3 Mar

Putin did to Obama what Bush did to Putin

                                       

obama twerking putin

There is much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth today in Washington DC over Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine but this confrontation was lost years ago. Vladimir Putin has outwitted Barack Obama all along the way. The truth is, Obama is easy prey for Putin. Narcissists are prone to succumbing to the proper signals.

Hubris is the fuel that runs the Obama mind. It’s always been that way and we have documented that here often. Putin recognized it, having learned something from Obama’s predecessor. Putin and Obama met in July of 2009 and it was in that meeting that Obama was hooked with Putin saving the reeling in for later.

MOSCOW — President Barack Obama met for the first time Tuesday with the man most consider to be Russia’s top power broker, Prime Minister and former President Vladimir Putin — and came out of the meeting expressing a higher opinion of Putin than when he went in.

Obama managed a few strained smiles during a four-minute photo opportunity at the outset of the meeting, though he seemed wary of creating too cheery an image in the company of the former KGB officer.

“I’m aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people … as president, but in your current role as prime minister,” Obama said during a breakfast meeting at Putin’s country home on the outskirts of Moscow. “We think there’s an excellent opportunity to put U.S.-Russian relations on a much stronger footing.”

Yet by the meeting’s end, Obama had revised his assessment of Putin and is now “very convinced the prime minister is a man of today and he’s got his eyes firmly on the future,” a senior U.S. official told reporters after the meeting concluded.

Putin knew exactly what to say to appeal to the Obama ego:

For his part, Putin spoke of Obama’s visit as an opportunity to remove a pall that had settled over exchanges between the two countries in recent years.

“The history of relations between Russia and the United States has very many different occasions and events of different, shall we say, color,” Putin said, as the two men sat in chairs in front of an ornate fireplace. “There were periods when our relations flourished quite a bit and there were also periods of, shall we say, grayish mood between our two countries and of stagnation. With you we link all our hopes for the furtherance of relations between our two countries.”

After that meeting, Barack Obama changed his Russia policy to one of projecting weakness. Soon after Obama decided to surrender the planned Eastern European missile shield:

With Iran, North Korea, and even Venezuela now pursuing nuclear programs in open defiance of international law, Obama has officially decided to dismantle our last line of defense against such dangerous rogue regimes. He insists that crippling our defensive capabilities in Europe and replacing them with Aegis cruisers capable of intercepting short-range missiles will somehow make us stronger.

But as we rush in to beat our chest and “confront” the immediate threat of Iran’s short-range missiles while doing nothing about their development of longer range missiles, we merely pretend to be addressing the problem, while actually surrendering completely. What’s really going on here is politics. We are using Bush’s missile defense shield as a bargaining chip against Russia and cashing it in for temporary, short-term concessions. Needless to say, this is incredibly unwise.

George Bush had secured construction of the missile shield in an agreement with NATO.

The Obama regime claimed that dropping the missile shield came about because of some new intel but Wikileaks proved otherwise:

The leaked documents indicate that Obama’s first eight months as president boiled over with Russian threats not to cooperate with the U.S. on any issue whatsoever (be it Iran, North Korea, space exploration, START negotiations, or anything else) barring cancelation of U.S. missile defense plans. During meetings with American officials, the Russians would repeatedly interrupt American diplomats who tried to discuss anything but missile defense.

The Kremlin’s message was this: you must capitulate on missile defense (and strategic arms), or else we won’t even discuss (let alone cooperate on) other issues. Eager to appease Russia, the Obama Administration naïvely surrendered missile defense plans on September 17, 2009.

Administration officials, including Obama and Bob Gates, are now falsely claiming that their surrender had nothing to do with Russia and was instead dictated by claimed new intel. Supposedly, Iran’s priority is now the development of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles rather than IRBMs and ICBMs (against which the Bush missile shield was designed to be effective).

But the leaked documents, reproduced by the NYT, show that the Iranians still prioritize the development and acquisition of long-range ballistic missiles.

During the 2012 Presidential campaign Obama was still doing his best to please Putin. He promised Putin even more “flexibility” if Putin gave him more “space.”

Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him “space” until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Medvedev understood:

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.

Mitt Romney called Obama’s words “alarming and troubling.”

Shortly after Obama promising to bend over to Putin, Putin sent the message that Obama wasn’t accommodating enough:

WASHINGTON – Just days after reclaiming the Russian presidency, Vladimir Putin has canceled his planned visit to the United States, where he’d been scheduled to attend a major economic summit and meet with President Obama.

The White House confirmed in a statement late Wednesday that Putin told Obama on a phone call he’d be sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in his place. Putin claimed he was too busy finalizing cabinet appointments to make the May 18-19 G-8 Summit at Camp David. Yet the Obama administration had moved the gathering to the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland from the planned venue in Chicago partly to accommodate Putin.

Whether or not the schedule change marked an intentional snub, the let-down comes less than a week after the nation’s military chief of staff warned that Russia would consider preemptive strikes, if a dispute with the United States over a Europe-based missile defense system worsens.

And Obama caved again.

In a presidential debate Obama castigated Mitt Romney for his opinion that Russia remained a geopolitical foe:

OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

Thing is, Romney was right. So was Sarah Palin.

After promising to do nothing about the Ukraine, Obama declared it “happy hour.”

Characteristically, the Obama regime could not resist taking a cheap shot at George Bush:

“We in this administration have not made it a practice to look into Vladimir Putin’s soul.”

What this proves, aside from how pathetic is the Obama regime, is just how fundamentally wrong Obama and the media are about Bush.

Much was made of Bush’s statement but all of it missed the point. Bush was doing to Putin what Putin later did to Obama. Play to his ego. And Obama swallowed it whole- hook, line and sinker.

The difference between Bush and Putin was that Bush never kissed Putin’s ass. He never knuckled under to Putin. Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty and secured the missile shield for Europe. They called him a cowboy.

Obama has done Putin’s bidding since. He wants Putin to like him. He wants everyone to like him.

Consequently, Obama fumbled the Iranian spring, screwed up Libya, dithered on Syria, is losing Iraq and Afghanistan and now projects nothing but weakness as he compromises the US military.

Obama lost the Ukraine years ago.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Global Regions, Politics, Radical Relationships, Russia, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 5:56 am
| 4,094 views

102 Responses to Putin did to Obama what Bush did to Putin

  1. Kraken says: 51

    If you want to see an example of the Group Think process, you might try visiting as many areas as possible of the right-wing echo chamber on any big news day, keeping count of how many times any particular story or meme—bogus or otherwise—is repeated verbatim.

    That doesn’t really make much sense. Remember, it is the Left that consistently refers to itself as collectives, collaboratives, cooperatives, and espouses the merits of collectivism, particularly in their academic hives. Just stop for a moment, and think about how wise you feel whenever you utter the word collective.

    Remember, it is widely known that low-level activist drones now receive most of their thinking orders directly from OFA and/or professors.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1MvBuLpBkw

    I would guess that might be because everyone became aware that Russian troops had entered Crimea on the same day.

    Now, when people became aware that Russian troops had entered Crimea, flashback posts citing Mrs. Palin’s prescient warning, Mr. Romneys keen assessment, and the Collective’s retrospectively amusing mockery of both, began flying about the blogs. It was only after this, perhaps in response to this, that the nostalgic But-Bushing began in earnest. Not in response to piece by piece over the course of days mind you, but rather, all coming out on the same day. It’s almost as though the Obama administration ordered the Collective’s workers to issue thinking orders for the activist Drones at the bottom of the hive, but of course that’s just preposterous.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/obama-schmoozes-reporters-at-secret-meeting

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-holds-record-meeting-msnbc-hosts-fox-news-juan-williams

    Russia’s legitimate national interest is having unrestricted access to their only warm-water port at Sevastapol.

    And you’re saying that Ukraine should have no say in the matter?

    By myself, at least, each time a picture has appeared along with an assertion concerning what it supposedly proves.

    Well that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? You don’t seem to offer much in the way of counter evidence other than your own commentary. Are we to believe that your commentary trumps satellite imagery in regards to evidence? What evidence do you have beyond your own commentary that the image and accompanying assertion are either incorrect or fraudulent?

    ReplyReply
  2. Kraken says: 52

    This is particularly interesting.

    The reason so many people have made the same observation is because it’s totally obvious. No one who remembers recent history will have failed to notice the parallels between the Georgian situation and Crimea.

    And yet you did.

    Your first comment on this thread was on March 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm:

    If I were on the far right, I don’t believe I’d post an image that’s so revealing of the far right’s psycho-sexual pathology.

    It wasn’t until much later in the same day, at 10:43 pm, after writing two other comments, that you wrote:

    I keep forgetting how George W. Bush’s decisive action put an immediate end to the Russian invasion of Georgia.

    So the question is then, if the observation were totally obvious, then why wouldn’t you have made that observation in your very first post at 2:35 pm, rather than waiting until 10:43 pm to write it, presumably after you had read the Collective’s thought orders on the matter?

    ReplyReply
  3. Greg says: 53

    @Kraken, #51:

    Remember, it is widely known that low-level activist drones now receive most of their thinking orders directly from OFA and/or professors.

    Much seems to be widely known around here that others find to be highly questionable. Some have even theorized that anyone expressing opposing views must be paid to do so. This is always amusing. Perhaps someone can tell me where I should submit my bill for services rendered?

    Now, when people became aware that Russian troops had entered Crimea, flashback posts citing Mrs. Palin’s prescient warning, Mr. Romneys keen assessment, and the Collective’s retrospectively amusing mockery of both, began flying about the blogs.

    Palin’s prescient warnings, and Mr. Romney’s keen assessment? Winter is coming. I foresee cold weather. Crimea has been an obvious potential trouble spot since the Soviet Union broke apart. Aggressive efforts to lure former Soviet block states into alliance with the West as a means of opposing Russia have only made trouble more likely. People like Palin, Romney, and McCain want our old enemy back. It’s how they understood the world for a very long time. The problem is that the world has changed. The Cold War playbook is out of date.

    And you’re saying that Ukraine should have no say in the matter?

    Should exists in the realm of wishful thinking. The fact of the matter is that Russia will protect it’s vital national interests in Crimea. The government of Ukraine should have been mindful of the fact that Crimea is an autonomous constitutional republic, and that a majority of that republic’s population is ethnically Russian. A central Ukrainian government that was so unstable itself shouldn’t have passed provocative laws that were likely to upset a delicately balanced apple cart.

    Well that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? You don’t seem to offer much in the way of counter evidence other than your own commentary.

    The burden of proof is on those who make such claims in the absence of supporting evidence. There’s no real evidence that truck convoys moved WMDs from Iraq to Syria. There’s nothing to counter, except the claim itself.

    ReplyReply
  4. Greg says: 54

    @Kraken, #52:

    So the question is then, if the observation were totally obvious, then why wouldn’t you have made that observation in your very first post at 2:35 pm, rather than waiting until 10:43 pm to write it, presumably after you had read the Collective’s thought orders on the matter?

    Ah HA! I suppose you have me there…by geometric logic.

    I still haven’t figured out exactly what it was that Bush is supposed to have done to Putin, which Putin is now doing to Obama. I’m afraid the picture hasn’t clarified that point any more than the event timeline.

    ReplyReply
  5. Buffalobob says: 55

    Arguing with a prog is like trying to teach a 2 year old to not touch the computer screen with his/hers sticky hands.

    ReplyReply
  6. Kraken says: 56

    @Greg:

    Perhaps someone can tell me where I should submit my bill for services rendered?

    JTRIG perhaps?

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

    Palin’s prescient warnings, and Mr. Romney’s keen assessment? Winter is coming. I foresee cold weather.

    Well, one would think, but…

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/03/flashback-obama-kerry-ridiculed-romney-over-russia/

    http://weaselzippers.us/177750-flashback-dem-ad-mocks-romney-and-palin-for-saying-russia-is-our-foe/

    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/10/22/russia_might_invade_ukraine_if_obama_wins_palin_warns

    …not so obvious for some it would seem.

    They want our old enemy back.

    Who is they exactly?

    but the world has changed.

    Indeed?

    http://news.yahoo.com/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine-193003190–sector.html;_ylt=AwrBJR9IKhZTKSMAfjrQtDMD

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2014/03/04/putin-blames-the-us-for-ukrainian-unrest-and-reserves-right-to-military-action/

    Should exists in the realm of wishful thinking.

    If so, then why…

    The government of Ukraine should have been mindful of the fact that Crimea is an autonomous constitutional republic, and that a majority of that republic’s population is ethnically Russian.

    Doesn’t that should exist in the realm of wishful thinking as well then?

    Regardless, what you suggest, seems to be only partially correct:

    “The 1996 Ukrainian constitution stipulated that Crimea would have autonomous republic status but reasserted that Crimean legislation must be in keeping with that of Ukraine.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/6080890.stm

    The burden of proof is on those who make such claims in the absence of supporting evidence. There’s no real evidence that truck convoys moved WMDs from Iraq to Syria. There’s nothing to counter, except the claim itself.

    Putting aside for the moment that all of this presumes that all satellite intelligence has been declassified, you’re the one claiming that the satellite telemetry is either falsified, misidentified, or incorrect on some level. So essentially what you’re asserting here, is that there is no real evidence that truck convoys moved WMDs from Iraq to Syria, because the satellite imagery showing truck convoys moving WMDs from Iraq to Syria isn’t real, because you’ve made comments that the image isn’t real on blog posts. That’s some pretty dodgy logic there.

    Particularly given that there is a good amount of supporting articles, for one who cares to look.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/28/20041028-115519-3700r/

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-10-29/news/0310290219_1_illicit-weapons-clapper-weapons-inspector

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/79083-russians-might-want-u-s-syria-wmds-maye-helped-put/

    ReplyReply
  7. Kraken says: 57

    @Buffalobob:

    It’s good sport.

    ReplyReply
  8. Kraken says: 58

    @Greg:

    I still haven’t figured out exactly what it was that Bush is supposed to have done to Putin, which Putin is now doing to Obama. I’m afraid the picture hasn’t clarified that point any more than the event timeline.

    If it has to be explained, then you’ll never understand.

    ReplyReply
  9. Greg says: 59

    @Kraken, #58:

    I suspect that no explanation will be forthcoming because the statement bears no relationship to reality.

    Putin didn’t hesitate for a moment when he decided to send Russian troops across the border into Georgia. Putin’s calculation was the same with Bush then as it was with Obama now. He knew there was no reasonable military option open to the U.S. in either case. Republicans can bark at the moon all they want. I’ve yet to hear a single one of them offer an intelligent suggestion.

    Maybe republicans would be comforted by the idea that Putin might only be acting in accordance with his understanding of the principles of the Bush Doctrine and how they could be applied by Russia. Anyone having questions about how this relates to Crimea should direct them to Sarah Palin. Specifically, ask her about Bush’s 2010 Decision Points memoir. Prong #3 of the Bush Doctrine will possibly shed some light on the question of crossing borders as a preventive measure.

    ReplyReply
  10. Kraken says: 60

    @Greg:

    I suspect that no explanation will be forthcoming because the statement bears no relationship to reality.

    Interesting contention.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqP4gcY5s4k

    Putin didn’t hesitate for a moment when he decided to send Russian troops across the border into Georgia. Putin’s calculation was the same with Bush then as it was with Obama now. He knew there was no reasonable military option open to the U.S. in either case.

    I’m pleased that you’re at least able to understand that Putin is a calculating aggressor. Perhaps one day it may afford you the ability to possess the same insights as Mrs. Palin and Mr. Romney.

    Republicans can bark at the moon all they want. I’ve yet to hear a single one of them offer an intelligent suggestion.

    Would the Collective know one if they heard it though?

    ReplyReply
  11. Bill Burris says: 61

    @Greg:”Palin’s prescient warnings, and Mr. Romney’s keen assessment? Winter is coming. I foresee cold weather. Crimea has been an obvious potential trouble spot since the Soviet Union broke apart. Aggressive efforts to lure former Soviet block states into alliance with the West as a means of opposing Russia have only made trouble more likely. People like Palin, Romney, and McCain want our old enemy back. It’s how they understood the world for a very long time. The problem is that the world has changed. The Cold War playbook is out of date.” So, your position is that they were merely stating the obvious. Right. So, what is the explanation as to why the entire left ridiculed the concept and then, twice, got caught completely off-guard by Russian aggression? As events developed, it looks more like Obama and the Weakness Party want the Cold War adversarial experience since they do everything they can to embolden Putin. See, Greg, per the liberal playbook, it works like this: the party in power calling all the shots bears the responsibility for the events during their rule.

    Actually, Greg, Putin waited until there was Democrat Congress and the same liberal appeasers of anything threatening America that opposes every action we try to take to fight threats. That would have been a big signal to Putin that any effective response from the US would take months. Meanwhile, the front-running Presidential candidate, who shared a socialist view of the world with Putin, was stating that Georgia was just as obligated as the aggressor to not inflame the situation.

    Strength is peace. Weakness is inviting aggression. Obama is weakness.

    ReplyReply
  12. KD says: 62

    I believe Kraken is the only one making any sense, and is right. HOWEVER, I think there is an assumption of animosity between the Russian and US Administrations. They DO work hand-in-hand in a way that appears combative, and yet manages to achieve all both sides really care about. Russia takes back Ukraine, which we could never really have held, and the outlandishness (literally) of the US trying to bring its particular style of “rescue” which always results in death and destruction surely helped make the Russian option appear more reasonable and acceptable.

    Maybe there are those who miss the cold war, or maybe the US and EU need Russia’s assurance, knowing the highly disparate peoples of the Ukraine could be a powder keg, a real disruption in the PIPELINE.

    Don’t lose sight of the NON-obvious. These people do not behave as they do without a plan and a reason.

    ReplyReply
  13. Redteam says: 63

    @Greg:

    Putin’s calculation was the same with Bush then as it was with Obama now. He knew there was no reasonable military option open to the U.S. in either case. Republicans can bark at the moon all they want. I’ve yet to hear a single one of them offer an intelligent suggestion.

    Greg, you may be correct.

    ReplyReply
  14. Kraken says: 64

    Good thing we have progressive pea-brainism to lecture the masses on how the world has changed.

    https://twitter.com/AP/status/441255119758561280

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMuYucxqiJg

    “Listen me carefully here! (interrupting reporter). I want to be very clear on that. If we make this decision [to invade Ukraine] we’ll do it to protect Ukranian citizens. And we’ll see afterwards if any of their servicemen will dare to shot in their own people which we’ll stay behind, not in front, but behind! I dare them to shoot in women and children and watch those who can give such an order in Ukraine.”

    ~ Vladimir Putin

    ReplyReply
  15. Nanny G says: 65

    10 to 15 armed men tried to kidnap UN special envoy to Ukraine in Crimea.
    Gee.
    I wonder who they were?
    Ukranian men lay down their arms when they walk around outside their bases.
    Russian men hang in big groups and openly carry their weapons.
    Hmmmmm…..
    Actually the men did kidnap him and his men.
    He is being kept at gunpoint inside a cafe after being forced from his car.

    Question:
    Does the fact that Putin has had Snowden under his thumb for months now mean that Putin might have something on Obama that will prevent Obama from acting like a strong leader.
    Lately Obama has been acting like a wimpy.
    Why stand on an alphabet rug in front of 6 your olds to pre-empt your own Sec State while he is speaking?
    Obama used to be so careful about his backdrops.

    ReplyReply
  16. oil guy from Alberta says: 66

    What has the former Secretary of Steak to say about this? Putin is acting like Hitler. So Shillary pushes her reset button and voila – Adolf ! We know that she doesn’t answer 3 am calls let alone 10 pm calls. The present Secretary of Steak is talking a lot and carries his dick in his hand. Putin will win every time dealing with these appeasers, especially Obambi.

    ReplyReply
  17. Greg says: 67

    @Nanny G, #65:

    Does the fact that Putin has had Snowden under his thumb for months now mean that Putin might have something on Obama that will prevent Obama from acting like a strong leader.

    What Vladimir Putin “has on Obama” is the Russian army, 1,200 miles of shared border with Ukraine, around 8,500 nuclear weapons, and 326 fully operational ICBMs with over 1,000 nuclear warheads. Have we forgotten about that last part? Maybe a reminder sign should be posted on the bars of the cage for forgetful politicians: DO NOT TEASE THE BEAR.

    Our own capabilities are much the same. Neither nation is in a position to dictate how the other must behave in it’s own immediate neighborhood. A conventional military response isn’t a credible threat at such a distance, and using the long-range option would only assure the total destruction of both nations.

    It’s fortunate for everyone that Obama isn’t wired the same way as Vladimir Putin. Each would be trying to stare the other down with a twitchy finger on the nuclear button.

    ReplyReply
  18. Nanny G says: 68

    @Greg: I appreciate the weaponry on both sides, Greg.
    BUT, this article, Putin spy war on the West The Sunday Times, May 20, 2007, makes the point that by 2007, according to American counterintelligence, Russian espionage reached Cold War levels.
    A commentary in 2012 about this said, “Imagine someone who loathes you has a key to your front door. It will be little comfort if he has not yet got round to burning your house down, stealing your valuables, or planting drugs. The worry is that he could. Deception is at the very heart of today’s Russia.”

    So, Putin would have been very interested in anything from Snowden (or any other intel) about Obama so as to have the upper hand on him.

    ReplyReply
  19. KD says: 69

    All you people are feeding into this. The two sides are not at all opposing, they just posture themselves that way. Think about it for one second… You are all wasting time and going into unnecessary detail.

    NOTHING happens in the world or in politics by accident. This was planned. By both sides.

    ReplyReply
  20. Kraken says: 70

    It’s fortunate for everyone that Obama isn’t wired the same way as Vladimir Putin. Each would be trying to stare the other down with a twitchy finger on the nuclear button.

    Yes. How fortunate for us all that we have a President more concerned with getting back to campaigning and unilaterally rewriting domestic law while an overseas adversary has a “twitchy finger on the nuclear button.” How very comforting.

    ReplyReply
  21. Greg says: 71

    @Kraken, #70:

    While the man in the Oval Office is actually dealing with a dangerous and highly volatile international situation, republican politicians are once again treating an unfolding international crisis as nothing more than another opportunity to attack their own nation’s leader. Yet you’re accusing him of a preoccupation with domestic politics?

    It’s almost funny.

    It was this same sort of behavior while the Cairo Embassy was still under siege that suddenly made me realize just how far the GOP had fallen.

    ReplyReply
  22. Redteam says: 72

    @Greg:

    It’s fortunate for everyone that Obama isn’t wired the same way as Vladimir Putin. Each would be trying to stare the other down with a twitchy finger on the nuclear button.

    Not a surprise, very few people are wired that way. Neither of those two have desirable wiring. But I don’t really think that either of them are thinking of a nuclear option. Neither president would want that on their resume’.

    ReplyReply
  23. Coldwarrior57 says: 73

    anyone else having problems turning off notifications of msgs? I have un checked it about 5 times. still getting them.

    ReplyReply
  24. Greg says: 74

    @Redteam, #72:

    I agree with you. I think the danger with long-time nuclear powers is what might happen by accident if events unfold too quickly. With leaders like Kim Jong-un, the danger is what might be done deliberately. People like that guy just aren’t playing with a full deck.

    ReplyReply
  25. Redteam says: 75

    @Greg:

    While the man in the Oval Office is actually dealing with a dangerous and highly volatile international situation,

    Who is in the Oval office? Obama damn sure isn’t dealing with “a dangerous and highly volatile international situation” I’m sure he’s arranging his next tee time and scheduling his money raising campaign stops. And probably tightening the spokes on his girly bike. I would be surprised if he has had any defense or security briefings on the situation. If it’s not gonna buy him votes for his agenda, he’s not interested. Watching Lurch Kerry giving a speech (boy that’s using the term loosely) (he read it all and made several reading mistakes) shows that he is not even slightly interested in the situation and only knows what he reads in his speeches which someone else is obviously writing. This whole crowd must be the most completely ignorant, incompetent administration in the history of the world. May God have mercy on us all.

    ReplyReply
  26. Redteam says: 76

    @Coldwarrior57: Haven’t tried it, I want feedback on comments I write.

    ReplyReply
  27. Redteam says: 77

    @Greg:

    People like that guy just aren’t playing with a full deck.

    I don’t know about Putin, but Obama clearly doesn’t have a full deck.

    ReplyReply
  28. Redteam says: 78

    @Greg:

    It was this same sort of behavior while the Cairo Embassy was still under siege that suddenly made me realize just how far the GOP had fallen.

    Are you saying the GOP was acting like the Dims? Obama running around, making sure he made his tee times and riding his girly bike and made all the fund raisers and missing his security briefings. Is that the behavior you’re saying the Repubs are imitating?

    ReplyReply
  29. KD says: 79

    I would urge everyone to unsubscribe. You are all going into needless detail, down primrose paths, painting people black and white and missing the point.

    You are almost all shills, just making this into a debate about nothing important.

    ReplyReply
  30. Redteam says: 80

    @KD:

    You are almost all shills, just making this into a debate about nothing important.

    Do you include yourself in any of those categories? Comments on blogs are not made to cure the ills of the world, it is just an opportunity for some to show their pleasure, or displeasure with events in the world. Nothing important? You don’t consider the US having a totally incompetent in the Oval office as being important? We all recognize that as a huge problem and we all know we aren’t going to change that before 2017, but it gives some a little relief being able to vent about it. If you don’t care to share in it, I would advise you to delete the bookmark to this site and head on down the road.

    You said above: “NOTHING happens in the world or in politics by accident. This was planned. By both sides. ” Well certainly nothing in politics anyway. But yes, this political situation was planned by both sides.

    ReplyReply
  31. Kraken says: 81

    @Greg:

    While the man in the Oval Office is actually dealing with a dangerous and highly volatile international situation, republican politicians are once again treating an unfolding international crisis as nothing more than another opportunity to attack their own nation’s leader. Yet you’re accusing him of a preoccupation with domestic politics?

    Uh huh.

    “I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

    ~Hillary Rodham Clinton

    It was this same sort of behavior while the Cairo Embassy was still under siege that suddenly made me realize just how far the GOP had fallen.

    It took you that long to come to that realization? Where have you been the last 20 years?

    Are you a college professor by chance?

    ReplyReply
  32. Greg says: 82

    @Kraken, #81:

    You’re displaying more attitude than meaningful content. What it always comes down to is whether or not those who constantly criticize have any detailed, constructive suggestions regarding real-world alternatives to the whatever they’re criticizing. Have you got such an alternative approach in mind regarding the Ukraine situation? I’m guessing you don’t, any more than do the airheads yapping in the opening minute or so of this video:

    Anarchy in the Ukraine—What would Reagan do?

    ReplyReply
  33. Kraken says: 83

    @Greg:

    You’re displaying more attitude than meaningful content.

    Well sure. When you’re claiming that criticizing the President is somehow a problem, you’re not really offering much to riff off of.

    What it always comes down to is whether or not those who constantly criticize have any detailed, constructive suggestions regarding real-world alternatives to the whatever they’re criticizing.

    This of course is incorrect. Your comment is meant only to silence criticism, and suggest that commentary should be reserved for a select initiated few.

    It suggests that a patient isn’t qualified to comment on the quality of the health care they receive because they’re not a doctor. I understand that progressivity and common sense are like oil and water, but you don’t have to be a doctor to know if a surgery was botched, even if you’ve never seen a synapse under a microscope. You don’t need to be an airline pilot to know that drinking on the job is a bad idea, even if you can’t work all the controls. You don’t have to be an architect to know that designing a building with chocolate bars for roof shingles is a bad idea, even if you don’t fully understand the mechanics of material stress or erosion.

    Heck, you’re essentially arguing against the right to vote here. After all, that’s what voting is; an expression of political criticism or approval by those who don’t have all the details or alternative suggestions.

    Look, I understand that it’s going to take some time for President Obama to catch up with Mrs. Palin’s assessments six years after the fact. In between now and then there will undoubtedly be plenty of speeches containing purportedly thoughtful “ums” and various forms of the word sustainable. But this really just isn’t acceptable.

    When we see public officials relying on academic nonsense that they themselves made up in their windowless offices to have printed in text books, it’s really not a good sign because almost never do progressive academic teachings reflect reality. And at the end of the day that’s what we have in President Obama; a professor. His mind is choc-full of all manner of wonderful airy fairy theories about how Utopian societies ought to operate and anecdotes from Alinsky. However much like the rest of his academic colleagues, he hasn’t the slightest notion as to how reality actually works, and it’s painfully obvious.

    Do I have a detailed, constructive suggestion regarding real-world alternatives to whatever I’m criticizing? As part of the electorate, that’s what I send people to Washington to do, and I expect them to be as competent as they advertise themselves to be on the campaign trail. If I hire an IT person to manage my company’s digital world, and if all that comes afterwards is nothing but virus’ and malfunction, then I don’t need to give my IT person a detailed constructive suggestion regarding real-world alternatives. Rather, what I need to do is have the IT person replaced.

    That’s what my constructive suggestion as a voting constituent is; replace these kids with sober competent adults, because it’s clear that the officials in the current administration think on an adolescent wavelength. Mentally they’re high school kids who roll their eyes and respond to adult criticism with snark, and try to impress the dreamy cool kids like Putin, Chavez, Castro, etc., who the big bad meanie Republicans just don’t understand. They like to appease bullies, which adults understand never works.

    We need a Commander in Chief who conveys a message of strength, rather than mealy mouthed academic dimwittedness. We need a President who is taken seriously on the world stage, rather than a paper tiger who is ignored and mocked. We need a President willing to surround himself and listen to sober adult advisors with real world experience. We need grown adults to govern.

    In any event, I’m certainly entitled to be unhappy or happy with the results, and to freely express either, just as you undoubtedly will be when the political shoe is on the other foot.

    Have you got such an alternative approach in mind regarding the Ukraine situation? I’m guessing you don’t, any more than do the airheads yapping in the opening minute or so of this video:

    I’m not really sure that citing a comedy show gives you much in the way of credibility, but would you be willing to explain why it is that the Collective always assumes that whoever they’re arguing against is a Republican?

    ReplyReply
  34. Greg says: 84

    @Kraken, #83:

    This of course is incorrect. Your comment is meant only to silence criticism, and suggest that commentary should be reserved for a select initiated few.

    What I’m pointing out is that those complaining aren’t offering any suggestions as to how the situation could be handled better. They’re not.

    Do I have a detailed, constructive suggestion regarding real-world alternatives to whatever I’m criticizing? As part of the electorate, that’s what I send people to Washington to do, and I expect them to be as competent as they advertise themselves to be on the campaign trail.

    It’s the people you have sent to Washington who are criticizing, but who aren’t making any constructive suggestions. Criticism without having a clue what should be done differently is worse than useless. It undermines confidence in our own nation while emboldening our adversaries.

    That’s what my constructive suggestion as a voting constituent is; replace these kids with sober competent adults, because it’s clear that the officials in the current administration think on an adolescent wavelength.

    We know what the Obama administration’s approach to the current crisis is because we can observe it. It’s cautious, watchful, and threatens nothing that could cause the crisis to suddenly escalate out of control. We don’t know what the hell your “sober competent adults” would do differently, because they’re not saying. The people most likely to be on an adolescent wavelength are those who would vote for such people without having a clue concerning the particulars of what they would actually do in connection with anything. They can’t even agree on details among themselves. The main thing that presently unifies them is their negativity about Barack Obama, which they will quickly redirect to whoever appears to be his most likely successor.

    We need a Commander in Chief who conveys a message of strength, rather than mealy mouthed academic dimwittedness.

    I don’t view a small dog barking at something out on the lawn from behind the safety of the living room window to be sending a message of strength, no matter how loudly it’s barking. Putin isn’t sending a message of strength. He’s displaying insecurity. Things have not been going well for Mr. Putin in Ukraine. Obama’s main job at the moment seems to be to talk him down, or to give him space to settle down. A John McCain going red in the face and blowing steam out of both ears wouldn’t likely have the desired effect.

    I’m not really sure that citing a comedy show gives you much in the way of credibility, but would you be willing to explain why it is that the Collective always assumes that whoever they’re arguing against is a Republican?

    I think the goofy comments of some of the people who appeared in the video made the point well enough. I seriously doubt that most of those people are democratic supporters.

    ReplyReply
  35. Smorgasbord says: 85

    @Coldwarrior57: #73

    anyone else having problems turning off notifications of msgs?

    Are you talking about just this story, or all of them? I think you have to uncheck each story you originally checked.

    ReplyReply
  36. Smorgasbord says: 86

    @KD: #79

    You are almost all shills, just making this into a debate about nothing important.

    And yet you haven’t unsubscribed. Why not?

    ReplyReply
  37. Kraken says: 87

    What I’m pointing out is that those complaining aren’t offering any suggestions as to how the situation could be handled better. They’re not.

    Yes. That is what you were pointing out. But I responded by illustrating that what you were pointing out was irrelevant, as you would discover after reading the rest of my post.

    It’s the people you have sent to Washington who are criticizing, but who aren’t making any constructive suggestions. Criticism without having a clue what should be done differently is worse than useless. It undermines confidence in our own nation while emboldening our adversaries.

    Here’s the problem though; the Collective routinely fails to acknowledge when individuals in Washington do offer constructive criticisms. I don’t want to go off into an argument over ObamaCare , that argument can be saved for another time. But I do want to use ObamaCare as an example of what I’m taking about here. And I’m not a big fan of RedState.com myself, so don’t shoot me for using it as a source, but they’ve published a great list that will be very instructive here.

    For many years the Collective’s argument against repeal and replacement of ObamaCare was that the Republicans didn’t have an alternative plan. And yet, when we look here:

    http://www.redstate.com/diary/mvespa/2013/09/09/republicans-have-introduced-alternatives-to-obamacare-for-years/

    What we see is a list of multiple alternative plans that do indeed exist. They’ve been linked to. They’ve been uploaded as PDF files in many instances. A person can print them out and read them, hold them in their hands. Yet the Collective continues to chant, “They don’t have a plan!” even though they just offered another one this past January. It’s almost as though the rhetoric that the Collective cherishes blinds Drones to a reality that they’ve been trained to reject.

    So saying that the people we’ve sent to Washington aren’t making any constructive criticisms causes me to balk with skepticism, to say the least.

    We know what the Obama administration’s approach to the current crisis is because we can observe it. It’s cautious, watchful, and threatens nothing that could cause the crisis to suddenly escalate out of control.

    I understand that a lot of cautious watching can be done from the golf course on while vacation in Flordia, but it’s also appeasing and facilitating. Frankly, given what little we know about President Obama’s shady past coupled with what we know about his policy pursuits, I wouldn’t find it unlikely if he sides with the enemy ideologically. In such a scenario, doing nothing and sending weak messages would make much more sense. After all, we know that the Collective’s primary gripe with President Reagan was that what it views as the wrong side seemingly won the Cold War.

    The people most likely to be on an adolescent wavelength are those who would vote for such people without having a clue concerning the particulars of what they would actually do in connection with anything. They can’t even agree on details among themselves. The main thing that presently unifies them is their negativity about Barack Obama, which they will quickly redirect to whoever appears to be his most likely successor.

    This doesn’t make much sense. Remember, President Obama is now dealing with a situation which was predicted by rational sober adults, and which was openly mocked by the President and the rest of the Collective. Essentially, he’s dealing with a situation that he himself found to be too preposterous to consider not too long ago. That is not the sign of an adult mind. It’s the sign of a man who mentally lives in the eye rolling teenager phase. “The 1980s called…” Those are the words of reactionary adolescents.

    Now, of course President Obama’s critics don’t all agree on every point of opposition. That’s the nature of individual thought, as opposed to belonging to the Collective. It’s what prevents the Collective from seeing many potential paths and outcomes, and forces it to adhere to the rigid dogma of their ideology. “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” ~George S. Patton If you want to talk about internal conflicts though, Hillary Clinton can’t even figure out whether the Russians are Nazis or not just with herself. Which brings us to at least one thing the President’s critics can agree on; reset buttons are dumb. Very, very dumb.

    I don’t view a small dog barking at something out on the lawn from behind the safety of the living room window to be sending a message of strength, no matter how loudly it’s barking.

    I understand that the current administration through has assigned Hagel and Dempsey among others to diligently weaken the American military to facilitate its vision of a Post-American world, but I don’t think that we’re the small dog quite yet.

    Putin isn’t sending a message of strength. He’s displaying insecurity.

    Yes, this is the talking point that John Kerry as assigned to the Collective’s drones for routine parroting.

    “That’s not the act of somebody who’s strong, “ Kerry added, saying Putin is acting out of “weakness” and “desperation.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/199645-putin-acting-out-of-desperation

    Even the President has recited this mantra

    http://news.yahoo.com/video/pres-obama-russian-action-not-180600489.html

    Havn’t you heard? Ignorance is strength.

    A John McCain going red in the face and blowing steam out of both ears wouldn’t likely have the desired effect.

    Where did I say that John McCain would be a better replacement? Why do you keep responding to points that I’m not making? What is the nature of this problem?

    I seriously doubt that most of those people are democratic supporters.

    No, no, I was referring to you and I specifically. You seem to be arguing with the Republican caricature that Collective Drones are ordered to believe in.

    ReplyReply
  38. Fyodor
    the RUSSIANS emigrated in UKRAINE an never join the UKRAINE’S interest and struggles,
    they kept ALLEGIANCE to RUSSIA, having all the goodies from UKRAINE and making their home
    as taking it for granted that they own the CRIMEA, because they are there,
    never participated in UKRAINE’ needs, and you come to tell us they are in the right to
    fly their RUSSIAN FLAG pushing the UKRAINIAN FLAG DOWN AS TO SHOW THAT CRIMEA BELONG TO THEM,
    THEY ARE THE DOGS WHO BITE THE HAND GIVING THEM THE LAND TO BE HAPPY WITH ALL THIS TIME
    AND THEY SUPPORT RUSSIA WHEN UKRAINE NEED SUPORT OF ALL THEIR CITIZENS,
    IN ALL OVER THEIR LAND WHICH CRIMEA IS PART OF UKRAINE,
    now they are showing how the traitors of UKRAINE ARE AND WHERE SINCE THEIR ARRIVAL,
    WHICH I THINK THEY WHERE PLANTED THERE BY PUTIN SNEAKING THEM IN TO TAKE OVER CRIMEA,
    NOW THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR MOTHER RUSSIA,
    I SAY TO UKRAINE DEPORT THEM BACK TO THEIR MOTHER RUSSIA AS THEY ARE, NOTHING
    ELSE, AND RETAKE CRIMEA WHO HAS ALWAYS BEEN YOURS, AND ALL WHAT IS LEFT FROM
    THE OCCUPENT WHICH OVER TOOK ADVANTAGE OF YOUR GOOD WILL,
    THEY NEVER TRY TO ASSIMILATE, THEY WANTED TO BE RUSSIAN IN THEIR HOST BENEVOLENT COUNTRY,
    I SAY YOU GET THE HELL OUT OF CRIMEA, AND NOW,
    ANYONE WHO ARE LET IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, NOW BETTER LEARN THAT YOU MUST GIVE THANKS
    AND GIVE ALLEGIANCE TO YOU NEW COUNTRY, BECAUSE IT’S THE LEAST YOU CAN DO,
    AND HELP THAT BENEVOLENT COUNTRY BY STANDING FOR THEM IN HARD TIMES AS YOU TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THEIR POSESSION,
    YOU RUSSIAN INVADER TOOK ALL AND NEVER GAVE BACK, DON’T BLAME THEM FOR WANTING YOU OUT, YOU DESERVE IT,

    ReplyReply
  39. Greg says: 89

    @Kraken, #87:

    In what sense is the attempt to discredit democrats in general, the Obama administration in particular, the Affordable Care Act, the IRS, the EPA, etc, etc, not a collective effort on the part of various big-money special interest groups, right-wing political action groups, right-leaning media outlets, and warring factions comprising the GOP that are either under their influence of the aforementioned if not actually beholden to them for campaign contributions? More importantly, why do they claim to be honest when their attacks demonstrably involve the continuous repetition of blatant lies?

    And seriously… Where are their alternatives stated in sufficient detail to mean anything at all?

    This isn’t a matter of caricatures. It’s an accurate description.

    ReplyReply
  40. Coldwarrior57
    HI, WHY DO YOU WANT TO UNSUSCRIBE,
    ARE WE BORING YOU ?
    THERE IS MANY OTHER POSTS,AND LIKE Smorgasbord said<
    MAYBE YOU HAVE TO UNSUSCRIBE THE POST YOU ANSWER TO,
    ON EACH POST, BUT YOU MIGHT MISS A GOOD COMMENT OR POST YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ AGAIN,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  41. Rich Wheeler says: 91

    @Redteam: Why do you say this is “planned by both sides?”
    Have you been watching True Detective? IMO–Outstanding,
    Dodgers are loaded. Biggest problem–reducing to a 25 man roster. You like Bosox to repeat?
    BTW The dramatic rise in both the stock market AND R.E. market over the past 24+ months has greatly increased the net worth of my Repub. friends.

    ReplyReply
  42. Nanny G says: 92

    @Rich Wheeler: The dramatic rise in both the stock market AND R.E. market over the past 24+ months has greatly increased the net worth of my Repub. friends.

    Liberals in UNIONS are more likely to own pension funds than Conservatives, who create their OWN through 401Ks and other private investment means.
    So, why haven’t UNION pension holders done as well as private workers?
    Their pension funds keep being used as slush funds for UNION bosses to splurge on both themselves and their leftist agenda items and candidates!
    Too bad for the government UNION employee as well as the private sector UNION employees.
    But they made their beds….

    ReplyReply
  43. NANNY G
    THE UNIONIZE IN PUBLIC WORK ,
    COULD WAKE UP AND BE TOLD THE UNION ORGANISATION HAS FOLDED,
    AND THERE ARE NO MORE MONEY IN THE POTLOCK,
    RIGHT AFTER OBAMA’S LEFT, THEY WHERE ALL IN OBAMA’S ORGANISATION, AND THE WON’T BE NEEDED BY THE NEW COMING GOVERNMENT,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  44. RUSSIA FORCE THEMSELVES INTO A BARICADED MILITARY POST
    FULL OF UKRAINIANS MILITARY WHO HAVE TO FOLLOW ORDER NOT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES,
    PUTIN YOU GAVE ORDERS SO IT’S ON YOUR HEAD,
    WE WILL NOT FORGET YOU , AND YOU WILL PAY FOR THAT INVASION ON A UKRAINE
    WHO GAVE ASYLIUM TO YOUR RUSSIAN CITIZENS WHO ARE OF NO USE FOR UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY HAVE CHOSEN WHERE THEIR ALLEGIANCE ARE NOW
    THEY SHOULD BE DEPORTED AT ONCE OR HANG ON TREES IN UKRAINE, as TRAITORS
    OR YOU TAKE THEM OUT BACK TO RUSSIA WHERE THEY BELONG,
    VLADIMIR YOU WILL PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, TIME IS OF NO LIMIT,

    ReplyReply
  45. PUTIN
    CRIMEA does not belong to you, it belong to UKRAINE,
    YOU ARE DOING YOUR TAKE OVER LIKE A SNAKE, LIKE HITLER DID,
    TELLING ALL THAT YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG,
    YOU JUST WANT TO PROTECT THE CRIMEA RUSSIAN, AND HITLER START THE WWII THAT WAY,

    ReplyReply
  46. Redteam says: 96

    @Rich Wheeler:

    Have you been watching True Detective? IMO–Outstanding,

    Yes, it is a true ‘mystery’, it took me about 6 weeks to figure out exactly what they were doing. I like the acting by both of the detectives. Thought I was gonna have to get one to find out where you disappeared to.

    Why do you say this is “planned by both sides?”

    I don’t specifically mean the invasion of Crimea, I just mean the ‘crisis’ situation. Obama’s plans are, and have been, to weaken the US in every way, especially militarily. His goal is the destruction of the infrastructure of the US via socialism. So creating situations in the world to make the US look weak is one of his main schemes. Putin, on the other hand has exactly the opposite objective. He wants Russia to look strong and he wants absolute power. This type situation fits his grand scheme.

    Dodgers are loaded. Biggest problem–reducing to a 25 man roster. You like Bosox to repeat?

    I’ll take your word for it, I don’t focus too much until spring training games start (which they just did). I’ve been watching rosters a little. RedSox repeat, no. Getting rid of Ellsbury and Drew sure didn’t help. Terrible infield now, no shortstop or 3rd baseman and no prospects.

    BTW The dramatic rise in both the stock market AND R.E. market over the past 24+ months

    Real estate still in the tank, as far as I’m concerned. All the investment in the Stock market is because there is nothing else to invest in. No companies are doing well earnings wise, but people have to put their money somewhere.

    Quit hiding out.

    ReplyReply
  47. Rich Wheeler says: 97

    @Redteam: Charts show res. R.E. up nationwide 20-22% over last two years. West leads at 27-28%. South up 15%.N.E trails at 10-12%.
    Most leading corporations show improved earnings year over year. No doubt continued low interest rates are fueling the rise in both stocks and R.E.
    This whole bitcoin thing is fascinating.

    Like Tom, I find it amusing how Right can call Obama weak in Ukraine after deriding him for over the top interventions in Libya and Egypt. I think he should have bombed Assad into oblivion–made a mistake cozying up to Putin on that one.

    The back and forth on gay rights between you/05 and Wells is tiresome.That’s what sent me packing for awhile.
    I remain consistent on a predicted 50/50 Senate split in 2014 with 2016 hopeful Uncle Joe(really) casting the deciding vote.

    ReplyReply
  48. Redteam says: 98

    @Rich Wheeler:

    The back and forth on gay rights between you/05 and Wells is tiresome.That’s what sent me packing for awhile.

    That repartee’ the last 2 days is the first time gays have come up in a while. I don’t care much about talking about them, the whole damn thing makes me sick that humans beings don’t have any more respect for themselves than to engage in homosexuality.

    Like Tom, I find it amusing how Right can call Obama weak in Ukraine

    Really? I don’t know of anyone that doesn’t think Zippy is weak everywhere, not only in Ukraine. His only foreign policy is surrender and weaken the US military.

    This whole bitcoin thing is fascinating.

    I’m amazed the US Treasury lets that go on. Only US money is legal tender in the US.

    ReplyReply
  49. Nanny G says: 99

    @Redteam: Like Tom, I find it amusing how Right can call Obama weak in Ukraine

    Really? I don’t know of anyone that doesn’t think Zippy is weak everywhere, not only in Ukraine. His only foreign policy is surrender and weaken the US military.

    I think Obama has fooled a lot of people.
    He is not so much ”weak,” as he is pro-Islam.
    Look at his entire foreign policy in that color and it all makes sense.
    He waited until Muslim Brotherhood took power from all the unorganized secular and non-Muslim factions before standing with Egypt’s ”Arab Spring.”
    He waited until Lybia’s Islamist had the most power before he spoke out against Gaddafi.
    He waited until he saw Muslims in Crimea scared about a Russian takeover before making any statements (later actions) about Ukraine.
    This week Israel intercepted a boatload of 100-mile range rockets bound for Gaza (Hamas) from Iran.
    Crickets.

    Despite this:
    Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Authority (IRICA) seal clearly appears on weapons containers the #IDF intercepted. https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/443038827590848512/photo/1

    But Hamas, itself, also gave away the facts:
    Their own homegrown rocket is named the M-75 (named in honour of Qassam Brigades founding member Ibrahim al-Maqadma — who was assassinated by Israel in 2003 — and alluding to its range of 75 kilometers).
    that was their longest-range rocket.
    They even built a monument to it!

    But in an AFP news article a Hamas official at the Gaza City ceremony told AFP, on condition of anonymity, that in any future confrontation with the Jewish state, cities in the far north would be targeted.
    UM…..
    But….
    Cities in the far north in Israel are over 75 miles from Gaza!
    A Syrian M-302 rocket, with a range of 100 miles or more, would be just the ticket.
    OOPS!
    Outed yourself, left-stream media!

    Putin is being demonized by Obama’s left-leaning media but look at what he does.
    He consistently has been fighting terrorism, mostly Islamic terrorism.
    And, inside Russia, maybe also in Ukraine, he has plenty of it.

    ReplyReply
  50. Redteam says: 100

    @Nanny G:

    I think Obama has fooled a lot of people.
    He is not so much ”weak,” as he is pro-Islam.

    I agree with you opinion. My intent was to show that Obama is doing all he can do to undermine the US, so he is weak, as far as the US is concerned. Yes, he is doing a lot to help the Muslims. Doesn’t want to disappoint his people.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>