“common dreams” .org??
Yeah, Putin and Obama (and therefore Soros who supports him) DO basically have a common dream, despite the smoke and mirrors BS we hear reported: weak US, strong Russia, China and Iran...
PS-I had no idea that left-wing anti-American rag of a website was still around. It’s been nearly a decade since I’ve seen the source posted anywhere.
Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominees eyes made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of What is Aleppo?
Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely -- or naively -- charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.
Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday weaponry. They have a much newer capability than we do, he said. We have not been updating from the new standpoint. The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not -- we are not keeping up with other countries.
Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over.
Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms like fallout or dirty bomb, classifying Armageddon as the nuclear alternative represents something of a contribution.
Still, its worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, first strike and first use are anything but synonymous. First strike implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation. The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack could inflict the nuclear alternative on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.
Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trumps vow never to order a first strike -- not the question Lester Holt was asking -- was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his no first strike pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington, that I can't take anything off the table.
Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, where were doing nothing. Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in check, he added, ought to be Beijings job. China should solve that problem for us, he insisted. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.
If China wouldnt help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many thousands of miles away, should do so -- and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea. When the Obama administration made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea. But why stop with North Korea? Iran should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places, he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's behalf.
Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry: Why didn't you add other things into the deal? Why, in one of the great giveaways of all time, did the Obama administration fork over $400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest explanation -- It was actually $1.7 billion in cash -- in one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history.
Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour dhorizon by decrying the one action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least in the near future. The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems, he stated with conviction. All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end up getting nuclear. For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day, he added for no reason in particular. Believe me, he's not a happy camper.
On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trumps recitation ended. In its way, it had been a Joycean performance.