Obama Administration to Introduce New Nuclear Policy
EmailLater today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will present the Obama administration’s “Nuclear Policy Review,” which makes significant changes to the position of the US government regarding nuclear weapons, shifting the emphasis to preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
In the Review, the US government will pledge to refrain from using nuclear weapons to attack any country in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — even if that country has attacked the US with chemical or biological weapons.
“This is part of our effort to continue to incentivize nations to comply with the NPT, and to isolate those who don’t,” a senior administration official told ABC News. Nuclear states and those nations such as Iran and North Korea that are non-compliant with the NPT “get no assurance at all.”
The idea is that by continuing to develop their nuclear weapons programs, Iran and North Korea are taking steps that make them less secure.
The official said that the Review contains a “caveat that if there are substantial advances in bio-weapons and bio-proliferation we can revisit the assurance.” He said the Review “emphasizes increasing conventional capacity to respond to some of the contingencies,” such as an attack with chemical and biological weapons.
“We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” the President said in an interview with the New York Times, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”
Today’s announcement comes, not coincidentally, just two days before President Obama is scheduled to sign a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russian President Medvedev in Prague, and less than a week before a multi-nation nuclear security summit in Washington, DC.
Finalized after more than 100 interagency meetings, the Review also says the US will not develop any new nuclear weapons — contrary to what Secretary Gates originally recommended – though the Pentagon "will modernize the nuclear weapons infrastructure, sustain the science, technology, and engineering base, invest in human capital, and ensure senior leadership focus" and will "also extend the life of warheads currently in the nuclear arsenal,” a administration official said. “This is an alternative to developing new nuclear weapons, which we reject."
-jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Wow…awesome…why didn’t anyone think of this before…yawn… How’s that chat with Iran “unconditionally” coming along?
Posted by: free_dude | April 6, 2010, 8:35 am 8:35 am
These mild scare tactics won’t have any affect on Iran and N. Korea. They are the masters of scare tactics, and their leaders are used to living on the edge.
Posted by: knowerseeker | April 6, 2010, 9:00 am 9:00 am
Did you REALLY tell Lloyd Grove that White House photojournalism was “hagiography” as reported in The Daily Beast?
Then what, exactly, was Charlie (What ACORM scandal?)Gibson’s “exclusive”? What, exactly was Diane Sawyer’s “exclusive”? What, exactly, was George Stephanopoulos’s “exclusive”?
Obama has the same relationship to ABC news that Clinton had to Monica Lewinsky, figuratively speaking!
Posted by: R. E. Wynn | April 6, 2010, 9:07 am 9:07 am
Conventional weapons sure are scary – but nothing compared to nuclear intimidation through eventual disarmament! And we’re not going to make any more, either! So THERE! Wow.
Posted by: MidwestIowa | April 6, 2010, 9:09 am 9:09 am
Yea cuz why wouldnt our enemies want to kill us w/o destroying our advanced infastructure…isn’t this a motivator to develop bio/chem weapons INSTEAD of nukes?!?
Posted by: HA! | April 6, 2010, 9:19 am 9:19 am
The world will always have nukes, so quit trying to eliminate them. Anyone who believes the world can be nuclear free is completely out of touch with reality. Iran and N Korea are still doing what they want without intervention. This is all political grandstanding and making a show.
Posted by: lfrichar | April 6, 2010, 9:21 am 9:21 am
Why would a President of the United States have such an ignorant policy or even make the suggestion or proposal. No other President has even mentioned…remember it was a democrat that used the weapon and justifiably so.
American has to wake up and vote these fools out of office ….and soon. We can no longer have any one in charge of this country that is this far left.
Posted by: PwTexas | April 6, 2010, 9:25 am 9:25 am
“…fell for the lies of a devil…” — You mean, like when you conservatives voted in that neo-con devil Cheney who sat in the seat of power and wore Bush as a mask on his face? I’d rather have a liberal than a neo-con in office. (Actually, I’d rather have a moderate, but Hillary lost in the primaries, and I wasn’t about to trust another Republican in the form of McCain.)
Posted by: knowerseeker | April 6, 2010, 9:44 am 9:44 am
the mans a moron thats all i have to say
Posted by: fatnat | April 6, 2010, 9:45 am 9:45 am
You are dealing with a bunch of thugs. Hello! You just blinked. Your pleas with Iran, Israel, and Afghanistan just bit the dust. I’m certain N. Korea is having a tea party. Telling them what you are and are not going to do? Come on. Will someone please explain this madness.
Posted by: salty dog | April 6, 2010, 9:50 am 9:50 am
weakness causes wars and always has. Obama is compeltely wrong and is endangering all of us with his apologetic weak foreign policy. I predict that ,because of this dangerous policy, he has just convinced the Israelis to attack Iran and then we will have gasoline at $10/gal.
Posted by: Brian | April 6, 2010, 9:52 am 9:52 am
Nothing revolutionary in this and I suspect any administration would have made this common-sense evolutionary step. Nuclear weapons are a thug’s weapon now – coveted by terrorists and terrorist regimes, but of minimal value to a first world nation. The US, with it’s highly advanced military, simply does not need them to counter anything short of another massive nuclear strike. Even Israel, the closest thing to a modern era country that has faced a real threat while holding nuclear weapons, has never had a real need for them.
Posted by: jhw539 | April 6, 2010, 9:55 am 9:55 am
If you ready this very clearly here is the conclusion: United States claims the prerogative to use nuclear weapons against the Islamic Republic of Iran. More specifically, the Administration will reserve the prerogative for the United States to use nuclear weapons first, at its discretion, against non-nuclear-weapons states that are not, in Washington’s view, in full compliance with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In that context, recent statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other senior Administration officials that Iran is not in compliance with its NPT obligations seem quite ominous.
Posted by: Adam | April 6, 2010, 10:06 am 10:06 am
What a surprise.
Obama is perfectly fine with
America being weaker and more inferior than other countries.
Wasn’t that his plan all along?
Posted by: millie | April 6, 2010, 10:22 am 10:22 am
If you ready this very clearly here is the conclusion: United States claims the prerogative to use nuclear weapons against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Adam | Apr 6, 2010 10:06:49 AM
That is the stick part of it, yes. If a country develops nuclear weapons, they put themselves at *greater* risk of nuclear attack.
Posted by: jhw539 | April 6, 2010, 10:31 am 10:31 am
Brilliant, recycling the rocket shells and updating neuclear heads makes more sense than throwing the whole rocket and war heads away, instead of rebuilding to replace, but by having to change and upgrade the whole system on a budget of taxpayers money should please the Republicans who are constantly insisting of scaling down and calling it pork spending.
Excellent with a clause or caveat that “with the developement of bio-weapons and bio-proliferation we can revisit the assurance.” quoted from this article. So with the newer inventions of destroying life without destroying the buildings should also please the Republicans who love coming up with newer ways to kill.
Posted by: Angie | April 6, 2010, 10:34 am 10:34 am
“”"”"”Even Israel, the closest thing to a modern era country that has faced a real threat while holding nuclear weapons, has never had a real need for them. “”"”"
Posted by: jhw539
I would say they haven’t had a “use” for them yet. The need is “deterrence” and the new want is more foreign aid by scare tactics and if you don’t believe it works, ask Iran and N Korea. The US will always need the deterrent arsenal and it would be completely foolish to think otherwise.
Posted by: lfrichar | April 6, 2010, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Angie — What a perfectly partisan rant. Maybe you haven’t noticed the Democrats way of killing is unleashing an unmanned vehicle to kill indescriminately. Our drones might get Al Qaeda, but they are also killing civilians. My specialty is aeronautics and we will always have the need for piloted aircraft. Our current “leaders” seem to envision a future of unmanned vehicles and that is their mistake. Killing is not restricted to the GOP as your partisanship might suggest.
Posted by: lfrichar | April 6, 2010, 11:00 am 11:00 am
If America is attacked with weapons of mass destruction, Obama will retaliate with one of his nasty letters.
Posted by: ollie | April 6, 2010, 11:01 am 11:01 am
Whether dithering while men struggled on the battlefield, bullying sovereign nations, corrupting alliances or rushing headlong into dubious GITMO actions, this administration is in denial of the risky workings of the world. The Obama plan will be to implement an old progressive dream – unilateral nuclear disarmament in a perilous age.
This administration is not only naïve about dealing with dictators; it is dangerous in its blundering. President Obama wants to change the world. But he is enfeebled by conceit and an obsession with a destructive ideology that enchains men to bureaucracy.
His latest naiveté is represented by a sound bite “. . . a world without nuclear weapons.” The idea is so idealistic that it stands bold face as pandering hyperbole. It is like a wish for world peace – something everyone prays for. But because of the unrelenting bad guy, the barbarian, the bully under arms, it can never be.
The left wants the evil “imperialist” America to back off and be nice. But do we really think dictators will lay down their arms and put away their designs on world hegemony? History demonstrates that peace is possible only by carrying a big stick and foreclosing foreign intrigue.
Posted by: corneliusvansant | April 6, 2010, 11:02 am 11:02 am
just like chicago, only criminals are allowed to own weapons, what are we doing? If we can’t have a means to protect ourselves that only increases the chance that we will be attacked by some other country with a “bigger stick”. Obama, get your head outta the sand…..
Posted by: ralph blair | April 6, 2010, 11:09 am 11:09 am
Uh, bio-weapons and bio-proliferation are not already taking place? Are we in Never Never Land or what? Maybe the deal is WHEN one of these bio-weapons is used THEN we will “revisit the assurance.” So, we are going to give you one chance to do great harm. THEN we are going to tell you we have nukes in place, so do not try that again. I just don’t get the logic.
Posted by: salty dog | April 6, 2010, 11:09 am 11:09 am
We were hit first on 9/11 and we certainly don’t want to be hit first with a bio-weapon. Our foreign policy has been weakened and now is being weakened even further.
Posted by: lfrichar | April 6, 2010, 11:18 am 11:18 am
While Obama’s dismantling our defenses, Putin and Chavez, both of whom despise us, are building an alliance . . . and an arsenal. Instead of sleeping with one eye open with these 2 in our campsite, Obama’s high fiving Nancy Pelosi and sleeping sound dreaming of his favorite White Sox baseball – who’s players he can’t remember a single name to.
Posted by: EPU | April 6, 2010, 11:20 am 11:20 am
I see many Iran’s in the making of such stupidity by our Government Leaders. We can’t get these clowns out of office soon enough, eh Jake!
Posted by: Deputy Dog | April 6, 2010, 11:20 am 11:20 am
What a surprise.
Obama is perfectly fine with
America being weaker and more inferior than other countries.
Wasn’t that his plan all along?
Posted by: millie | Apr 6, 2010 10:22:39 AM
_____________________________________
Oh sure, the President’s plan was to make the United States inferior . . . sure, that’s the BIG plan . .. the SECRET plan . ..
Posted by: tierra | April 6, 2010, 11:24 am 11:24 am
tierra: “the President’s plan was to make the United States inferior . . . sure, that’s the BIG plan . .. the SECRET plan . ..”
Alas, now you’re finally gettin’ it. Obama didn’t pal around with his buddy Bill Ayers who bombed the Pentagon, no. Obama didn’t sit in a congregation for 20 years listening to anti-American tirades, no. Obama didn’t refuse to salute the American flag along with his counterparts at the pledge of allegiance to make some kind of global statement to our international leaders, no. Obama didn’t go around the globe on a world tour apologizing for our “arrogance”, no.
Shall I go on?
Posted by: EPU | April 6, 2010, 11:29 am 11:29 am
“Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran .” — Columnist Burt Prelutsky
Posted by: M. Smith | April 6, 2010, 11:30 am 11:30 am
Shall I go on?
Posted by: EPU | Apr 6, 2010 11:29:27 AM
______________________________________
Please do . . tell us about the SECRET plan, the REAL plan . . . the EVIL intent of the President . . . ooooh scary!
Posted by: tierra | April 6, 2010, 11:37 am 11:37 am
The guy doesn’t have the least of a clue….
Posted by: LongT | April 6, 2010, 11:39 am 11:39 am
“Obama didn’t refuse to salute the American flag along with his counterparts at the pledge of allegiance to make some kind of global statement to our international leaders”
_______________________________________
Do you mean when they were playing Hail To The Chief – when the President is not supposed to salute? Or what exactly are you muttering about?
Posted by: tierra | April 6, 2010, 11:40 am 11:40 am
This guy is the worst President we have ever had, he is a egomanical narsissist that hasn’t a clue
Posted by: John | April 6, 2010, 11:44 am 11:44 am
Continent hopping I see?
Posted by: LongT | April 6, 2010, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Listen DIAMOND HEAD,. what happens when you nuke underground? What do you supposed that rock compresses into? Or does it just make a big hole? Just a few too many earthquakes these days for my liking,. just a few too many CPU factories being destroyed for my liking. Coal miner blast huh? Big explosion huh? Lots of dead Chinese this week huh? I’ve got some keywords for you about this whole scenario, and your pathetic mind reader bait network of images. If the FBI stays this pathetic we are in serious trouble.
SIGINT CODES:
ALL OVER NORTH – Oliver North
DOAKTOWN HWY 8 – Edmund Doak (UFO’s)
ROGER WATERS – Nice fake name too
ANNE MARIE SLAUGHTER -my mother of course
RADIO CONTROLLED MEGA PIRATE – RCMP
KONAMI CONTRA – Something that I “trained” on a modem with SIGINT. RAMBO fighting UFO’s in the woods huh?
CONTRA – fake looking rebels
R2U2 – Earthquakes and STAR WARS in a
CIA summarizer
GORDV4 – RC mega’s CIA summary for the Hwy 8 club, and MY COMMODORE
Metal Gear Solid – Konami – SNAKE, the continuance for their knowledge of the incident.
MY COMMODORE 64- L Ron Hubbard (see shrinking world of L Ron Hubbard)
and WHO is that big “SECRET” Japanese guy in the ALL OVER NORTH trial? He’s where we start to blame China for our high tech mafia. Oliver North is purposely a TERRIBLE actor.
–
Billy, Benny, Paraplegic, Dave, Radio Kaos, Miner’s hearing radio waves in their heads, WATERS, Mi5, all from hwy #8,in DOAKTOWN
—
The con is running out,. nuclear “earthquake makers” and mind control / mind readers are surfacing,. hide it and die.
Posted by: Rhys H | April 6, 2010, 11:59 am 11:59 am
Sadly, the reality of our world does not allow such grandiose ideas the room to flourish. While all people of conscience can agree that the devastation such weapons have wrought in the past is abominable, such devastation has historically been the only deterrent to openly hostile aggressors. It is good to seek diplomatic avenues as a means forward in our dealings with other nations of all types; however, those diplomatic overtures lack substance without an appropriate level of force standing behind them. “Speak softly, but carry a big stick”. These are simple axioms and anyone who looks at the world in an honest and realistic way must acknowledge the truth of them. “We must hope for peace but prepare for war”. The use of such weapons has always been a last resort, this is not really new policy. What is new, and frightening from a security standpoint, is the message this is sending to those groups who only respond to the threat of violence. It is a sign of weakness to those whose language is intimidation and terror. I see no good to come from it, other than grandstanding for another idealistic crusade.
Posted by: War919 | April 6, 2010, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
The Obama Regeime is a total disaster for the safety of the free world. Jake Tapper seems to also been neutered by the Obama Regeime.
Posted by: Peter King | April 6, 2010, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm
all this talk about obama mitigating the strength of america is idiodic – as if he has more involvement in writing these bills than simply passing them.not only that but if you poor folks would just take some time to think hard about the obvious clauses in the bill, you’d see that the bill does next to nothing to disrupt or alter the status quo of things, which includes the theoretical dominance of america.
Posted by: jjj | April 6, 2010, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
I don’t get it, or at least I can’t believe what I’m reading… Does this mean that Obama and Hillary want to make us sitting ducks? Even with all that’s come to the surface and been exposed that’s hard to comprehend! And as per the comment about Republicans, what has that got to do with it?
Posted by: ViRenie | April 6, 2010, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
Obama’s smart/soft power.
One week after meeting with Obama, Karzai is ready to join the Taliban.
Shortly after Obama signs an arms treaty with Russia, Putin travel to Venezuela to help Chavez with his nukes.
Something is very very wrong.
I am worried for our country and our allies under the Obama regime.
Posted by: fran | April 6, 2010, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm
Obama took an oath to defend us.
Does that promise have an expiration date too.
I don’t believe Obama would put everything on the table to protect us.
Obama still thinks his charm is America’s best weapon.
What a dangerous, naive administration.
Posted by: hank | April 6, 2010, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
One week after meeting with Obama, Karzai is ready to join the Taliban.
Shortly after Obama signs an arms treaty with Russia, Putin travel to Venezuela to help Chavez with his nukes.
Posted by: fran |
Not to mention England, France, Israel, India, Canada, Mexico, Brasil…
Has this administration improved our relations with anyone?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | April 6, 2010, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
This is another unilateral step to dismantle our self defense capabilities. What is so terrible is that the basis is a hope to prevent nuclear terrorism. While the accomplishment this goal is speculative, the flip side is a more certain encouragement for enemies to try other horrible forms of killing many Americans. Is this the change we hoped and voted for?
Posted by: DonM | April 6, 2010, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
I guess we just need to figure out if we should learn Chinese or Russian
Posted by: Bernie | April 6, 2010, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
So…. Is Obama trying to “scare” Iran into thinking they are not in our “no nuke” club?? —- OF COURSE they are not in the “club”… so why say this to anyone else??? —- Nukes are our “deterent”… nobody ever wants to use them… but you don’t say “NEVER” to anyone… who knows what the future holds??? —— Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | April 6, 2010, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
This plan does not remove nuclear capability against Iran or North Korea. What it does is take a First Strike by the US off the table for those countries who abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. It means that there will never be another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. At least not by the US. This is long overdue. Nuclear weapons don’t make us safer. I’m glad the President has chosen to make our world just a little safer. Nuclear weapons destroy not only the country you’re attacking but the environment of the entire world. Finally, we have a policy that protects our future.
Posted by: Cindbird | April 6, 2010, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
This is very naive. It’s like a refusal to believe there is evil in the world. Way back when, I remember Joan Baez said she would meet the enemy when it came ashore with a cup of tea. I always wondered what would hit the ground first, the cup of tea, or her head. We may now get the opportunity to find out. Our enemies are intolerant of our ideas and our existence. I hope congress can muster some good sense and put a stop to this.
Posted by: Gary | April 6, 2010, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
“Has this administration improved our relations with anyone?”
Goldman Sachs!
Posted by: Timbo | April 6, 2010, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
I guess we just need to figure out if we should learn Chinese or Russian
Posted by: Bernie | Apr 6, 2010 12:56:40 PM
____________________________________
Learn Chinese Bernie, the Republicans under Bush already sold the country off to Chinese debt bonds.
Posted by: tierra | April 6, 2010, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm
all this talk about obama mitigating the strength of america is idiotic – as if he has more involvement in writing these bills than simply passing them.not only that but if you poor folks would just take some time to think hard about the obvious clauses in the bill, you’d see that the bill does next to nothing to disrupt or alter the status quo of things, which includes the theoretical dominance of america.
Posted by: jjj | Apr 6, 2010 12:23:54 PM
____________________________________
Shhhh! You’re interrupting the Republican right marching around the room in their little outfits.
Posted by: tierra | April 6, 2010, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
You’re interrupting the Republican right marching around the room in their little outfits.
Posted by: tierra |
More hate speech, please.
Posted by: Brain Override | April 6, 2010, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
I applaud this critical first step in an outright elimination of nuclear weapons, which are only making the world more dangerous. If only The President would go further! Only the hateful right wingers who have plans to use them (nuke the Arab world, perhaps?) would oppose a nuclear-free world.
Posted by: Code Pink | April 6, 2010, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
nobody ever wants to use them… but
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition |
more right wing philosophy and deep policy analysis: but… if … maybe…some day
Posted by: PO'd | April 6, 2010, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm
Nuclear weapons are a thug’s weapon now – coveted by terrorists and terrorist regimes, but of minimal value to a first world nation.
Posted by: jhw539 | Apr 6, 2010 9:55:47 AM
It’s not the fact that we have them but the message we send by announcing we might get rid of them. Obama wants to send the message that countries should eliminate or abandon their nuclear programs.
“Unfortunately for Americans, President Obama’s new strategy will have the exact opposite result of its intended effect. Instead of incentivizing countries to give up nuclear ambitions, it creates new incentives for them to maintain or develop their own nuclear programs.” -Heritage Foundation
Posted by: For the Record | April 6, 2010, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
Read the history of any country and you will realize why deterrents of all shapes and sizes have always been a necessity for protection.
The countries that survived the longest have been those with the most effective deterrents and managed to not collapse from within. Looks like we’re in danger of doing both.
Posted by: For the Record | April 6, 2010, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm
Shhhh! You’re interrupting the Republican right marching around the room in their little outfits.
Posted by: tierra | Apr 6, 2010 2:18:57 PM
More hate speech from the side of the aisle that calls Black conservatives Uncle Toms.
“‘I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,’ said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.” – AP
Posted by: For the Record | April 6, 2010, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
Not labeled “code pink” for nothing….
Posted by: Parallex View | April 6, 2010, 7:09 pm 7:09 pm
all this talk about obama mitigating the strength of america is idiotic – as if he has more involvement in writing these bills than simply passing them.not only that but if you poor folks would just take some time to think hard about the obvious clauses in the bill, you’d see that the bill does next to nothing to disrupt or alter the status quo of things, which includes the theoretical dominance of america.
Posted by: jjj | Apr 6, 2010 12:23:54 PM
____________________________________
Shhhh! You’re interrupting the Republican right marching around the room in their little outfits.
——————————-
More hate speech . . .
Posted by: For the Record | Apr 6, 2010 6:57:45 PM
You call that ‘hate speech’? I guess I should have said marching around the room in their ‘little MATCHING outfits’. Anyway, y’all look real cute.
Posted by: tierra | April 6, 2010, 7:21 pm 7:21 pm
Shhhh! You’re interrupting the Republican right marching around the room in their little outfits.
——————————-
More hate speech . . .
Posted by: For the Record | Apr 6, 2010 6:57:45 PM
You call that ‘hate speech’? I guess I should have said marching around the room in their ‘little MATCHING outfits’. Anyway, y’all look real cute.
Posted by: tierra | Apr 6, 2010 7:21:15 PM
Hate speech? Yes. “Marching” “Outfits” What’s the inference there? And from the Party of Inclusion, Moderation, and Progressive Thought? How is this even possible.
“Y’all?” Denigrating areas of the US now, tierra, or trying to sound like you live there? You should have said, “you all look real cute, eh?” (Be a proud Canadian!)
Posted by: For the Record | April 6, 2010, 9:48 pm 9:48 pm
“The countries that survived the longest have been those with the most effective deterrents and managed to not collapse from within. Looks like we’re in danger of doing both.”
Agreed… x100
Thanks, Progressives. And thanks also to the ignorant voters who continue to pull the lever for candidates from the Far Left.
Posted by: tjp612 | April 6, 2010, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
Posted by: For the Record | Apr 6, 2010 9:48:10 PM
Y’all are wrong. Yet again. Is it a hobby?
Posted by: tierra | April 6, 2010, 11:22 pm 11:22 pm
The countries that survived the longest have been those with the most effective deterrents and managed to not collapse from within. Looks like we’re in danger of doing both.”
Agreed… x100
Thanks, Progressives. And thanks also to the ignorant voters who continue to pull the lever for candidates from the Far Left.
Posted by: tjp612 | Apr 6, 2010 10:41:16 PM
____________________________________
How foolish.
The North Koreans tested their first nuclear weapon on Republican Bush’s watch.
Iran developed its secret nuclear facility on Republican Bush’s watch.
Bin Laden and al Qaeda escaped in Afghanistan on Republican Bush’s watch.
The Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan on Republican Bush’s watch.
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Posted by: tierra | April 6, 2010, 11:25 pm 11:25 pm
Posted by: For the Record | Apr 6, 2010 9:48:10 PM
Y’all are wrong. Yet again. Is it a hobby?
Posted by: tierra | Apr 6, 2010 11:22:30 PM
So set me straight. I hear confession is good for the soul.
Posted by: For the Record | April 7, 2010, 12:06 am 12:06 am
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Posted by: tierra | Apr 6, 2010 11:25:22 PM
The tree of liberty is rotting from the inside out.
Posted by: For the Record | April 7, 2010, 12:10 am 12:10 am
What I do not understand is this country is on the brink of civil war. We were not ready for this president. 1. cap and trade. 2. healthcare. 3.always talking politics with him. 4. economy. 5. borders. 6. troops. 7. giving wealth. 8. I have never seen him do anything for the white or hispanic culture but no reporter to ask him. I want to leave this country in all honesty there is to much racism here. Are military is not strong, and gangs, and drugs, and bad people in general are being left alone.What hurts is we need more police and a more jails built fast home invasions are off the hook and black people do not understand why we want white history month. Finally the nukes just topped the good ol boys off ….. what next ? this is not what are founding fathers ever had in mind… I would run for president but I do not have the money. Instead of war we should all write are congress and the president our voices of any culture is what would make the change not just debating in here.
Posted by: vanessa | April 7, 2010, 12:20 am 12:20 am
Impeach him, or just ask him to secure our streets
Posted by: vanessa | April 7, 2010, 12:21 am 12:21 am
I would run for president but I do not have the money. Instead of war we should all write are congress and the president our voices of any culture is what would make the change not just debating in here.
Posted by: vanessa | Apr 7, 2010 12:20:52 AM
______________________________________
The Republican right is already calling for your impeachment and you haven’t even run yet . ..
Posted by: tierra | April 7, 2010, 1:22 am 1:22 am
I am stunned the POTUS could be so naive!!
Posted by: whathappened08 | April 7, 2010, 8:29 am 8:29 am
When Muslims decide to destroy America, they know they must do it from the inside out. Even the Communist know this and it is in our History books…if that too has not changed or edited out. Our enemies did things on “Bush’s watch” for fear of him and to put in who they wanted. Tadah! And here we are.
Posted by: Jberg | April 7, 2010, 9:11 am 9:11 am
Have any of you ever watched a boxing match and found the guy who quit swinging win? Yeah…I didn’t think so. Some things are worth fighting for. Like life, liberty, and I would dare say happiness. Someone will be happy…either those who keep their freedoms, or those who just took our freedoms away.
Posted by: Jberg | April 7, 2010, 9:16 am 9:16 am