Key sentence from below: "president's desire to deter America's enemies pales in comparison"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation Massive retaliation was a term coined by Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in a speech on January 12, 1954. Dulles stated that the U.S. would respond to military provocation "at places and with means of our own choosing." This was interpreted to mean that the U.S. could respond to any foreign challenge with nuclear weapons. Dulles also said that "Local defense must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power." This quote forms the basis for the term massive retaliation, which would back up any conventional defense against conventional attacks with a possible massive retaliatory attack involving nuclear weapons. Now this is the segment of Hannity the clip comes from: SEAN HANNITY, HOST: So much for the American nuclear policies of yesterday. Now, there was President Dwight D. Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation which alerted hostile nations that the United States reserved the right to retaliate against hostile nations at a place and time of its choosing. There was President John F. Kennedy's notion of, quote, "flexible response," which implied that the country was capable of responding to any provocation, large or small. Now, President Reagan drastically increased the defense budget, and by forcing the Soviet Union to try and keep up, drove it into bankruptcy. Well, now comes President Obama, who has turned a blind eye to the lessons of history and embraced a dangerous draw-down in America's defense. The Obama administration declared yesterday that the president plans to, well, depart from these precedents. Now, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the president will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state, even in the event of a chemical or biological attack. Now, beyond that, the United States will not develop any new nuclear weapons. Now our enemies must be rejoicing. Could it be any more clear that this president's desire to deter America's enemies pales in comparison to his strive to bring about a nuclear-free world? So just how dangerous is this for the United States and the rest of the free world? Joining me now with analysis is the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. And by the way, Newt is the co-host, along with his wife Callista, of the brand-new documentary "Nine Days That Changed the World" which is about Pope John Paul's pilgrimage to Poland in 1979. Mr. Speaker, welcome. ... GINGRICH: First of all, I would I would love to see a White House reporter ask the simple question. If there was a biological attack, which killed over a million Americans, is this president really saying we would not retaliate? HANNITY: That's what he said. Wait a minute, that's what he said. Am I to GINGRICH: I agree. It's what he said. But I think it is important to push him and push Secretary Gates and to push Secretary Clinton, and to say to them, in the real world, if something truly bad happened, are you genuinely saying you would not retaliate? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590529,00.html Now it's in context do you still think it's a lie? On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Ian Skinner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/12/2010 10:16 AM, Sam wrote: >> ...the administration announced the >> U.S. would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, even if >> they were to attack America with chemical or biological weapons. >> >> So your dispute is the use of the word retaliate? >> > > So, we are unable to retaliate with any other arms then nuclear? I > notice that this statement does not rule out retaliation with chemicla > or biological weapons of our own. But I believe we have promised not to > do that as well. But I am confidant we can flatten most any non-nuclear > country with non-nuclear bombs just fine. > >> Added this to the context: >> So much for the American nuclear policies of yesterday. Now, there was >> President Dwight D. Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation which >> alerted hostile nations that the United States reserved the right to >> retaliate against hostile nations at a place and time of its choosing. >> > > Again how does this say that we must have the option to use nuclear > weapons against any non-nuclear country to enforce our m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:315617 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
