Obama to release classified nuclear information because that will make the world like us

I suppose if you really believe America’s bellicose imperialism has goaded otherwise peaceful governments into despotic aggression, the logical remedy would be groveling acts of penitence like this: 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told a United Nations conference on nuclear nonproliferation Monday that the US will disclose details of its nuclear arsenal – such as how many bombs it has and how many it has destroyed – as part of President Obama’s quest for a nuclear-weapons-free world.

Personally, I prefer to leave some things to the imagination, but I guess I just need to grow up and realize that keeping classified information classified is just a naïve fairy-tale. When Republicans are in the White House, it’s routinely published in the New York Times; and now apparently the Democrats will simply pass it out at the General Assembly just before the group hug.

Meredith Jessup at Townhall, tried to explain the reasoning:

The American initiative will be cast by the White House as a small but significant step toward allowing the world to measure whether Presidend Obama makes good on his promise of reducing American reliance on nuclear defenses.

Naturally, all this goodwill will melt Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad like ice cubes, and they will immediately follow our example.

Don’t hold your breath.

Once again we have Pollyanna Carter in the White House, naive weaklings who see moral equivalency between a strong, protective military U.S. military and a belligerent threatening terrorist state.

History is repeating itself. Peter Schweizer’s book, Reagan’s War, gives a fascinating peek into the unseen repercussions of Jimmy Carter’s and Ronald Reagan’s divergent policies, often from the perspective of those whose only hope for deliverance depended on American strength and resolve.

Particularly revealing were his insider’s tales of smug jubilation at the Kremlin following Carter’s election in 1976, with politburo members rejoicing the new U.S. President’s weakness and lack of “stature.” Of course, we now know that they wasted no time in exploiting Carter’s ineffectiveness by gobbling up big chunks of Africa and Central America.

There was no such contempt for Carter’s successor four years later; but, nevertheless, Reagan was loudly maligned by the American left, especially when he called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” Yet, as Schweizer wrote, those fighting words reverberated into dark forgotten corners of the earth and brought hope to the voiceless and oppressed:

Reagan’s strong language was denounced in many quarters. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times called the “evil empire” speech “simplistic” and “sectarian.” Strobe Talbott of Time magazine explained that no one really took the speech seriously because it was riddled with pure ideology. Many on Capitol Hill complained that it set back relations with Moscow.

But in a dark, damp cell housing political prisoners in Russia, word started to spread. The prisoners tapped on walls and quietly talked through toilets to share what Reagan had said. Natan Sharansky remembers feeling energized and emboldened; Reagan has given them hope.

Reagan once described his strategy in fighting Soviet aggression as, “We win, they lose.” Now we battle another determined enemy, but with a leader who worries about  “using the word ‘victory’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing surrender to MacArthur.”

Huh?

Obama and his supporters are the very people who did everything they could to sabotage Reagan’s success, just as they did George W. Bush. Reagan was painted as a bellicose warmonger, when in reality he was motivated by true compassion which demanded American strength and resolve.

Anyway, now it’s Carter all over again. If we can hold out, we can only pray for another Reagan waiting in the wings.

More at America’s Right,  Commentary, and Sweetness & Light.

, , , , , , ,

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes