Skip to content

Obama: Peace Through Appeasement

Saturday, July 4, 2009

UPDATE 7/05/09 – Below

On the eve of President Obama’s trip to Moscow and talks with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and the real power broker, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, The New York Times published a three column front page puff piece entitled, “Obama’s Youthful Ideals Shaped the Long Arc of His Nuclear-Free Vision”.

Senator Barack Obama inside a deactivated Russian nuclear missile, 2005

Senator Barack Obama inside a deactivated Russian nuclear missile, 2005

According to the article, Obama’s quest to rid the world of nuclear weapons began in 1983, while he was a student at Columbia University. Obama wrote in the campus newsmagazine, Sundial, about the vision of “a nuclear free world.” He railed against discussions of “first- versus second-strike capabilities” that “suit the military-industrial interests” with their “billion-dollar erector sets,” and agitated for the elimination of global arsenals holding tens of thousands of deadly warheads.

The Times says, Mr. Obama’s journalistic voice was edgy with disdain for what he called “the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country” amid “the growing threat of war.” The two groups, he wrote, “visualizing the possibilities of destruction and grasping the tendencies of distorted national priorities, are throwing their weight into shifting America off the dead-end track.”

Obama, has not lost that Kumbaya, naive sentiment, “Twenty-six years later, the author, in his new job as president of the United States, has begun pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world.”

On June 30th, Senator John Kyl and Richard Perle wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, “Our Decaying Nuclear Deterrent”. They criticized Obama’s wishful policy.

“This is dangerous, wishful thinking. If we were to approach zero nuclear weapons today, others would almost certainly try even harder to catapult to superpower status by acquiring a bomb or two. A robust American nuclear force is an essential discouragement to nuclear proliferators; a weak or uncertain force just the opposite.

There is a fashionable notion that if only we and the Russians reduced our nuclear forces, other nations would reduce their existing arsenals or abandon plans to acquire nuclear weapons altogether. This idea, an article of faith of the “soft power” approach to halting nuclear proliferation, assumes that the nuclear ambitions of Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be curtailed or abandoned in response to reductions in the American and Russian deterrent forces — or that India, Pakistan or China would respond with reductions of their own.”

Obama’s 1983 article was written during the Reagan presidency. President Reagan had a completely opposite view of Barack Obama. That very year, Reagan pushed for SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) a system of anti-missiles designed to shoot down any incoming missile threats. Reagan also believed that an arms race would cripple the U.S.S.R. — and he was right. (President Reagan’s Legacy and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy)

Obama is already rolling back our nation’s nuclear defense. In January, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, called for financing a new generation of longer-lasting and more dependable nuclear arms.
He was immediately overruled. Mr. Obama’s first budget declared that “development work on the Reliable Replacement Warhead will cease.”

President Reagan argued for Peace through Strength, but Obama wants Peace through Appeasement. It just doesn’t add up in this world of rogue nuclear armed nations led by tin-pot dictators and Islamo-Fascist crazies.

These real threats will not stop the Obama Apology Tour and his desire to make the United States a secondary power both economically and militarily.

Just look at the stark contrast between Reagan and Obama in this political campaign ad from 1980.

UPDATE: Obama wants to bypass the Senate on START Treaty ratification. Our President, who promised transparency and honesty can’t seem to follow the Constitution. Read Hot Air here.

Posted: 2240PT


Subscribe with Bloglines

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: