Last week Obama outraged all rational thinking Americans (not to mention allies around the world) by announcing that the United States would NOT respond to attacks with nuclear weapons.
.
After decades of using the possibility of nuclear reaction as arguably the most effective deterrent to attack by both enemy countries and terrorist organizations, Obama took another major stride in destroying the security of this country and embolden our enemies around the globe.
.
Following fast on the heals of his declaration that he intended to remove the term “Islamic Extremists” from the National Security Strategy, Obama further ingratiated himself to our enemies by announcing that the US would not retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked by a country who was in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
.
This essentially establishes an easy out for terror supporting countries. If Syria doesn’t have nuclear weapons itself and is in compliance with the UN initiative, but a terror organization operating with Syrian funds, even on Syrian soil, takes it upon itself to detonate chemical or biological bombs in the US, Obama gives them a pass.
.
This of course is welcome news to the terrorist organizations and enemy countries that have shied away from nuclear development and avoided chemical and biological warfare against the United States (and long time allies like Israel) because they knew that their own country would be obliterated. Thanks to Obama, terrorists and terror supporting countries now have virtual carte blanch to attack.
.
Hillary Clinton, desperate both to flex her Secretary of State “muscle” and to try to avoid the splash back from such a disastrous position, hurried to contradict Obama by stating that the US would not rule out using nuclear weapons against a biological attack. However she provided plenty of wiggle room for terrorists by explaining that a nuclear attack might be an option, “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.”
.
Of course, this is double talk designed to placate an electorate shocked by Obama’s overt attempt to weaken America to attack by Islamic extremists. Even Democrats are not running to support Obama’s position which is essentially, “if attacked we will not fight.”
.
Instead, Obama proposes the use of diplomacy or “talking” with enemies, even after the use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons against the United States. Could Obama’s position be clearer? Is it possible that there are still people who actually believe that Obama has the best interest of the US at heart or that he is not a radical, Islamic sympathizer? After kowtowing to the Arabs, releasing terrorists to return to launch attacks against Americans, attempting to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a global stage with a NYC trail, refusing to acknowledge Ft Hood Assassin Nidal Hasan as a terrorist, his declaration that he would stand with Muslims, his open hostility against Isreal, and now stating clearly that he will not allow the US to retaliate with the most powerful weapon in our arsenal against terrorists or their sponsoring countries, I don’t see how he could make his position any clearer.
.
The US needs a strong, sure footed, pro-American President who walks quietly and carries a big stick. What we have is a militant blowhard who has given all our sticks to our enemies.
No comments:
Post a Comment