Funny that the president's speech suggesting unilateral disarmament once again, should "bomb", in what the Telegraph described as :
"... a weak, underwhelming address from a floundering president".
In stark contrast to that of his presidential predecessors, Barack Obama’s message on Wednesday was pure mush, another clichéd “citizens of the world” polemic with little substance. This was a speech big on platitudes and hopeless idealism, while containing much that was counter-productive for the world’s superpower. Ultimately it was little more than a laundry list of Obama’s favourite liberal pet causes, including cutting nuclear weapons, warning about climate change, putting an end to all wars, shutting Guantanamo, ending global poverty, and backing the European Project. It was a combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America’s enemies and strategic adversaries, and the championing of more big government solutions.
Remember Barry's 2008 Fake Styrofoam column tour of Europe?? (At least he didn't have to rent the Styrofoam columns this time!) He tried to mask his complete and utter incompetence and lack of experience on foreign policy by standing in historic spots where real presidents conducted the nation's business. (I particularly liked his visit to 10 Downing street, home of the British Prime Minister. He didn't actually visit the PM, he just stood outside the door and got his picture taken making a speech. Barry likes making speeches.)
In Germany, sandwiched between two rock concerts, as I heard today, Barry spoke to a crowd of nearly 200,000. The novelty of seeing one who was supposed to be America's first post racial president. (Stop laughing!) Today, I hear 6,000 were invited and maybe 4,500 showed up.
And the Bamboozler-in-Chief had this profound statement* about nuclear arms:
We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.
I'd like to challenge the logic, or more aptly the illogic, of that statement. Nuclear weapons can and have stood as a deterrence to large scale convention warfare. If the presence of a nuclear deterrent, in the hands of just and honest men (this leaves you out, Barry!), stops an invading army with guns and tanks and bombs and poison gas, are we not safer than having to stockpile more conventional arms and larger standing armies? In a non-nuclear world, does the nation who can muster the most troops win?
A smaller scale analogy, Mr. President, one you can take back home to Chicago with you when you go: Are there policemen in Chicago Mr. President? Do they have guns? Does your own Secret Service contingent have guns? Is it fair (or rational) to say that as long as guns exist, we are not truly safe? Or do the guns not prevent crimes and protect the law enforcement officers (and your sorry ass) by their presence?
Great Britain has had nuclear weapons for years and no American has ever lost a night's sleep over their intention to use them on us. There is a balance of power to be maintained in this world. But, as you voted "present" as a state senator, as you were absent during the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, as you trade away our missile defenses and strategic advantages around the globe, and disrespect our democratic allies, no one is surprised that you do not have the best strategic interests of the US at heart.
Your pious platitudes, and "combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America’s enemies and strategic adversaries" have not gone unnoticed. Whether or not the Republic survives, historians will note and properly blame you for its rapid decline while you occupied the Oval Office.
*Closed Captioning for the Thinking Impaired: Sarcasm
Cross posted at LCR.