I swear to God, the more I listen to Barack Obama, the more he sounds like a contestant for Miss America rather than a candidate for POTUS. Speaking at Purdue University in West Layfayette, Indiana, Barack Obama pledged that two goals of his administration during his first term would be to secure all loose nuclear material and to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Over the last 60 years, each President has had the goal of reducing the risks of nuclear warfare. And, through a series of treaties, has worked to reduce the nuclear arsenal and deter the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But none have ever been so naive as to claim that they would be able to "rid the world of nuclear weapons", especially doring their first term in office.

I am beginning to wonder if there is anything that Barack Obama WON"T promise to get elected.

Ron

Agree with you. He talks like he's already been ordained. Truth is, I think he's getting farther away from winning.....Hillary will come in an cop him out.

has come into office with one or two primary objectives for their administration. Bill Clinton won the election and re-election by concentrating on the Economy. But it seems that Barack Obama believes, or atleast wants US to believe, that somehow he can solve ALL the problems facing the world.

Ron

<link>

"Reagan, contrary to his image as a champion of the bomb, was a nuclear abolitionist. This is not a mere historical curiosity. Abolishing nuclear weapons was one of Reagan’s fundamental goals for his presidency. His desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons under­pinned much of what he did as President in terms of his Cold War policy. In many ways it is difficult to understand Reagan’s presidency without taking into account his anti-nuclearism. But thus far that aspect of Reagan has been largely overlooked."

Apparently Obama wouldn't be the first Oval Office occupant with a goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Note that, at least according to your own paraphrase, he didn't pledge to accomplish global nuclear disarmament. Rather, he pledged to make that a goal. Do you see a problem with making it a goal?

His primary goal, throught his Presidency, was to confront the Soviet Union and ultimately reduce the risk of nuclear confrontation with the Soviets. And, to a large degree, he succeeded.

My concern with Barack Obama, this is just one of DOZENS of such "pledges" that he has made. Clinton concentrated on ONE - "It's the economy, Stupid" - and he was successful. But I don't see Barack Obama commited to accomplishing a specific limited list of objectives - the things that he REALLY promises to get done. Instead we get this smorgasbord of promises - things he believes people want to hear. It's as if he wants to be the "cafeteria" President, where everybody thinks that they will give some of everything that they want.

Ron

Did you perhaps miss the bill that he and Lugar got passed on the nonprofliferation of nuclear and conventional shoulder-fired missiles? Did you miss that he was in IN with Sam Nunn who has also teamed up on the same issue with Lugar?

....aim low and you risk hitting nothing at all. That could be one take, the other thought is, if one becomes too unrealistic, they won't get elected, thus the notion of promising the world to get elected could prove to be an oxymoron in reality.

On the other hand, is there something wrong with aiming for such a goal, acheived or not? Can someone be faulted for trying? I think it goes back to a lead by example. It is difficult to tell other nations they can't have the same "defense" weapons we have based on our perceived judgment of how they would use them. Coming from a nation that had the same fear of others using them, then went on to not only develop them for themselves, but use them, not on combatants, but civilians, not once, but twice, the suggestion that others should not do as we do, but as we say becomes a hard one to sell. It would seem the biggest stumbling block to selling the idea to others is ourselves and our own "justifications" for keeping them while trying to deny those same justifications for others and based on our surmising and conclusions on how they will use them, not based on actually proof of how they have been used.

October 2007

"nuclear and conventional shoulder-fired missiles? "

That's a new one on me - I have never heard of a nuclear shoulder-fired missile. I would hate to be the one firing that missile. And I am sure that everyone in Iraq carrying a shoulder fired rocket launcher immediately turned theirs in - right ?

That's the problem with too many politicians - the answer to every problem is passing another LAW. Hell - why hasn't anyone thought of this before - get rid of ALL our problems by making them against the law.

Ron

It's one thing to "aim high" - quite another to randomly fire in all directions in the hopes that you may actually HIT something.

The accomplishment of meaningful goals requires a concentrated devotion to that ends. It requires detailed planning and the accomplishment of incremental steps which towards the ultime goal. It's not a matter of piling your plate with every idea in sight to the point where you are unable to devote the necessary attention to those objectives which are actually IMPORTANT.

Ron

Did you fail to see the word AND between the two? Go to wikipedian and find out about that bill. Incidentally, it was passed overwhelmingly. :ugar and Obama traveled together to Russia and throughout that area.

But that is just plain STUPID. Do you actually believe that Lugar and Obama passing a LAW against the proliferation of nuclear missiles and shoulder fired missiles will actually accomplish anything ? Do you really believe that Iran will suddenly stop providing shoulder fired rockets to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups because we passed a LAW ?

Ron

Ron,

Your problem, and I believe intentional, is to take everything that Obama says literally.

Do you honestly believe that he meant the entire world? If so, then you believe that he wants to rid America, Russia, China and Israel of their nuclear weapons. Which we all know that he doesn't.

Quit the drama and falling all over yourself in trying to make Obama something he's not.

Of course I have poking fun at Obama. The statement was absurd on it's face. I am hoping he meant N. Korea and Iran at the very least. But he clearly did not limit his "goal" in that regard -

""As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.

<LINK>

Ron

He said that his goal will be on a "long road" to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Long after his presidency- if he wins.

I'm with Knot. Why not strive to rid the world of them?

If not him, then who to begin- since we all know, as he does, that it won't happen during his presidency?

Since you like to nitpick and are too lazy to back up your drama, here's a link for ya. <link>

BTW, I'm curious about something. I distinctly heard McCain say he was going to get OBL if he had to follow him to "the gates of hell". How's that working for you? How's he going to do that?

Also, McCain has now said he knows how to win wars. What war did he win? As I recall, we lost in Vietnam. Was there another somewhere that I missed?