The NYT explains: It was a time when President Ronald Reagan began a trillion-dollar arms buildup, called the Soviet Union “an evil empire” and ordered scores of atomic detonations under the Nevada desert. Some Reagan aides talked of fighting and winning a nuclear war. The popular response was the nuclear freeze movement.
The "popular response"? Well, of course, among the pinkos -- by definition, they were against us fighting the Cold War against the Soviets. But how about the others?
“We tried the unilateral way, in the Bush years, and it didn’t work,” a senior administration official said recently. “What we are trying is a fundamental change, a different view that says our security can be enhanced by arms control. There was a view for the past few years that treaties only constrained the good actors and not the bad actors.”
Duhhh. And why would that not be true? Aahhh, Pepean logic in all its splendor.
In January, in the journal Foreign Affairs, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the lone holdover from the Bush cabinet, called for financing a new generation of longer-lasting and more dependable nuclear arms. He was immediately overruled.
The Nuclear Freeze Movement is now in charge. Ululululu, says Pepe.
Frank Gaffney hits the nail on the head: If the implications were not so serious, the discrepancy between Mr. Obama’s plans and real-world conditions would be hilarious. There is only one country on earth that Team Obama can absolutely, positively denuclearize: Ours.
5 comments:
Ahhh, the flowering of the Nuclear Freeze Movement. Those were the days, huh, Tecs?
We're back at it, and this time around there is no Ronnie to hang tough with the Rooskies.
The NYT explains:
It was a time when President Ronald Reagan began a trillion-dollar arms buildup, called the Soviet Union “an evil empire” and ordered scores of atomic detonations under the Nevada desert. Some Reagan aides talked of fighting and winning a nuclear war. The popular response was the nuclear freeze movement.
The "popular response"? Well, of course, among the pinkos -- by definition, they were against us fighting the Cold War against the Soviets. But how about the others?
“We tried the unilateral way, in the Bush years, and it didn’t work,” a senior administration official said recently. “What we are trying is a fundamental change, a different view that says our security can be enhanced by arms control. There was a view for the past few years that treaties only constrained the good actors and not the bad actors.”
Duhhh. And why would that not be true? Aahhh, Pepean logic in all its splendor.
In January, in the journal Foreign Affairs, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the lone holdover from the Bush cabinet, called for financing a new generation of longer-lasting and more dependable nuclear arms. He was immediately overruled.
The Nuclear Freeze Movement is now in charge. Ululululu, says Pepe.
Frank Gaffney hits the nail on the head: If the implications were not so serious, the discrepancy between Mr. Obama’s plans and real-world conditions would be hilarious. There is only one country on earth that Team Obama can absolutely, positively denuclearize: Ours.
Gaffney in the Times article, Tecs? I don't have the stomach for that kind of a drivel bolus at the moment.
This Gaffeur sounds better than any of the ones I know.
Post a Comment