Dailies Contact Lenses

Was the Nuclear "summit" simply another opportunity for 0blahma to bloviate?

Summit a dud in foreign press President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit brought together leaders of 46 other countries for an unprecedented international conference on fissile material. It's a major story for the White House -- but how is it playing outside the United States? Belgium's Euroactiv news played down the summit, duly noting on its Web site that European leaders share Obama's goal for safeguarding nuclear materials. The story ranked below a report on a socialists-and-bankers dispute, and another observing that European Parliament members have yet to embrace Twitter. Canadian television was of the view that Canada was playing a major role at the summit, leading other nations by agreeing to send the U.S. all of its weapons-grade uranium for safekeeping. "Canada setting example on nuclear safety with U.S.," the Canadian Television story was headlined. The Sydney Morning Herald worried over Pakistan. Finland's Helsinki Sanomat didn't have a story on the summit, nor did the Norway Post, although both countries sent officials to Washington. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, facing a tough re-election climate back home, opted not to attend the summit. The Daily Telegraph carried a story questioning China's commitment to sanctions against Iran -- an issue the White House was touting as a summit achievement. Goodluck Jonathan, the eloquently named acting president of Nigeria, attended the summit and also took time out in Washington to address the Council on Foreign Relations. NPR produced a lengthy story about the Nigerian leader for "Morning Edition," but the Nigerian Tribune's report on Jonathan's trip focused on his remarks on domestic issues, not nukes. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-heralds-nuke-talk-90791244.html#ixzz0l6VNRwqj

Public Comments

1. And bow, yes.
2. No. But you surely just did.
3. Well since NOTHING negotiated at it was binding yes it was pretty much a waste of money and time.
4. this nuclear summit seems to be a bit scary.
5. No, the treaty that some crud named reagan bloviated about is expiring and there needs to be a new one.
6. We Obamanites want you to shut up now! We will flag this question in the name of free speech! Welch ein Glück für Staats-und Regierungschefs, dass Männer nicht denken. -Adolf Hitler
7. So you're saying you think securing plutonium away from terrorists isn't important? I completely disagree with you. In fact, I think your boy GWB was amiss in not doing this. And it's not impressive that you found one author saying bad things about Obama...he's probably a Republican. Big woop. There are many more articles singing Obama's praises for this summit. The US has had nuclear treaties under the following presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson (3 treaties) Richard M. Nixon (2 treaties) Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan George H.W. Bush (2 treaties) Bill Clinton (2 treaties) So I guess you're mocking all of them too? ##
8. The Ukraine has agreed to get rid of all nuclear weapons, which is a good thing. It's good to know that the gOP hates:\ healthcare for all, especially the poor; trying to prevent a recession; seeking alternative energy and energy Independence and that you guys wish to do nothing to prevent nuclear material from getting into the wrong hands
9. No. It was an opportunity for the leaders of the world to brainstorm about co-ordinated efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Obama doesn't want to just dictate policy to the rest of the world, like Bush did.
10. Just another Obama misadventure. The wind blew the shit flew, and there stood Obama for a day or two.
11. You are spot on with this question. That photo op with diplomats sitting on either side of Obama and the Chinese fellow? The caption should read: Look what I did! I'm King of the World and they all came to see me!
12. Nah -- it was an OK thing. The idea is to isolate Iran. And possibly to convince the Chinese that it behooves them to take a rational interest in what Iran does, even if it's not likely to happen in China, but in NYC or Washington. If most countries are with us on this, having a show and tell in which it is made plain that most countries are with us on this is a good and possibly productive thing. Why am I always the one that has to give credit to this beastly Marxist Obama when he does something right? Here's why -- because Mentats are sworn to just tell it like it is. So, we forced to be Fair Witnesses. We are not allowed to be gratuitously partisan. We don't play for any team. We are not team players. You can't count on us. Only the Truth can count on us. That's the only team we are on. So if the beastly Marxist says that reading comprehension is good for children, then we have to give him credit, say he's right, praise him for being right, and doing the right thing. The nuclear summit was the right thing for the USA at this time. It was smart and canny realpolitik. Giving the devil his due, your penpal, Dolphin314etc