I don't want to defend Obama, and, thankfully, I don't have to; I'm critical of his idiotic non-decision decision.

But, at the outset, I have to say it doesn't change a hell of a lot. On 11 September 2001, a terrorist group supported by the Islamofascist government of Afghanistan attacked United States civilians with what could be deemed a "nuclear-level" attack. I have read analyses that claimed the energy released by the bombing, in the form of collapsing buildings, reached the lower levels of a nuclear attack. Of course, a nuclear attack would have added that energy of falling buildings to its total energy, too; but it terms of death and destruction, certainly the attack was nuclear-like. If four bombs have ever managed to kill 2996 people in one attack, I don't know about it, and certainly this is nearly unprecedented if not completely so.

From what I gather, the Bush Administration put out the word that "all options" were on the table, and there was some leaking that nukes were being considered, but I doubt that was ever very serious. Within weeks we were planning a conventional attack. The reason given for setting the nuclear option aside was that the Taliban had nothing big enough to bomb with nukes, but that turned out to be not quite true: Certainly the forces gathered at Tora Bora could have been killed with a small nuclear attack (and likely bin Ladin as well).

But even in the face of such a horrific attack, a terrorist attack directed mostly at civilians, an attack that seemed to blur the boundaries between a conventional-level and nuclear level attack, we never seemed to seriously consider the nuclear option ourselves, and the only talk about it seemed to be for purposes of diplomacy and internal politics, bluffing our enemies and appeasing the large swaths of the American public that wanted irradiated blood.

Some argue that we needed to "preserve the ambiguity" about the use of nuclear weapons that has been maintained since the start of the Cold War. But that begs the question: Is there any genuine ambiguity about our actual policy? From what I can tell, we have a pure negotiating position, a pure bluff, that says, on paper, maybe we'll use them. Our actual policy is that we won't under virtually any circumstances. For there to be some "ambiguity" here, a number of foreign actors would have to believe the bluff, and I'm not sure any do.

Obama carved a special exception for Iran and North Korea. Do they believe Obama would ever nuke them under any circumstances? I don't think they do. So he continues maintaining a fiction which no one believes. I suppose this is to placate the right and national-security minded liberals. But I know for a fact Bush (and bloody-starved monster Dick Cheney) ruled out a nuclear counterstrike against Afghanistan, and I cannot believe Obama, the Downy Dove, would be even willing to have a serious cabinet debate over it.

Obama, on the other hand, is claiming that this is some sort of serious policy move. The way he will sell this to the left and the doves is some sort of substantial victory for the principle of no-first-use. But note, in almost the same breath, he denies that, noting this isn't such a big break with Bush policy; as usual, he's trying to have it both ways. For one audience, this is a substantial change and Obama should be praised for his courage; for another audience, this is pretty much a continuation of previous policy with some minor tweaks to the wording.

This argument reminds me of the dispute between Bush/Bolton and Obama and the Democrats over talking with Iran. I never cared if we talked with Iran. Talk is cheap. My problem was always that Obama was substituting "talk" for an actual policy which could plausibly change Iran's behavior -- which is to say, escalating coercion, beginning with a destabilizing gas embargo and escalating up, if necessary, to strikes on command and communications and Revolutionary Guards HQ's and nuclear sites.

But if it were just "talking" while those other real policies were being pursued? Who cares if we talk or not? The important thing is the stick, not the talk, whether it's hard talk or soft talk.

And for that reason I didn't really give a crap about the Bush/Bolton "policy" of not talking to Iran either. Whether we are fetishizing talking, or fetishizing not talking, we are still talking about talking, which is pointless, and not talking about action, which is the only plausible method to compel a rogue state to change its behavior.

I feel that both Bush/Bolton and Obama and the liberal Democrats were basically merchants dealing in human waste, but both trying to differentiate their stock in trade -- crap -- by talking up how much better their shit was from the other guy's. "Hey, our human waste has 33% more sulfur content!" "But wait -- our human excrement has 22% more nitrogen, and is therefore better for the environment!"

At the end of the day, you're both still peddling shit. I strain mightily to give a shit whether one pile of shit has more shitty sulfur in it or more shitty nitrogen. Neither side was discussing something non-shitty.

And so it is with this policy. At the end of the day, those who think that we should actually maybe really use nukes in the appropriate case (and on four days every week, I'm one of them) are still being sold some shit about either "strategic ambiguity!!!!" or "clarity of intention!!!," as if some words on piece of paper have much to do at all with our actual, settled, notorious policy of no-first-use.

But Obama will nonetheless continue his game of claiming this is merely a continuation of Bush's policy... except on those days, in front of the right audience, where he claims he's made a bold new commitment to not using nukes first and therefore created a "moral imperative" for other nations to make similar (meaningless) vows. He's clarified our policy on nukes, you see.

Except he hasn't. Even within his bold new piece of shit, he says that he won't use nukes to respond to a bio or chem attack... except if someone actually does attack us using such methods, he'll "reconsider" his policy.

That's "clarifying"? We won't use nukes in response to a bio or chem attack, but if you attack us with bio or chem weapons, we'll reconsider the policy and maybe we will use nukes after all?

When asked why Obama was so determined to focus on health care rather than the truly pressing issue of jobs and the economy, Kirsten Powers had a sensible answer-- because he can do something about health care. A legislator can always pass legislation. Now, the public doesn't want legislation -- they want jobs and a positive growth rate -- but legislating legislation is what legislators know how to do.

That made sense to me. Obama is hungry to have "accomplishments." He will not have any of the usual accomplishments of actual foreign policy victories and leaving the world a safer place than he found it. He will not have the big accomplishment of prosperity or economic security.

But he wants to fill out his resume, make it "look good" by making it longer, and so he is stacking the bullet-point list of "accomplishments" with a bunch of nonsense that isn't really accomplishing anything at all. "Health care reform" is his version of the resume-bullshit-padder "facilitated intercollegial communications" and "coordinated with various mission-statements."

Announcing a new non-policy with regard to nukes is his version of "interfaced with action-oriented directives in the Human Resources Policy manual."

Yeah-- but what did you actually do at your job, Mr. President? "I interfaced proactively with policy-rendering committees ."

The President's first job is to protect the American public and make them safe -- and if he can't make them actually safe, make them safer than they were. As he has all but announced his job is to be handmaiden to the Iranian nuke program, he fails in that first job. But hey -- he's facilitating various action-points and agenda-items in security-enhancing context.

The President's second job is to create the conditions under which growth and prosperity are likely, or at least possible. He has failed at that. But hey -- he's coordinating with action-managers to synergize proactively with health-care incentivizations.

When Iran gets the bomb -- which they will -- Obama will claim that by ruling out a first-strke (kinda sorta) he has thereby "strengthened" us and "protected" us by erecting a moral barrier to Iran's own use of nukes.

Oh, sure-- perhaps now we are now threatened by actual nukes detonating in America, or Israel, or in our big bases in Kuwait or Diego Garcia. But think, Obama will say, of how much more danger we would have been in had I not signed a piece a paper saying we probably wouldn't use nukes first, unless we really felt like it!

Since he can't -- or at least won't -- actually do his job, he'll come up with job-like accomplishments to tout in 2012.

Let a smile be your nuclear umbrella, as they say.

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (145)
Post contains 1559 words, total size 9 kb.

Fear not comrades, "re-education teams" have already been dispatched to deal with this vile nest of counter-revolutionary traitors and racists.

Japan provides a glimpse of what may lie ahead for the U.S. Although Japan once enjoyed famously high savings, the rate fell as asset prices climbed during the countryÂ’s great stock and real estate booms. After the collapse in 1990, the savings rate rose for about a year before resuming its downward trend. Japan entered the Lost Decade and has since drifted in and out of recession.

Where does all this leave corporate America? With a lot of domestic consumers who canÂ’t afford as much stuff as before. TheyÂ’ll be maxed out on loans, they wonÂ’t be able to borrow as much against their homes as they once did, and many of the high costs that precipitated the financial crisis, such as energy-related expenses, will continue to eat away at their funds.

Hopes for a real recovery will fade. Increased lending will lead to decreased savings, and the cycle will start again. If the savings rate fails to stay high enough long enough for consumers to pay off debts and save up real spending money, notes Gregory Brown, the economy will “end up treading water for years.”

[¹] Harvard School of Business, Business Review

H/T TH

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:15 AM | Comments (326)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama's long awaited and delayed Nuclear Posture Review is being released today. According to reports, it lays out guidelines and strategies you'd expect from a left wing Democrat who wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons and has a fetish for arms control agreements.

This is related to Gabe's post below. Obama didn't bother reading about the nuclear attack plans because he pretty much has no intention of ever using them.

Under the new policy, the administration will foreswear the use of the deadly weapons against nonnuclear countries, officials said, in contrast to previous administrations, which indicated they might use nuclear arms against nonnuclear states in retaliation for a biological or chemical attack.

But Obama included a major caveat: The countries must be in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations under international treaties. That loophole would mean Iran would remain on the potential target list.

The new policy will also describe the purpose of U.S. weapons as being fundamentally for deterrence. Some Democratic legislators had urged Obama to go further and declare that the United States would not use nuclear weapons first in a conflict. But officials in the Defense and State departments worried that such a change could unnerve allies protected by the U.S. nuclear "umbrella."

First let's be honest, it was always going to be hard for any President to launch a nuclear attack on a country that did not attack us with nukes first but instead used some other WMD like chemical or biological agents. The policy may have been a bluff. Or it may not have. That strategic ambiguity was important because when it comes to WMD all the US has is nukes. We gave up our offensive bio-weapons program in the early 70s and are in the process of destroying our stockpile of chemical weapons.

Thanks to Obama, current or future rogue states have something new to add into their calculations. Is it likely that a country is going to risk overwhelming conventional retaliation? No but it's certainly not impossible. After the last 8+ years it's easy to imagine a case where US forces are tied down and there may not be enough assets in the cupboard to go after someone else conventionally. Does that give an opening to a nut job somewhere else he figures he doesn't face a nuclear response? Seems like it might be something on the plus side for a future Saddam.

Liberals will decry this kind of thinking as monsters under the bed, right wing paranoia. My response is, "Yeah. So?" Defense planners have to be overly cautious and should have as many options as possible available to them. What exactly do we gain by removing the ambiguity about when and against who we will use nuclear weapons?

This policy isn't based on sound strategic thinking. It's based on irrational fear (it's not as if the old policy led to an accidental nuclear war) and a deep seated belief by liberals that America is dangerous and must be constrained. More than that they want to make sure the world sees that America is being constrained and that they, the good and wise liberals, are responsible for it.

This is the strategic version of the legalization of the War on Terror...liberals are willing to gamble with the lives of others so long as they can engage in moral preening. The fact that it makes the world less safe, not more, is simply a price they are willing to pay.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:14 AM | Comments (213)
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

There's a certain thing I do where I know I've got mail that I should open sooner rather than later, but instead I throw it on a counter and pretend to forget about it because I don't want to deal with it. As long as I don't actually open them, I can ignore them. It's a bury-my-head-in-the-sand maneuver and it's dumb, because I know what's in most of those letters.

Apparently, the President does the same thing:

According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. "He thought it was insane," says the source. (The reason for the delay is unclear; the White House did not respond to repeated inquiries.)

Warning: the rest of that Newsweek article is partisan trash, including comparisons between Obama and President Reagan and more public knob gobbling than anyone should be comfortable with.

But those three lines jumped out at me because it seems pretty damned important that the President doesn't just bury his head in the sand when he gets uncomfortable. Republicans have been pointing out for a year just how neglectful Obama has been addressing national security concerns. After every major blunder Democrats try and reassure the public that it's not neglect, but rather subtlety.

It's neglect.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:41 AM | Comments (289)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

In Colorado, Rep. Betsy Markey, who switched from "no" to "yes" on ObamaCare, is slowly realizing that she sacrificed her career just so Obama could have his legacy. The Colorado 4th looks more and more like a Republican pickup in November and I doubt she'll be inviting Obama to stump for her:

But Markey, 53, said she does not think the vote puts her in any greater jeopardy and said the issue could fade by November. In the meantime, she said, calls and e-mails to her office have been encouraging. "It's actually been more positive than I expected," she said.

"You know, if the president wanted to come, I would welcome him," she said. Then she added: "I have not invited him. For me, this is going to be about what I'm doing in Congress."

"The issue could fade"? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Over in New Hampshire, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter is probably wishing it had faded faster:

more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:28 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:16 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Your Duke vs. Butler thread here.

16 - 14 Goliath, 11:05 in the first.

pure concentrated evil at bay.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:43 PM | Comments (425)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome to the Monday.

So How Has Our Diet Changed In The Last 100 Years?

Well for one thing we're eating less grains and a lot more chicken and cheese. Pork is holding its own. And apparently beef is what was for dinner back in 1976 when Americans ate close to their own weight in cow. And of course everything is now a lot cheaper and available 24/7.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:27 PM | Comments (1008)
Post contains 271 words, total size 3 kb.

And now we find out exactly how dumb Mav, er, John McCain thinks we all are.

"I never considered myself a maverick," he told Newsweek. "I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities."

Really Mav, er, John? Really?

We can all run down a litany of issues where Mav, er, John bucked the party and reveled in it. Who exactly does Mav, er, Senator McCain think he's fooling?

Posted by: DrewM at 02:36 PM | Comments (323)
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

That was then and this is now.

The thing I appreciate about Maxine Waters is her willingness to suspend disbelief in front of a camera.

Most knuckleheads would hide that shit. Not my girl Maxine. No way. She's got deja vu amnesia working for her*

via Rosetta at H2.

*I think I have forgotten this before.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 01:07 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.