Still, the Most Equal Comrade tells the world that reducing US nuclear forces is his main priority when it comes to strategic considerations. That kind of fluffiness does not go unnoticed:
Elsewhere, earlier last month, U.S. Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller told the United Nations’ Committee on Disarmament (the so-called First Committee, where Iran now serves as rapporteur) that while the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons do not yet exist, the U.S. is prepared to do its part, and is planning to further reduce its deployed strategic nuclear weapons.And while all this goes on, Iran is watching. And spinning its uranium centrifuges. And the New World Order taking shape in 2013 is ever more dramatically different and more dangerous than it looked from Plesetsk [where Rossett witnessed a botched test], just 18 years ago.
Fold into this the Chinese boast, also from the last few days, that its submarine-based arsenal can take out a number of major US cities and it's hard to argue with the assessment that post-America isn't shaping events on the world stage anymore.
Why wasn't there some sort of groundswell of support for a President Cheney who we could count on to "shape" events on the world stage?
ReplyDeleteI think it's generally acknowledged that he's firmly in retired-statesman mode. There are plenty of young righties with a firm understanding of the importance of US leadership, and what will fill that vacuum otherwise.
ReplyDeleteHe could not have won an election for dog catcher. Being bellicose was not cool back then, but, hey, what goes around comes around I suppose. You'd think the military was the exclusive purview of conservatives.
ReplyDeleteIf you think America is still respected the way it was 30, 50, 70 years ago by good and bad actors alike, and if you think our rivals and enemies haven't upped their rhetoric and activity designed to rattle us in the last three years. please explain.
ReplyDelete