Time and time again, our president has proven himself to be a clueless idiot in almost every area of both foreign and domestic policy.
Yesterday, he effectively sent out an invitation for those who would destroy us to come on in and do it.
For some not paying attention, that sounds a bit over-the-top. But one of the main reasons this country has been mostly safe from these attacks has been, I believe, our overwhelming nuclear deterrence.
And much of that deterrence was taken off the table yesterday by the ACORN-in-Chief, who even after all these months STILL doesn't get that most nations around the world will only respect strength instead of weakness.
So, this simple moron announced to the world yesterday that only SOME efforts to destroy this country and our 330,000,000 people qualify for nuclear attack response.
From the fringe left paper of record, the New York Times:
For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use
nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with
biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
With a little editing, this is what that paragraph REALLY means:
For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing to encourage ourSo, using the scenario of the Tom Clancy books "Executive Orders and "Rainbow 6," some country paying lip service to a piece of paper that doesn't even involve biological, chemical or internet attacks (and face it, Chinese hackers have been coming after us for years without any known retaliation of any kind) can feel free from the fear of the past penalties that could be invoked for using non-nuclear weapons of mass-destruction.
enemies to attack us if the attack is launched from nonnuclear states that
are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they
attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a
crippling cyberattack.
What's a few tens of millions of casualties and the crippling of this country to this moron?
Based on his most recent babble, it ain't much. And I'm just giddy at the prospects that those who would destroy us view this most recent collapse of common sense as precisely the kind of gesture from this empty suit that will make us weaker... while making them stronger.
Aren't you?
.
1 comment:
I have seen the New York Times, Fox News and even a few of the more liberal editorial news services commenting on this treaty that Obama signed limiting nuclear weapons and for the life of me I can't figure out where either side is getting this information. Perhaps someone can help me. Obama may have made a speech, which I missed or something, but I went to http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf and read the treaty in its entirety and couldn't find anything in it that says anything about biological weapons, not being able to retaliate or anything else. It basically limits each country's inventory of nuclear weapons, defines what a nuclear weapon is and where they can be kept and says:
"Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party. Such notice shall contain a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
This Treaty shall terminate three months from the date of receipt by the other Party of the aforementioned notice, unless the notice specifies a later date."
Unless I don't understand the spirit of this section, it says that if either country is threatened or attacked, it can withdraw from this treaty and retaliate as necessary. There is nothing that says countries outside the treaty can attack or not attack, it doesn't even mention that. It is, in reality, a very simple document and I was quite surprised by that.
Where is all this coming from?
Post a Comment