4/09/2010

Obama's nonresponse to Palin's critique of Obama's Nuke Policy

His deep response is here.

"I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues," he said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.


ABC summarizes Obama's promise this way: "the United States will not use nuclear weapons against any country that has signed and is abiding by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attack the United States with chemical or biological weapons." Apparently, if you sign the treaty, you don't even need to obey it to be covered. Palin pointed out the obvious: "It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'" And Obama provides only an obnoxious response in return.

UPDATE: Here is a discussion on Fox News about the exchange between Obama and Palin.

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Al B. said...

Palin's comments strike me as being the same kind of cheap shot that Obama used to take at Bush back when Obama was a senator. Last time I looked, Obama has nearly 15 months more experience as commander-in-chief than Palin has. And he gets daily classified briefings from our top military people that Palin doesn't get.

As we've already seen repeatedly, what Obama says and what Obama does are two different things. It remains to be seen what Obama will do. Perhaps he is merely being as disingenuous about nuclear weapons as Ahmadinejad.

As to Palin's schoolyard analogy, perhaps it would be more like one boy saying, "Go ahead, try and punch me in the face! I still won't need to shoot you with my gun in order to deal with you!"

4/10/2010 11:35 AM  
Blogger Paul_In_Houston said...

"Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues,"

As another commenter put it elsewhere,
    "Excuse me. When did Obama become one?"

-

4/10/2010 12:25 PM  
Blogger Bill said...

To Al B:

Letting those might use chemical or biological weapons against us THINK they risk nuclear retaliation in doing so, if you don't intend to nuke them in retaliation, might be disingenuous but definitely is crafty.

Letting those might use chemical or biological weapons against us THINK they they are safe from nuclear retaliation in doing so, even if you fully intend to nuke them in retaliation, might be disingenuous but definitely is stupid.

There is only one sensible explanation for Obama's announcement of his genuine or disingenuous intentions. That would be the fact that his megalomaniacal desire to be highly regarded in world opinion is greater than his desire to be a responsible leader of the United States.

4/10/2010 1:52 PM  
Blogger Al B. said...

Dear Bill:

One thing we should all learn when dealing with potentially violent situations is, "never, ever escalate." If you start a fight with me and I show you my gun, then you are forced to respond to MY threat, and I may not like your response. Sometimes, the wrong posturing CAN get you killed.

Our policy on using nuclear weapons hasn't changed since after we bombed Japan in WWII. Obama will certainly respond in kind to the use of nuclear weapons, but the U.S. won't be the country that starts a nuclear war.

Do you seriously think that anyone believes that Iran isn't developing a nuclear weapon, just because Ahmadinejad says they're not? Do you seriously think that anyone believes Obama wouldn't use nuclear weapons under the right circumstances? Do you seriously believe that any country large enough to be a threat to the U.S. doesn't have a team of people with PhD's in operations research working on developing optimal strategies to deal with every conceivable situation? Do you think they don't know we have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and we CAN use it if we want to, regardless of what we might say to the contrary? Do you think they're stupid?

Do you think we should have retaliated against Afganistan with nuclear weapons when al Quaeda attacked us in 2001? Bush didn't think so.

My point was that Sarah Palin's comments were a cheap shot, just like Obama's comments about Bush were back when Obama was a senator -- as he has since discovered. I would dearly love to see Obama get voted out of office in 2012. At the same time, however, I'd like to feel good about voting for whoever runs against him.

4/10/2010 3:50 PM  
Blogger Mike W. said...

Obama's response is typical of the arrogance we've come to expect from him.

4/12/2010 10:34 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home