(FROM: The Wall Street Journal)
Fantastic. A must read commentary in today’s Wall Street Journal. Here we have an American president who was able to assume office because words meant nothing, arguing that when dealing with the threat of atomic terrorism, “words must mean something.”
Where does the idealism on the left end? Just as the dirty crack addict on the street will not break his addiction regardless of whether you give him a dime or a twenty, terrorists around the globe will not simply ignore their blind and bred hatred of the Infidel because the American president declares America to not be at war with Islam. Even if it did matter–it doesn’t–no amount of pandering or America-bashing will convince those who dream of sawing off American and Israeli heads to somehow change course and ask us to the next dance.
So the detente-at-all-costs approach to foreign policy continues. And the Journal editors absolutely eviscerate the president for it. Here’s an excerpt:
“Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”
So declared President Obama Sunday in Prague regarding North Korea’s missile launch, which America’s U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice added was a direct violation of U.N. resolutions. At which point, the Security Council spent hours debating its nonresponse, thus proving to nuclear proliferators everywhere that rules aren’t binding, violations won’t be punished, and words of warning mean nothing.
Rarely has a Presidential speech been so immediately and transparently divorced from reality as Mr. Obama’s in Prague. The President delivered a stirring call to banish nuclear weapons at the very moment that North Korea and Iran are bidding to trigger the greatest proliferation breakout in the nuclear age. Mr. Obama also proposed an elaborate new arms-control regime to reduce nuclear weapons, even as both Pyongyang and Tehran are proving that the world’s great powers lack the will to enforce current arms-control treaties.
There’s no doubting the emotive appeal of Mr. Obama’s grand no-nukes vision. Ronald Reagan shared a similar hope, and in recent years these pages have run a pair of news-making essays by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn positing such a diplomatic goal. They probably gave Mr. Obama the idea. But the Gipper understood the practical limits of arms control in delivering such a world, and Messrs. Shultz and Kissinger are hard-headed enough to know that global rogues must be contained if we are going to have any hope of a nuclear-free future.
Mr. Obama recognized this rogue proliferation threat in his Prague address, but to counter it he offered only more treaties of the kind that are already ignored.