This is a series of mixed comments about the news that President Obama signed a treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons. On the positive side, it s good to see the President is trying to reduce nuclear weapons. This is a continuation of a tradition started by President Reagan. On the negative side, I find the media hype a bit ridiculous and I am sure questions about the treaty and a recent rewriting of the nuclear policy will arise. I just wish the discussions of what is, conceptually, a good idea were a bit more toned down.
After all, reducing the nuclear weapons in the world is not a bad idea. Russia is a country that could take a turn, politically, for the worse. So reducing the number of nuclear weapons they have pointed at us is not a bad idea. Also, the treaty did not sell out our development of a missle defense shield in Europe - again a good thing. It is good to see that ideas started by Ronald Reagan - reducing nuclear missiles not controlling the increase and defending ourselves against them - continue to develop.
Although you would not know this these ideas were started by President Reagan if you listened to the media hype surrounding President Obama's treaty signing. You would think that President Obama came up with a brilliant new idea that will save us from something horrible.
In some cases, the media's coverage is comical. For example, I actually heard a news report play a tape of one person saying that relations with Russia when President Obama took office were the lowest ever. Really? So our relationship with Russia when George Bush left office was lower than during the Berlin Airlift or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Are you serious?
On the other hand, the media's failure to question statements by the President and the Administration could lead to problems. For example, the President said, and some commentators made a big deal of this, that he feels he has a really good rapport with President Medvedev of Russia. That's nice. But, haven't all the news reports up to now said that President Medvedev is just a puppet for Vladamir Putin? Shouldn't someone ask President Obama if he really thinks rapport with a figurehead leader is all that valuable?
Also, the Bush Administration seemed to think President Bush had a good rapport with Vladimir Putin when Putin lead Russia. Within a short while, Putin was doing some things that were quite undesirable and the media began saying that President Bush's relationship with Putin really did not amount to much - and the media was right.
The fact that the media and the Obama Administration have changed history to omit all references to Ronald Reagan as the person who first began the process of reducing nuclear weapons and developing a defense shield will bite them in the rear when opponents of the treaty start pointing out flaws with it. Invariably, these opponents will act like doomsday is upon us if the Treaty is signed. Had the media and President Obama given President Reagan due credit, Republicans would have had some reason to tone down the rhetoric. Instead there probably won't be any limit on the negativism due to come out and that's unfortunate. First, I'm tired of the wild eyed shouting opposition to everything President Obama does. Second, while the treaty may benefit from constructive criticism, nuclear destruction of the US by Russia is not a likely result if it is approved as is.
After all, reducing the nuclear weapons in the world is not a bad idea. Russia is a country that could take a turn, politically, for the worse. So reducing the number of nuclear weapons they have pointed at us is not a bad idea. Also, the treaty did not sell out our development of a missle defense shield in Europe - again a good thing. It is good to see that ideas started by Ronald Reagan - reducing nuclear missiles not controlling the increase and defending ourselves against them - continue to develop.
Although you would not know this these ideas were started by President Reagan if you listened to the media hype surrounding President Obama's treaty signing. You would think that President Obama came up with a brilliant new idea that will save us from something horrible.
In some cases, the media's coverage is comical. For example, I actually heard a news report play a tape of one person saying that relations with Russia when President Obama took office were the lowest ever. Really? So our relationship with Russia when George Bush left office was lower than during the Berlin Airlift or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Are you serious?
On the other hand, the media's failure to question statements by the President and the Administration could lead to problems. For example, the President said, and some commentators made a big deal of this, that he feels he has a really good rapport with President Medvedev of Russia. That's nice. But, haven't all the news reports up to now said that President Medvedev is just a puppet for Vladamir Putin? Shouldn't someone ask President Obama if he really thinks rapport with a figurehead leader is all that valuable?
Also, the Bush Administration seemed to think President Bush had a good rapport with Vladimir Putin when Putin lead Russia. Within a short while, Putin was doing some things that were quite undesirable and the media began saying that President Bush's relationship with Putin really did not amount to much - and the media was right.
The fact that the media and the Obama Administration have changed history to omit all references to Ronald Reagan as the person who first began the process of reducing nuclear weapons and developing a defense shield will bite them in the rear when opponents of the treaty start pointing out flaws with it. Invariably, these opponents will act like doomsday is upon us if the Treaty is signed. Had the media and President Obama given President Reagan due credit, Republicans would have had some reason to tone down the rhetoric. Instead there probably won't be any limit on the negativism due to come out and that's unfortunate. First, I'm tired of the wild eyed shouting opposition to everything President Obama does. Second, while the treaty may benefit from constructive criticism, nuclear destruction of the US by Russia is not a likely result if it is approved as is.
Comments