Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong
If they're so smart, how come they deliberately mislead the public on the nuke policy change?
How come they out-and-out *lied* about whether or not biological attack was a reason for a nuclear response?
Did they mention that the "no nukes" policy doesn't apply to cnon-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (like Iran & North Korea)?
I expect better from Gingrich, to be honest.
|
If anyone did what you are accusing folks of then they are very very wrong, HOWEVER, you do know that this administration CHANGED the policy in the first few days and that in the beginning biological attacks were NOT considered a reason.
From Secy Gates, I think on April 6...
""If a non-nuclear weapons state is in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its obligations, the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it," Gates said. If, however, such a state were to use chemical or biological weapons against the U.S. or its allies, "it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional," or non-nuclear, military response"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/...russia_nuclear
This from the NY TIMES on April 6..
"For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
The administration then rushed out this weekend to announce a "change" in thier policy , so maybe...just maybe when the folks you accuse made statement the policy was such and maybe it was changed because of the outspoken folks.
I think it was mentioned by all about Iran and North Korea...actually had that not been in it you would have surely heard louder and louder voices