Tuesday, July 14, 2009
I came across this attack on Liz Cheney from Lorelei Kelly at Huff Po and couldn't resist adding some insight. The article is fairly well written. I of course did have a few problems with it though
While this post is quite well written there are 2 things that stick out for me. Here's the first, "Liz Cheney also charges that President Obama's arms control negotiations in Moscow make us weaker." Let's face it, they do. I understand that arms control negotiations are important but both sides have to honor the negotiations. Russia will not reduce the nukes no matter how many treaties they sign with Obama. Think of what North Korea did with the Clinton treaties. Clinton was hailed as promoting peace and we proved to be the fool in the end. We paid up millions in aid to North Korea and then they admitted not holding up to their end of the bargain a few years later with Bush in office. If the "progressives" call that a successful foreign policy then I'd rather fail in their eyes. Don't they frequently make the argument that we armed our enemies in the first place? Keep in mind that Russia invaded Georgia just last year in part to test our reaction. We predictably did little to nothing about it. Keep in mind that was when Bush was still in office.
Here's another major issue I had with this article: "President Obama has never suggested that we lessen the strength of our military." He didn't have to suggest it, he's doing it. He immediately slashed defense funding and slashed missile defense in his budget proposal even before he officially became president. I would call that lessening the strength of our military. For the record I have several family members in the military right now including a cousin who just became a marine last month. Just thought I should mention that before you attack my credibility.
I fear that in Obama's passive push for peace with Russia and others he may prove to be the fool. Russia is working on missile defense for themselves while Obama has killed our missile defense program. Reagan never liked the idea of MAD, (mutually assured destruction), but he knew it would prevent [not cause] war. The reason Reagan pushed for missile defense was so that we could come off the idea of MAD. It's too bad his critics never saw it that way. Remember the criticism Reagan received when he walked out of the meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland with Gorbachev since he wanted Reagan to eliminate missile defense? It's ironic that Russia is now taking a page out of the Reagan playbook and working on their own missile defense system. Why does the world seem to be learning more from our own history than we are?