Ouch: Stephen Green lays the smackdown on Obama's Nuke policy

I figured some were not going to be happy about Obama’s change in policy, I was right: (H/T Insty)

Well, yesterday Obama — facing no pressure or need to change anything at all — quite recklessly turned over the strategic initiative (operational, too, for that matter) to the other guys.

Little countries can now act, with chemical or biological agents, sure in the knowledge that however we respond, we will respond with less. The other guy now gets to determine how much punishment he is willing to take. Before yesterday, we determined how much punishment we were willing to dish out (plenty).

President Johnson (and to a lesser extent, Nixon) made the same mistake in dealing with North Vietnam. “Escalation,” tit-for-tat, let Hanoi dictate the pace of the war, while simultaneously learning how to deal with, and obviate, our military might. Result: We lost the initiative and eventually the war. Sucky, that.

via Vodkapundit » What, Me Worry?.

I highly suggest you go read the full article. Some would dismiss this as propaganda. But, I think it warrants a full read.

President Limits Nuke Usage

I have mixed feelings about this, I will explain after the quote:

Via the NYT:

President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

As I said above, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the idea of America being stoked to the hilt with Nukes on a hair trigger is not my idea of a good time. On the other hand, the idea of the United States not being able to defend itself is not a very comforting thought. Because I am not a partisan blogger, I will simply say this; I believe Obama is trying to strike a balance and trying to keep all parties happy. Which is not easy, when the people you are trying to make happy are not your biggest fans. Either way, it has to be a tough order.

Other Bloggers from ALL sides on this: Political Punch, CBS News, Ben Smith’s Blog, Power Line, The Corner on National …, Beltway Confidential, The Caucus, PoliBlog, Commentary, ATTACKERMAN, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Jihad Watch, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Independent, Fausta’s Blog, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, Scared Monkeys, Atlas Shrugs, Liberty Pundits dot net, Another Black Conservative, The Confluence, The Moderate Voice, The Atlantic Online, Israel Matzav, Guardian, News Hounds, Don Surber, YID With LID, Pundit & Pundette, The American Pundit, Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, The Page, And So it Goes in Shreveport, The Anchoress, The Lonely Conservative, JammieWearingFool, Gawker and Riehl World View

Is the Afghanistan/Pakistan mission unraveling?

It seems that way. 🙁

The Story via Stratfor.com:

Three explosions, two rocket attacks and subsequent gunfire have been reported in the near vicinity of the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan, on April 5. The attack occurred early afternoon local time when the consulate would have been full of both American and local employees. The death toll is reported at 36 but is expected to rise.

There are no assessments yet of the damage that the consulate building has sustained, but reports indicate that the explosions led to the collapse of other, adjacent buildings. Pakistani soldiers are also reported to be engaging militants in gunfire, indicating that militants are actively engaged in an attack near the area — possibly with the intention of breaching the U.S. Consulate.

[….]

UPDATE:

One attacker was able to blow up in the U.S. Consulate premises, AAJ TV reported April 5. The front side of the U.S. Consulate has been totally destroyed. Reports indicate that seven or eight security personnel in the consulate are dead. The consulate’s communication system is down.

Many people are wondering why this has happened. I think I know why. It could very well be because of this here:

The Story via Washington Post:

KABUL — President Obama’s visit to Kabul last week, intended in part to forge a closer working relationship with President Hamid Karzai, has helped produce the opposite: an angry Afghan leader now attacking the West for what he perceives as an effort to manipulate him and weaken his rule.

Karzai’s relationship with his U.S. backers in the past week has taken a sharp turn for the worse after his two anti-Western speeches in three days, remarks that some officials see as a rehearsed, intentional move away from the United States.

In remarks to parliament members Saturday, Karzai said that if foreign interference in his government continues, the Taliban would become a legitimate resistance — one that he might even join, according to lawmakers present.

“When I heard Karzai’s remarks, it really shocked me. It scared me,” a senior Afghan official who works closely with Karzai said. “We should not take this lightly. This is a golden opportunity to have the West here; we can’t squander it.”

Karzai’s comments have angered U.S. officials and some of his prominent Afghan colleagues in the government, who fear he is jeopardizing international funding and military support because his pride has been injured.

“That guy’s erratic, he’s unpredictable. I don’t get him,” said a senior U.S. military official in Kabul.

However, if you read a little deeper, you will see this:

But the next day, Karzai told a gathering of lawmakers that foreign interference fuels the insurgency. One lawmaker said Karzai made the point that if he is compelled to obey foreigners, “I’ll join the Taliban.”

“I know he’s cooperating with the U.S., but he just wants to give us a wrong perception. He’s trying to prove himself as a hero, a nationalist,” the lawmaker said.

Some of the presidents’ supporters said that people overreacted to the statements, and that Karzai is well aware of how reliant he is on the United States and other countries fighting in Afghanistan. The United States pours billions of dollars monthly into Afghanistan, and 30,000 new troops are arriving to fight the Taliban.

Speaking at a meeting of about 1,200 tribal leaders and local officials in the southern city of Kandahar on Sunday, Karzai again suggested that U.S. pressure is counterproductive.

“Afghanistan will be fixed when its people trust that their president is independent and not a puppet,” he said. “We have to demonstrate our sovereignty. We have to demonstrate that we are standing up for our values.”

I think this guy needs to make up his mind. Trying to play to his people and be friends with the west is not going to work. The United States of America is NOT interested in owning that Country, no more than it is interested in owning Iraq. We are, or at least we were, there to get rid of Al-Qaeda terrorists who wanted to attack and destroy America. It seems that our focus is shifting and we are now trying to play “Paddy Cake” with Afgan Leaders who want to be friendly with the the U.S. and the Taliban. The President of the United States needs to firm with Karzai, and tell him either choose the Taliban and possibly being killed by the United States in military action or choose true freedom and democracy. You cannot have it both ways, terrorism and democracy cannot co-exist.

Just a personal aside, I had a sinking feeling that this sort of a thing would happen, if we elected a Democrat for a President. For all of his failings, for all of the stuff that I did not like about him; George W. Bush knew exactly how to deal with these sorts of things. He was seen by the Afghan people and the Iraqis as a firm strong leader, who was willing to risk it all to stand against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. President Obama just does not have that same stance. President Obama and by default, the Democrats see terrorism as a juvenile criminal behavior; and it is not; it is a war against freedom and democracy in the name of a backward and dangerous religion.

I guess the only hope at this point is that Obama realizes what he is dealing with here and changes his focus. However, I just do not see that happening at all. Needless to say, the next year few years is going to be interesting, when it comes to the war on terror and this entire situation.

Your Daily War Porn Video

(H/T Zip)

Video: America's Comeback

This Comes via The Other McCain:

Republican Governor’s Association HQ

The revolution starts today. What are you doing?

President Barack Obama and Fox News's Bret Baier politely spar over Healthcare and Foreign Policy

Here’s Part 1 and 2 of that:

You can go read the entire transcript of this interview by going here and reading it.

I have to give President Obama credit, after bashing Fox News and calling it “nothing more than a propaganda outlet”; he did show some guts by going into the lion’s den and going head to head with Bret Baier. That took some serious guts. It could help his image too; not with those on the hard right, but the independents, who voted for the guy with the “spine of steel”, as Vice President Joe Biden called it. Truthfully, the President has not been showing that so-called “Spine of Steel” here as of late. Maybe the White House is trying to improve the President’s image a bit, seeing that his poll numbers are down. Hence the interview.

I saw the interview on T.V. myself; I would not call it “combative” as I have seen it called on other blogs. I would call it politely testy, at times. I mean, there was no swearing and no calling the President an out liar, when he was obviously lying. I mean, If I would been running that interview, and he would have started in on the talking points; I would have stopped him and told him he was flat out lying and full of shit and would have demanded short and straight answers out of him. I would have also demanded that he answered the question of just who the hell does he think he is, to just swagger into the White House and start changing the established Heathcare system in this Country. I would have said, “You can do this, why? because you are black and entitled to it?” Which is probably why the interview was not giving by me. It would have lasted all of about five minutes. The next thing I would have asked him, was why he will not produce his original birth certificate and I would have brought up the fact that EVERY last damned President since the United States started keeping birth records has produced a birth certificate; and I would have asked him why the hell he feels exempted from this practice. Again, I would have asked him if he felt it was because he was black that he could bypass such things. I would have also brought up the fact that the so-called document that his campaign produced was, in fact, a forgery, which was pointed out by several well-known bloggers and was proven to be by three different forensic experts. None of whom would publicly identify themselves, for fear of reprisal from Obama’s campaign and from the Government itself.

So, in closing, it was a decent interview, not nearly as tough as it should have been. But it was and still is worth watching.

The Reality Report #36

In this report:

Does Obama want your DNA?

How far will the IRS go to extract the peoples blood?

What the heck is Chris Dodd thinking about the FED’s monetary power? Gary answers those questions and
welcomes SpyChips co-author and RFID expert Katherine Albrecht to the show to discuss the latest in
RFID and implantable human tracking technology.

New Conservative Blog

Richard Spencer, formerly of Taki’s Magazine has finally got his own project going.

Here, he explains it:

[podcast]http://podcastmachine.com/podcasts/3651/episodes/17841/media_files/43982/download/5/file_128kb.mp3[/podcast]

Click here to check out the site.

Countdown to being called an Anti-Semite by the normal players for linking to either of these blogs in 5….4….3…2

Fixed rather funny typo…. Sorry Richard! 😛

UPDATED – Adam Yahiye Gadahn Caught – It was not Adam Yahiye Gadahn It was Abu Yahya

Three Words:

Good, Good and Good.

I wonder if President Obama will want to give this guy a civilian trial too?

Round up Here.

Update: Perhaps Not. You’d think they would be able to do this a little better… Oy. 🙄

Video: America Rising Part 2, A Call for the Republican Party

(H/T The Left Coast Rebel)