FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Iran continues to thumb its nose at the U.S. - this time by ridiculing President Obama's new nuclear strategy.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/07/art.obama.jpg caption="A landmark nuclear arms treaty between the U.S. and Russia imposes sweeping cuts on deployed Cold War-era nuclear warheads and missiles. Pres. Obama and Russian Pres. Dmitry Medvedev will sign the new pact in Prague tomorrow."]
In a speech to thousands of Iranians, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer to politics. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience.... American officials bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you."
He was referring to Mr. Obama's new nuclear policy - in which the U.S. pledges to stop developing new nuclear weapons and not to use existing weapons to attack non-nuclear states that follow non-proliferation agreements.
The administration believes the greatest threat to security is no longer nuclear attacks between nations... but instead nuclear terrorism by extremists.
To that end - they're singling out states like Iran and North Korea... saying that if they don't play the rules "all options are on the table"... which is probably the part that punk in Iran was whining about.
Some experts suggest that by targeting Iran and North Korea, the U.S. could unintentionally strengthen hard-liners in those countries who say nuclear weapons are the only way to protect themselves.
Meanwhile - critics, including some Republicans, believe just the opposite - that the president isn't applying enough pressure on these state supporters of terrorism. They have a point. Remember Obama's so-called deadline for Iran's nuclear program that came and went last year? Iran ignored it. We did nothing.
The announcement of this new strategy comes just days before Pres. Obama is set to sign a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia - that would reduce both countries' nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Here’s my question to you: Is Pres. Obama's new nuclear policy a good idea or does it reduce the deterrent value of our arsenal?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Klik in Atlanta writes:
What good is it to have an arsenal, of any kind, if your opponents know the decision tree that must be followed to use it?
A. in Oregon writes:
No nuclear response unless it's a first strike or a massive biological weapon attack on America. Yes, it's a good idea and long overdue.
Greg in Ontario writes:
I don't know why you give any time or attention to (as you so perfectly described him) this punk. Just tell them, "Go ahead, do what you want. But know this: If you cause the death of an American, you will be obliterated from the face of the planet." President Obama should make that statement a promise in the United Nations.
Moe in Atlanta writes:
I believe that it is a good idea to start decreasing our nuclear weapon arsenal. We need to be leaders on this and show that we are not arrogant; that is, demand other nations to do something while we do not do that very thing. Besides, will giving up a few thousand nuclear weapons actually mean anything to us, when we still have thousands more?
S. in Georgia writes:
Obama is all talk and no action! Iran and North Korea are going to continue to do whatever they want. They could care less about the sanctions that the U.S. wants to impose. Ahmadinejad knows Obama is not going to do anything and has been laughing at him the whole time.
David in Las Vegas writes:
Blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada. And if that doesn't work, we'll threaten everyone with SANCTIONS. Question: What do you call a country below a 'Paper Tiger'? Good luck, Mr. President.
Kenny in California writes:
Pres. Obama's new nuclear policy will be the old policy when another hawk is elected president. Atom bashing will again become atom smashing. The White House comes with a revolving door.