That Little Russian Nuclear Thing

Legal Insurrection sums it up:

Item No. 1. Obama hailed the new spirit of cooperation between the United States and Russia on a host of international issues, including Iran, through the signing of a nuclear arms reduction treaty:

"This ceremony is a testament to the truth that old adversaries can forge new partnerships," Obama declared. "It is just one step on a longer journey."

Item No. 2. No sooner had the treaty been signed, then the Russians promptly stated it would be null and void if the U.S. developed a missile shield to protect the U.S. and our allies against Iranian missiles:

... even as the agreement was sealed, Russia gave warning that an expansion of America's planned missile shield would derail the deal, which is the result of months of tense discussions

Item No. 3. No sooner had the treaty been signed, then the Russians stated that the signing of the treaty did not mean cooperation in strong sanctions on Iran:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told President Obama privately on Thursday that there remain limits to his country's support for sanctions on Iran, even as the move for united action to restrain Iran's nuclear ambition accelerates.

Item No. 4. As the treaty was being signed, a Russian-engineered rebellion in Kyrgyzstan resulted in a pro-Russian provisional government whose first priority is shutting down a U.S. base vital to resupply of our troops in Afghanistan:

Kyrgyzstan's self-proclaimed new leadership said on Thursday that Russia had helped to oust President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, and that they aimed to close a U.S. airbase that has irritated Moscow.

Their comments set Wednesday's overthrow of Bakiyev, who fled the capital Bishkek as crowds stormed government buildings, firmly in the context of superpower rivalry in central Asia.

No sooner had presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signed an arms reduction pact in Prague as part of an effort to "reset" strained relations than a senior official in Medvedev's delegation urged Kyrgyzstan's new rulers to shut the base.

It's going swimmingly, don't you think?

Heritage adds:

The Obama Administration, while acknowledging that there would be language in the preamble of New START alluding to a link between strategic offensive arms and missile defenses, asserted flatly that it would not impose any restrictions on U.S. missile defense options. The assertions have turned out to be misrepresentations.

The language in the preamble is much more substantive than just an allusion to an undefined link between offensive strategic arms and missile defenses. Basically, the language asserts that missile defense capabilities must come down as the numbers of strategic nuclear arms come down.

Further, this is language the Obama Administration has agreed to in New START.

Fortunately, the Senate has to ratify any new treaty with 67 votes, and it doesn't sound likely that it will happen.

And thank God for that! Hopefully there will be enough of them with a sense of sanity to officially prevent this suicidal treaty from becoming reality.

But why is Barack Obama doing this? What possible madness has possessed him that he would literally disarm America while our enemies are nuking up? Pamela Gellar has some thoughts:

For the first time since the U.S. became a nuclear power, the president of the United States has explicitly vowed that we will not use nukes even against countries that use chemical or biological weapons against us, or take us down with a massive cyber-attack -- as long as those states are obeying the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

He also overruled his own Secretary of Defense and said that no new nuclear weapons would be developed. Our aging, rusting arsenal is enough.

Obama is effectively saying to our enemies, bring it on, we won't fight ya -- leaving us naked and vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

Obama is leaving America flailing in the hostile wind. Was there ever a more frightful time in American history than the age of Obama? Yes, there were very dangerous periods (the Civil War, World War I, World War II), but during those times of great crisis, the steward of this nation was always a patriot, a freedom-lover -- an American. ... Obama, in contrast, is a socialist internationalist who clearly despises this country and the whole idea of America, the first moral nation built on the principle of freedom itself in human history.

He himself said it in April 2009. During a visit to London for a summit of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (G-20), a reporter asked Obama: "[C]ould I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of 'American exceptionalism' that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?"

Obama offered no avowal of American uniqueness. Instead, he equated American exceptionalism with the national pride that a citizen of any nation could feel: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

In other words, America is nothing special. Just another country.

He knows America well enough to know what the American people want, so he says the right things. However, when he says he'll keep Americans 'safe and secure', and while most Americans understand that to mean he'll openly declare to use any and all means necessary to protect this nation and its people (and actually follow through, if need be), he actually means that he'll disarm America first and simply hope other nations follow. Which do you find safer?

Who does he think he's kidding? What despot will ever freely and willingly give up his power? What evil dictator has ever surrendered that which made him strong? This policy is going to destroy us.

The hustler in the White House is setting us up. This isn't a new strategy. This is surrender. He is making America into the laughingstock of the civilized world and the bullseye of the Axis of Evil.

And thus he is the most dangerous man America faces. He has shown no qualms at governing in opposition to the American people thus far - not on reckless spending, not on repeated bailouts, not on takeovers of private companies, and not on taking over health care. I'd say it's a pretty well established pattern now, as we can see from his idea of governing in terms of nuclear deterrence and national security.

There's my two cents.


Related Reading:
This treaty was over before it started