.