Thanks to our reader Tomas for pointing out yet another glaring piece of Obama hypocrisy in this year’s proposed federal budget. In the budget released yesterday, Obama, who last year got a Nobel Peace Prize for work on behalf of peace that he hadn’t actually done yet, has proposed a dramatic increase in spending on our nation’s nuclear weapons program.
As Obama is proposing cuts in domestic spending that he says we just can’t afford, he is calling for 7 billion dollars to be spent on making new nuclear weapons. These new nuclear weapons are supposed to be more reliable than the ones we already have. A reliable nuclear weapon is one that’s much more likely to hit its target, vaporizing huge civilian populations in foreign cities.
Last year, Obama said he was going to work to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Now, he’s spending money to build more nukes. The idea, apparently, is that the United States needs to build more nuclear weapons in order to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
The argument is like the claim of an alcoholic that he needs just one more stiff drink so that he can summon the courage to admit himself into an alcohol addiction recovery center. It seems that, upon becoming President, Obama became intoxicated by the aroma of plutonium wafting through the Oval Office.
I am so pissed that not only did Obama not succeed in carrying out any of the things that made me vote for him: stop shooting wolves, stop drilling on the front range, repeal DADT, bring home the troops, SMACK DOWN Lieberman the repugs, close Gitmo, bring justice to torturers, stop financial abuses…
but its now CLEAR he never intended to carry out any of his campaign promises except send more troops to Af-Pac.
F him. I feel progressives got Charlie Browned again. Damm the “Punch a Hippie today” Demonrat party…
why close Gitmo?
Why close Gitmo? Because liberals are a bunch of emotional children who don’t think through their ideas.
Repealing don’t ask don’t tell would be stupid, getting our own damn oil would be smart, and we should bring justice to the terrorists rather than attacking CIA agents who did their duty!
I like Lieberman these days just for pissing you liberals off. Everything you liberals want is ass-backwards.
Oh and the nuclear arsenal NEEDS modernization in the coming years. Want the documents to prove it?
Oh William, that makes me so angry, I want to cry – but then, as a liberal, I’m an emotional child.
William, were the Founding Fathers emotional children too, the way that they wrote the Constitution to require the right to a fair and speedy trial, and forbid cruel and unusual punishments?
That’s why… oh wait a minute… dang, no, I lost my train of thought. I just couldn’t think through that idea.
Isn’t the fair and speedy trial connected to that word “justice” William used somehow? Being a fuzzy liberal thinker I can’t figure it out, but I think somehow they might be connected.
I’m typing through my tears over here, J. Clifford, so pardon me if my letters look a little smudgy.
“These new nuclear weapons are supposed to be more reliable than the ones we already have. A reliable nuclear weapon is one that’s much more likely to hit its target, vaporizing huge civilian populations in foreign cities.”
Sigh. You’re getting hyperbolic like William C. Did you read the article you ultimately linked to? If our weapons are unreliable, we need a whole lot of them to ensure we hit a target. If our weapons are reliable, we need much less of them. It’s the difference between a sniper rifle and a shothun loaded with buckshot. Obama’s not trying to be sure he kills lots of people! He’s trying to reduce the amount of weapons we need as a deterrent. Meanwhile, you don’t mention that he and the Russians are finalizing a new START nuclear armament reduction treaty, because it blows your already mistaken argument out of the water. We’re going to be decreaasing our arsenal, getting the Russians to decrease theirs, there’ll be less chance of a nuke or nuke material falling into terrorist hands, less fissile material required to be produced and sit in all those nukes – until we need to seal it in a barrel for a hundred thousand years… and this is a BAD thing???? Sorry, Obama’s screwed a few things up and screwed a few constituencies over, but this isn’t one of those cases. You can’t convince me that less nukes is not keeping your pledge to reduce nukes. I don’t care if he wants to build a new batch coated with buttercream frosting, so long as there’s less nukes here and abroad and less nuclear material/waste to worry about.
Joseph, your entire argument is based upon the idea that we need a deterrent, that a deterrent is at all valuable. Did the nuclear deterrent stop the attacks of September 11, 2001?
Obama wants to make these nuclear weapons more deadly, and to make new nuclear weapons, and spending 7 billion dollars on the project at a time when he’s cutting domestic programs.
You’re asking me to agree that spending money to produce new nuclear weapons is in fact money spent to reduce nuclear weapons. That’s just ridiculous.
Obama could simply cut, and cut, and cut the huge nuclear weapons stockpile we have now. He would in the process save money rather than spending it, and we would not be any less safe.
You and Barack Obama presume we need to target foreign cities for annihilation. I’m not willing to share that presumption.