Conservatives Falsely Claim New Obama Nuke Policy Prevents Nuclear Retaliation Against Chem/Bio Attack
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on April 8th, 2010 4:39 am by HL
Conservatives Falsely Claim New Obama Nuke Policy Prevents Nuclear Retaliation Against Chem/Bio Attack
Yesterday, the Obama administration released its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a congressionally-mandated report that outlines the administration’s nuclear strategy and nuclear arsenal policy. The new strategy, which did not contain any radical changes to previous administration’s policies, took a “middle course” and “keeps first-strike strategy.” The Wonk Room’s Max Bergmann noted yesterday that the right-wing […]
Yesterday, the Obama administration released its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a congressionally-mandated report that outlines the administration’s nuclear strategy and nuclear arsenal policy. The new strategy, which did not contain any radical changes to previous administration’s policies, took a “middle course” and “keeps first-strike strategy.”
The Wonk Room’s Max Bergmann noted yesterday that the right-wing freak out had already begun before any real details emerged from the new NPR. Now that the details are known, many conservatives are completely misrepresenting them. Led by the Drudge Report, the new talking point is that the U.S. will refuse to retaliate against a chemical or biological attack with a nuclear strike. To wit:
JOHN BOLTON: But it’s a big mistake because it basically says that for countries that have biological and chemical warfare capabilities, the Obama administration is not prepared to use nuclear weapons in retaliation.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Let me tell you one scenario they brought up exclusively, and that is if the United States is attacked by a country with a biologic or chemical weapons…the White House lawyers would ascertain if that country is in compliance with the NPT. … If it is, if it is kept up with the IAEA inspections, it gets immunity from the massive nuclear retaliation.
RALPH PETERS: [M]ost worrisome is the public declaration that, if the US suffers a biological, chemical or massive cyber attack, we will not respond with nukes.
“If there was a biological attack, which killed over a million Americans, is this president really saying we would not retaliate?” Newt Gingrich asked last night on Fox News. “That’s what he said,” host Sean Hannity replied. “I agree. It’s what he said,” Gingrich said. Watch the compilation:
First, nowhere in the NPR does it say that the U.S. will not “retaliate” against a chemical or biological attack. Of course, the U.S. reserves the right to act militarily in self-defense if attacked. Apparently, some conservatives, like Krauthammer, don’t seem to have confidence in the capabilities of American conventional forces to effectively retaliate. Instead, they would seemingly prefer keeping the option of outright annihilation against anyone on the table. Are conventional forces “a credible threat [of deterrence]?” Krauthammer asked. “Who knows,” he said.
Moreover, neither Obama nor the strategy itself said the U.S. won’t use nuclear weapons in the event of a chem/bio attack against a country that is violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In fact, while the NPR “narrow[s] the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons,” the President specifically stated that there are exceptions for “outliers like Iran and North Korea.”
Even former Bush administration Homeland Security official Fran Townsend refused to advance the right’s new false NPR talking point. “I think it is smart to actually explicitly articulate that the primary concern here right now…is the control of nuclear materials and preventing nuclear terrorism,” she said. Moreover, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said he “wholly endorses” the new NPR.
Both Mississippi And Georgia Have Confederate History Proclamations Without Any Mention of Slavery
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has been receiving significant attention this week for the fact that he has issued recognized April 2010 as Confederate History Month, but didn’t include any mention of slavery in his proclamation. He explained that he didn’t include a reference because slavery wasn’t one of the “most significant” aspects of […]
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has been receiving significant attention this week for the fact that he has issued recognized April 2010 as Confederate History Month, but didn’t include any mention of slavery in his proclamation. He explained that he didn’t include a reference because slavery wasn’t one of the “most significant” aspects of the conflict between the states.
However, McDonnell isn’t the only Southern governor to honor the Confederacy while omitting any mention of slavery — he joins Georgia and Mississippi.
The Confederate History and Heritage Month proclamations are being spearheaded by a group called the Sons of the Confederate Veterans. Other projects around the country include trying to erect a monument remembering South Carolina’s secession. Today, Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., who chairs the Confederate History and Heritage Month Committee for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, sent around a press release touting the group’s success:
In 2009, the Georgia General Assembly approved Senate Bill No. 27, signed by Governor Sonny Perdue, officially designating April permanently as Confederate History and Heritage Month.
In 1999, Texas Senate Resolution No. 526 passed designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month.
Georgia’s Governor Sonny Perdue, Mississippi’s Governor Haley Barbour and Virginia’s Governor Robert F. McDonnell have all signed a proclamation designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month for 2010.
Texas’ resolution does mention slavery. Perdue’s proclamation does not, nor does the Georgia Senate bill (with the exception of a reference to “Georgia’s best new history museum chronicles the civil rights struggle of Georgia’s oldest African American community from slavery to the present”). Barbour’s 2009 proclamation also has no slavery mention, and we received no response from Barbour’s office to our request for a copy of the 2010 proclamation. Perdue’s office also didn’t respond to our request for an official copy of their 2010 proclamation.
Today, ThinkProgress spoke to Johnson, who said that he supported McDonnell’s decision to leave slavery out of the proclamation:
JOHNSON: No, I don’t think so [that he should have mentioned slavery], because really, there was slavery on both sides. That was the issue — some of the Union commanders owned slaves. So that wasn’t really the issue of the war. The issue of the war was states’ rights, a lot of which you’re hearing today. … I wouldn’t say it didn’t play any role, but remember that slavery was recognized by the U.S. Constitution. It was protected. You still had slavery even in the North back then — in Washington, DC. […]
TP: So Virginia’s proclamation didn’t need to apologize for slavery, you don’t think?
JOHNSON: I’m not saying it was right, but then again, both sides — No, I don’t think it should be in there. It was part, but like I said, it was on both sides — North and South. The reason it was more in the South, of course, was because the South was agricultural. But no, I don’t think it should have been in there, personally.
Matt Yglesias, Jack Balkin, and davenoon all point to historical evidence showing that the Civil War, indeed, was significantly about slavery.
