Speak oft and carry a big shtick

Obama loves the meaningless pronouncement. For instance, his hollow executive order to “prevent” federal funding of abortion, in a word, won’t – but it was cover enough to excuse holdouts to vote for ObamaCare. Thank goodness he doesn’t alter the status quo with his announcement not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. The NYT fails to see it that way and thinks words are stronger than sticks:

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Really? Our nukes aren’t going away. It’s only Obama’s word that prevents us to use nukes in specific contingencies. As Mary Poppins says, that’s a pie crust promise ‘easily made and easily broken’. That should be ambiguous enough for our enemies. After all, he's my president and I don’t trust him. Furthermore, this promise expires when he is replaced as president – unless Obama finds it convenient to move up the expiration date.

This isn’t a sop for our enemies – they’re not stupid. There is someone else Obama is trying to cover; perhaps Stupak’s buddies in Congress beholden to lefty constituents. Those constituents will see through this every bit as much as Stupak’s right to life constituents saw through Obama’s executive order. From the WSJ:
To many arms-control advocates, the review is likely to be a
disappointment. "It's a status quo document, I think, in virtually every
respect," said Bruce Blair, president of World Security Institute and
co-coordinator of Global Zero, a disarmament group.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic